From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 3 Apr 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025, oldernow wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2025-04-01, D  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> True. It was an example of how one might deduce from the behaviour   
   >>>>>> of a buried corpse, so speculate that dinosaurs are also remains,   
   >>>>>> although fossilized.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Speculation is clearly foundational in "science".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Theory, discussion, speculation, mental tools, calculation are all   
   >>>> tools of science, just like experiment, verification and   
   >>>> falsification is.   
   >>>   
   >>> How do modeling/representation phenomena such as all that you list   
   >>> leapfrog from what might be called "modeling/representation realm" to   
   >>> interact sufficiently directly with an alleged "objective/real world"   
   >>> to say with assurance that their results were indeed derived from   
   >>> said allege "objective/real world"?   
   >>   
   >> Easy, by confirmation from the senses. I see a table in front of   
   >> me. That is ample evidence to me, that it exists.   
   >>   
   >> Note that doubting the evidence of you senses is self-refuting, since   
   >> it leads to solipsism. Solipsism means there is no ground for truth,   
   >> and discussion is meaningless. Yet, the fact that you discuss means   
   >> that regardless of that you propose to doubt the external world and   
   >> the evidence of your senses, at some level you do not, since you keep   
   >> debating and arguing.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Solipsism doesn't mean discussion is meaningless, as stories are   
   > meaningful, even thought they might not be true.   
      
   I disagree. Because it implies no certainty, no truth, and no other   
   consciousness who can partake of the story, so everything, assuming the   
   strictest solipsism becomes meaningless.   
      
   Someone going on and on and on about solipsism on a forum, by their very   
   behaviour refutes the original solipsist position, even thought they   
   verbally might insist they still maintain it. Since they cannot even trust   
   the words they type, nor the words they read, engaging in any form of   
   comnunication becomes meaningless. The fact that they do attempt to write   
   a coherent reply, does imply they do trust the words they see, so that is   
   the argument.   
      
   >>>>>> No, because we explain how leaves grow on trees through biology   
   >>>>>> and chemistry, so god is not necessary.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Do you equate "we explain" with "we know"?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ahh... moving on to the theory of truth! A very interesting subject.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Substantive   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I lean towards the pragmatic theory of truth, but depending on the   
   >>>> subject, I also see some merit in the consensus theory of truth.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The pragmatic theory I think goes very well with empirical evidence,   
   >>>> as in, does science allow us to predict events happening in the   
   >>>> physical world, which can be detected.   
   >>>   
   >>> Again, how can "empircal evidence" be obtained by tools clearly   
   >>> located firmly in a non-empirical context?   
   >>>   
   >>> (I mean, apart from believing they can be, of course....).   
   >>   
   >> See above. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that sense   
   >> evidence is not a source of knowledge.   
   >   
   > Why is there a burden of proof? This isn't a court of law. And you can't   
   > prove a negative anyway. And scientific theories are generally not   
   > proven to be true, they are merely not proven to be false.   
      
   True, but that is not what I mean. First of all, this is a philosophy   
   discussion. Proof and evidence are very much at home in philosophy. Those   
   are basically the only tools we have. Without any burden of proof or   
   truth, discussion and philosophy by extention becomes meaningless (see   
   above). So I disagree with that.   
      
   When it comes to a negative, you make a mistake in thinking about the   
   situation as world or no-world. but you are forgetting that there are   
   other positions.   
      
   Someone who does not trust senses as sources of truth, and who disputes   
   the concept of an external world, can provide proof that idealist is in   
   fact the real "truth", thus disproving an external material world.   
      
   The person could prove that we live in a simulation, or that what we   
   encounter when we touch and see a table is in fact an illusion.   
      
   There are many ways open. But for 2500 years no one has succeeded in   
   disproving the default position, the position we have no choice but to   
   accept and live in, which is that there exists an external, material   
   world.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)