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?
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: