“Explain why scientists conduct experiments. How can that be relevant to internal consistency?
Explain why it is impossible for human knowledge to correlate to reality, even by accident. Is it because there is no external reality , as you sometimes say?”
It’s how science is. Science itself admits that it doesn’t prove anything and that our knowledge might be more instrumental than about reality itself. It’s the first thing you learn and something each of them keeps in mind, that it could all be wrong, but it works.
As for external reality, I cannot say for sure, and there are plenty of arguments that show that skepticism about external reality cannot be refuted.
Do I really have to spell out why that doesn’t meant much? It just reflects how humans perceive it, not that it corresponds to reality itself.
“Expand on that please?”
It’s mostly based on Kant’s idea that reality is only as it ever appears to us and there is no way to really know if you are at the ground level or if there is another one underneath it. Even if you get out of the simulation you only know that world wasn’t real, you can’t say that about the new one. It’s just turtles the whole way down.
“That’s a common fallacy. It’s still an experimental science.”
It’s actually not.
“That’s just contradiction. You need to argue your points.”
There is nothing to argue when you assert something without evidence. External reality is an axiom we hold, it cannot be proven.
“They obviously are. A map of Sweden represents sweden.”
“Explain why scientists conduct experiments. How can that be relevant to internal consistency?
Explain why it is impossible for human knowledge to correlate to reality, even by accident. Is it because there is no external reality , as you sometimes say?”
It’s how science is. Science itself admits that it doesn’t prove anything and that our knowledge might be more instrumental than about reality itself. It’s the first thing you learn and something each of them keeps in mind, that it could all be wrong, but it works.
As for external reality, I cannot say for sure, and there are plenty of arguments that show that skepticism about external reality cannot be refuted.
“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts)″
Do I really have to spell out why that doesn’t meant much? It just reflects how humans perceive it, not that it corresponds to reality itself.
“Expand on that please?”
It’s mostly based on Kant’s idea that reality is only as it ever appears to us and there is no way to really know if you are at the ground level or if there is another one underneath it. Even if you get out of the simulation you only know that world wasn’t real, you can’t say that about the new one. It’s just turtles the whole way down.
“That’s a common fallacy. It’s still an experimental science.”
It’s actually not.
“That’s just contradiction. You need to argue your points.”
There is nothing to argue when you assert something without evidence. External reality is an axiom we hold, it cannot be proven.
“They obviously are. A map of Sweden represents sweden.”
Well no, it represents the idea of Sweden.