• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does the Consilience of Knowledge Refute Solpsism?

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Does the consilience of knowledge refute solipsism? If not, how strong of an argument against solipsism is it? If so, why?

By "solipsism", I am referring to what is commonly referred to as 'the brain in the vat' problem.

By "consilience", I am referring to independent lines of empirical evidence or logical reasoning arriving at the same conclusion. When such lines arrive at the same conclusion, they are said to be "consilient".

Solipsism is an ancient philosophical position that holds there is no necessary (i.e. deductively sound) argument whereby we might demonstrate that a reality exists independent of our own -- or at least something's -- mental states.

Very few professional philosophers subscribe to solipsism, and most seem to regard it as a sort of 'training excise' to teach undergraduates some of the finer points of logical reasoning. To that purpose, it must be granted that -- properly laid out -- solipsism is hard to defeat on purely logical grounds alone (although one or more of Wittgenstein's five criticisms of solipsism most likely do that).

However, solipsism has a weakness. An Achilles's heel. And that is, there is not more than the merest shred of empirical evidence for it. On the contrary, the fact that so many empirical facts can be arrived at through consilient means of investigation would seem to argue against solipsism. But if so, then how decisively do they argue against solipsism?

Also, has the sun risen in the East an hour before the almanac says it should, or is @SalixIncendium wearing his fluorescent pink codpiece, lime green tights, and paisley muscle shirt again this morning?


 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Does the consilience of knowledge refute sophism? If not, how strong of an argument against sophism is it? If so, why?

By "sophism", I am referring to what is commonly referred to as 'the brain in the vat' problem.

By "consilience", I am referring to independent lines of empirical evidence or logical reasoning arriving at the same conclusion. When such lines arrive at the same conclusion, they are said to be "consilient".

Sophism is an ancient philosophical position that holds there is no necessary (i.e. deductively sound) argument whereby we might demonstrate that a reality exists independent of our own -- or at least something's -- mental states.

Very few professional philosophers subscribe to sophism, and most seem to regard it as a sort of 'training excise' to teach undergraduates some of the finer points of logical reasoning. To that purpose, it must be granted that -- properly laid out -- sophism is hard to defeat on purely logical grounds alone (although one or more of Wittgenstein's five criticisms of sophism most likely do that).

However, sophism has a weakness. An Achilles's heel. And that is, there is not more than the merest shred of empirical evidence for it. On the contrary, the fact that so many empirical facts can be arrived at through consilient means of investigation would seem to argue against sophism. But if so, then how decisively do they argue against sophism?

Also, has the sun risen in the East an hour before the almanac says it should, or is @SalixIncendium wearing his fluorescent pink codpiece, lime green tights, and paisley muscle shirt again this morning?


You're confusing sophism with solipsism.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I'd have to read Witgenstein's criticisms, I've not run across them.

But no, mere consilience is not a falsification of solipsism. On the other hand, the fact that I can be surprised *might* be such a falsification.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Does the consilience of knowledge refute sophism? If not, how strong of an argument against sophism is it? If so, why?

By "sophism", I am referring to what is commonly referred to as 'the brain in the vat' problem.

By "consilience", I am referring to independent lines of empirical evidence or logical reasoning arriving at the same conclusion. When such lines arrive at the same conclusion, they are said to be "consilient".

Sophism is an ancient philosophical position that holds there is no necessary (i.e. deductively sound) argument whereby we might demonstrate that a reality exists independent of our own -- or at least something's -- mental states.

Very few professional philosophers subscribe to sophism, and most seem to regard it as a sort of 'training excise' to teach undergraduates some of the finer points of logical reasoning. To that purpose, it must be granted that -- properly laid out -- sophism is hard to defeat on purely logical grounds alone (although one or more of Wittgenstein's five criticisms of sophism most likely do that).

However, sophism has a weakness. An Achilles's heel. And that is, there is not more than the merest shred of empirical evidence for it. On the contrary, the fact that so many empirical facts can be arrived at through consilient means of investigation would seem to argue against sophism. But if so, then how decisively do they argue against sophism?

Also, has the sun risen in the East an hour before the almanac says it should, or is @SalixIncendium wearing his fluorescent pink codpiece, lime green tights, and paisley muscle shirt again this morning?


Solipsism sounds a bit like the Matrix or The Trueman Show or Buddhism.
I guess in the Matrix and The Trueman Show consilience of knowledge first revealed the solipsism and then showed a way out. In Buddhism one would think that a slap across the face and a poke in the eye should serve the same purpose as consilience but it does not. It may even send one further into solipsism.
All this means is that I would not really know how to talk about such thing solipsism and consilience with any semblance of intelligence.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Does the consilience of knowledge refute sophism? If not, how strong of an argument against sophism is it? If so, why?

By "sophism", I am referring to what is commonly referred to as 'the brain in the vat' problem.

By "consilience", I am referring to independent lines of empirical evidence or logical reasoning arriving at the same conclusion. When such lines arrive at the same conclusion, they are said to be "consilient".

Sophism is an ancient philosophical position that holds there is no necessary (i.e. deductively sound) argument whereby we might demonstrate that a reality exists independent of our own -- or at least something's -- mental states.

Very few professional philosophers subscribe to sophism, and most seem to regard it as a sort of 'training excise' to teach undergraduates some of the finer points of logical reasoning. To that purpose, it must be granted that -- properly laid out -- sophism is hard to defeat on purely logical grounds alone (although one or more of Wittgenstein's five criticisms of sophism most likely do that).

However, sophism has a weakness. An Achilles's heel. And that is, there is not more than the merest shred of empirical evidence for it. On the contrary, the fact that so many empirical facts can be arrived at through consilient means of investigation would seem to argue against sophism. But if so, then how decisively do they argue against sophism?

Also, has the sun risen in the East an hour before the almanac says it should, or is @SalixIncendium wearing his fluorescent pink codpiece, lime green tights, and paisley muscle shirt again this morning?


No. It doesn’t really refute solipism. All those lines of knowledge, from so many studies and obsevations, all coming into agreement about the nature and rules of the universe could all just be “in your head”. :(

How to argue against solipism? :confused: That is sort of the point of solipism. You cannot.
Even in your dreaming mind you see things that cannot logically work out, i.e. step into the sunny warm surf in Hawaii directly into the library stacks on the U.W. Seattle campus... In your mind that logically fits together. :D No error there.

All the findings by physicists and astronomers and medical researchers across the planet and across the ages....just background noise in your mind (noise that your mind hears as a perfect rendition of the 1812 Overture).

PS - If the sun rises before the almanac says it should. Then the almanac is wrong.
Or at least you are imagining that I’m saying that. ;)

PPS - Maybe @Brian2 above along with @EDDi are right. :eek:
tenor.gif
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
You're confusing sophism with solipsism.

Jeebers! I should know better than to do that. I guess I was so focused on what I was trying to do that I forgot what I was actually doing. :D Thanks so much for the heads-up, Heyo!
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I'd have to read Witgenstein's criticisms, I've not run across them.

They're mostly to be found in his Philosophical Investigations, but I think you can find something in The Blue Book, too. Not sure about that. It's been ages, etc.

But no, mere consilience is not a falsification of solipsism. On the other hand, the fact that I can be surprised *might* be such a falsification.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Does the consilience of knowledge refute solipsism? If not, how strong of an argument against solipsism is it? If so, why?

By "solipsism", I am referring to what is commonly referred to as 'the brain in the vat' problem.

By "consilience", I am referring to independent lines of empirical evidence or logical reasoning arriving at the same conclusion. When such lines arrive at the same conclusion, they are said to be "consilient".

Solipsism is an ancient philosophical position that holds there is no necessary (i.e. deductively sound) argument whereby we might demonstrate that a reality exists independent of our own -- or at least something's -- mental states.

Very few professional philosophers subscribe to solipsism, and most seem to regard it as a sort of 'training excise' to teach undergraduates some of the finer points of logical reasoning. To that purpose, it must be granted that -- properly laid out -- solipsism is hard to defeat on purely logical grounds alone (although one or more of Wittgenstein's five criticisms of solipsism most likely do that).

However, solipsism has a weakness. An Achilles's heel. And that is, there is not more than the merest shred of empirical evidence for it. On the contrary, the fact that so many empirical facts can be arrived at through consilient means of investigation would seem to argue against solipsism. But if so, then how decisively do they argue against solipsism?

Also, has the sun risen in the East an hour before the almanac says it should, or is @SalixIncendium wearing his fluorescent pink codpiece, lime green tights, and paisley muscle shirt again this morning?



The problem I have is with your definition of consilience. The scientific definition states Strong conclusion not the same conclusion. I don't think two conclusions can be ever exactly the same. The individuality and interactivity of everything plus the passage of time prevents this. This means there will always be doubt, this doubt allows for the possibility of solipsism. Consilience can be used to minimize the possibility of solipsism but not negate it.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
However, solipsism has a weakness. An Achilles's heel. And that is, there is not more than the merest shred of empirical evidence for it.
In regards to empirical evidence, it does seem an unlikely occurence that you could find evidence "in the wild" that corroberates the idea that there is no wild, as such.

What evidence could there be found in the world-outside-my-mind that would suggest there is no world-outside-my-mind?

You get me?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Solipsism is an ancient philosophical position that holds there is no necessary (i.e. deductively sound) argument whereby we might demonstrate that a reality exists independent of our own -- or at least something's -- mental states.
If this is an accurate definition of Solipsism then I think it's missing the real philosophical dilemma.

It's not that we can't "demonstrate that a reality exists independent of our own", it's that, "we cannot get there from here". We can logically surmise that reality extends beyond our cognitive reach, but it still remains beyond our cognitive reach. And it always will (unless we become omniscient). So although we can reasonably presume that there is a 'there', there. We can't get there from here, because wherever we go, we will always be here and not there.

There is no way out of this dilemma. And its why "objective reality" remains a mythological ideal.
 
Top