Skepticism to a Fault?

bumlet5 · 6th June 2012, 01:12 PM

I recently went to a skeptic-based get-together (with the word "skeptic" in the meetup title) and met a very interesting person. He was all about atheism and that, but he went to a new degree in our discussions about critical thinking.

When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?"

This screamed of woo for me and I couldn't continue the conversation if there was not an agreement of the existence of reality.

Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again.

Resume · 6th June 2012, 01:24 PM

This is a philosophical conversation stopper; you might as well get out the magnifier and examine your navel lint 'cause it's just as productive.

Arguing incessantly about the nature of reality takes your eye off the ball and lets the woo in the back door, so to speak.

Ask him how he goes about his business every day, what assumptions he makes to do just that.

LibraryLady · 6th June 2012, 01:27 PM

Yeah, sounds like a philosophy major. I date one of them once.

Garrette · 6th June 2012, 01:32 PM

What Resume said. I would also add that it doesn't matter if we know it's real because we know that making those assumptions works better than not making them. It may be imperfect like the scientific method, but (like the scientific method) there's nothing that's been shown to be better.

James Fox · 6th June 2012, 01:35 PM

Carl Sagan makes a good point in one of my favorite quotations that may be of assistance, especially the last sentence.

Quote:

"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all. "

Spektator · 6th June 2012, 01:59 PM

Possible comeback: "Do you know what there's no such thing as, sir? As it turns out, there is no such thing as you."

But it's from the film Mary Poppins, and if you used it, Disney might sue.

Dogdoctor · 6th June 2012, 02:50 PM

If everyone has a different reality then why does it appear that we are all restricted to the same set of rules? You need to establish some basic philosophy about reality before science or skepticism makes any sense. If reality isn't real then why bother with anything?

rjh01 · 6th June 2012, 03:03 PM

He could just be a nut case. Unable to give any opinions himself. All he can do is just ask questions that have no answers.

Dunstan · 6th June 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by bumlet5

Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this?

Yes.

Quote:

I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again.

I recommend whisky.

Skeptic Ginger · 6th June 2012, 03:09 PM

I use the, "scientific process is successful, that's how we know it is the real reality", approach to that discussion. It's akin to the false logic that we simply 'believe' in science the way theists 'believe' their stories.

OrangeCatz · 6th June 2012, 03:17 PM

I usually look at it like: "What will this answer? If there is no reality, what does that get us? What does it get us to live like there is no reality? Is it even testable?"

When my friend asked, "What if what I call red and what you call red actually look very different to us?" I replied that since we would identify the same wavelength as red and had the same feelings about it, it would be untestable and would make no difference anyway.

I have strong doubts that anything is actually meaningful in anyway. But living like that would accomplish nothing for me, so I might as well live like everything means something and try to enjoy myself.

JihadJane · 6th June 2012, 03:18 PM

Dogs will never understand the internal combustion engine. Why shouldn't human understanding have similar limitations?

Baloney · 6th June 2012, 03:40 PM

Personally, I agree with all of the above.

From Russell Glazer (The Atheist Experience):
What is objective reality?

Baloney · 6th June 2012, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Dogs will never understand the internal combustion engine. Why shouldn't human understanding have similar limitations?

My dog understands the internal combustion engine. It's noisy and scary, and people make it that way.

Bikewer · 6th June 2012, 05:26 PM

These types pop up now and again on various forums and I find them tiresome as well. It's similar to the "Matrix" notion... "What if we're all living in a computer simulation?"
Well, what if we are? It's not falsifiable. If the computer controls all aspects of reality, then for those of us in the program it essentially is reality and you have to deal with it.

The same with the "We generate reality with our minds" types. Leading to the popular question, "what did the universe look like when there was nothing more complex than a sea slug?"

Samuel Johnson's rejoinder... "I refute it thus!" is always appropriate, but mind your toes.

JonathanMaxBerman · 11th June 2012, 09:30 AM

Descartes refuted this line of thinking this way: "cogito ergo sum". In other words, it is pointless to act as though reality is constructed because in day to day life we are forced to live in reality. The only input we have are our senses, therefore so long as we are careful about their flaws, we must act as if they are true.

TjW · 11th June 2012, 11:50 AM

You could step on his toe. If he complains, tell him it wasn't real, and that he therefore has nothing to complain about.

BNRT · 11th June 2012, 12:16 PM

As a philosophy major myself, I would say that is indeed someone with at least an interest in philosophy. As other people have said, it's not a very useful line of thinking. Yes, it is a legitimate question (how do I know I'm not just dreaming all of you) but it is also a very useless one, as you can't find an answer. It might be fun to talk about with some other philosophers in a bar, but you don't gain anything from it. Traffic light is green? Maybe that's not reality and it is actually red. So what? You still have to cross the road in safety.

Originally Posted by JonathanMaxBerman

Descartes refuted this line of thinking this way: "cogito ergo sum". In other words, it is pointless to act as though reality is constructed because in day to day life we are forced to live in reality. The only input we have are our senses, therefore so long as we are careful about their flaws, we must act as if they are true.

Don't forget to put God in there somewhere too. God exists and he wouldn't deceive poor old Descartes. Therefore there is a world outside 'the cogito' (or 'res cogitans' or 'thing that is thinking').

OntarioSquatch · 11th June 2012, 01:09 PM

How about different perceptions of reality instead of a different reality?

BNRT · 11th June 2012, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

How about different perceptions of reality instead of a different reality?

What do you mean? We already all have different perceptions of reality. Even the simple fact that we cannot both look at the same statue from the same position at the same time.

The Central Scrutinizer · 11th June 2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by bumlet5

I recently went to a skeptic-based get-together (with the word "skeptic" in the meetup title) and met a very interesting person. He was all about atheism and that, but he went to a new degree in our discussions about critical thinking.

When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?"

This screamed of woo for me and I couldn't continue the conversation if there was not an agreement of the existence of reality.

Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again.

It sounds like you met someone with a PhD in Philosophy.

Which McDonald's does he work at?

epepke · 11th June 2012, 09:37 PM

This does stink a lot of philosophy.

However, there is an answer: It doesn't matter. Either you and they both agree that there is a speeding truck coming down the road, or you don't. If you don't, it doesn't really matter so long as they step out in front of it first. In fact, it has the potential to improve the overall intelligence of the species.

Puppycow · 11th June 2012, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

Yeah, sounds like a philosophy major. I date one of them once.

Such people probably don't get many second dates.

Skepdan · 12th June 2012, 03:31 AM

Woody Allen:

“What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.”

JoeBentley · 12th June 2012, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by bumlet5

When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?"

Protip: Whenever anyone uses the concept "But we can never know for sure" you can just go ahead dismiss them as quacks.

But on to the larger topic if you adopt a skeptical mindset expect to get this little piece of BS Fluff thrown at you a lot. For some reason in recent years (since The Matrix came out oddly enough) Woo Slingers and Navel Gazers have really just latched onto this one idea. It's really impossible to defend against because if someone is making it they are making a tacit admission that they have giving up trying to actually think and are just going to have thoughts at random.

It's a simple idea to dismiss because no one actually believes it. No one outside of a padded room with a jacket that laces up the back goes about their day to day life under the idea that reality is anything less than real. If you look both ways before crossing the street you forfeit your right to question reality to counter skepticism without being a hypocrite.

And the fact that people that pull this only do it in very specific religious, pseudoscientifc topics proves how full of it the argument is. They don't run into political discussions screaming "It doesn't matter! You can't prove Obama and Romney aren't figments of your imagination!" or into discussion about painting your house screaming "No! Stop talking about it! You can't know for sure if the color blue you see is the color blue I see! IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE BWAHAHAHA!" despite that would be just as valid.

So basically the Brain in a Jar / Plato's Cave / Butterfly Dreaming I'm a Man / We're in the Matrix malarkey serves one and only one purpose... to defend Woo. It's a sad, clumsy, scorched Earth kneejerk response to reasonable skepticism.

And it doesn't even work. Okay so when I tell you that Bigfoot doesn't exist because there's no evidence and you turn around and go "Oh yeah... well prove you're not a brain in a jar!" how does that make Bigfoot more likely to exist? If reality is in question it makes any specific claim about reality less likely, not more likely.

And really like most of these things it's just a sad little semantic word game. The whole idea of reality is the idea that there is a separate, objective existence in which we inhabit. Solipsism is basically going "What would reality be like if reality didn't exist?" Well it wouldn't, problem solved. It's like asking what's North of the North Pole.

It's a mindset that once you throw it out there the conversation completely shuts down. It is the ultimate thought terminating cliché. Once it's in a discussion I have never seen the discussion go back to anywhere rewarding, intellectually satisfying or engaging, interesting, or useful. Once it's out there all you can do is sit in a circle twiddling your possibly not existent thumbs talking about the possibly not existent weather. It removes any anchor from the conversation, completely divorces it from reality, and leaves the discussion at the mercy of the person with the wildest imagination.

Solipsism, pacifism, and practical level determinanism are all philosophies that can be easily countered by punching the person the claiming them in the nose, so I tend to dismiss them.

I sorta think they response people are hoping for when they pull this is for the skeptic to go "Golly Gee you're right. I can't prove reality, so you making up crap is perfectly reasonable" and they seem rather shocked and put off when that doesn't happen.

Quote:

Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again.

Yeah try "Every conversation ever" in the Religion/Philosophy sub-forum.

Baloney · 12th June 2012, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Protip: Whenever anyone uses the concept "But we can never know for sure" you can just go ahead dismiss them as quacks.
[snip]
Yeah try "Every conversation ever" in the Religion/Philosophy sub-forum.

Terrific post!!

jdc324 · 12th June 2012, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by bumlet5

I recently went to a skeptic-based get-together (with the word "skeptic" in the meetup title) and met a very interesting person. He was all about atheism and that, but he went to a new degree in our discussions about critical thinking.

When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?"

This screamed of woo for me and I couldn't continue the conversation if there was not an agreement of the existence of reality.

Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again.

Hmm, not sure.

I suppose you could ask what the basis for the fear is? Why do they think that 'reality might not be real'? Is the fear based on anything or is it groundless? If there's no reason to assume that reality is 'not real' then wouldn't it be sensible to proceed as if it were until there were good reason to think otherwise?

Or I suppose you could focus on the practical - if they believe that we can't accept evidence as we get it then how do we make decisions? What do we use to guide our decisions? Gut feelings? Nothing? A toss of a coin? (I'll concede that gut feelings and intuitions may be useful in some instances but in other instances I would argue that it would be inappropriate to use them.)

marplots · 12th June 2012, 09:21 AM

His question, "How do we know that reality is real?" Doesn't make any sense without a reality to appeal to. That reality may be hidden, we may be mistaken about it, we might even honestly misperceive it -- but for the question to work, there has to be an underlying reality on offer.

Now you've moved into, "What is the best method to determine what is real?" -- which is where you want to be anyhow.

llwyd · 12th June 2012, 09:59 AM

Well, I think that philosophical scepticism has been valuable in making people back off from claims to "absolute" certainty, it's also good for critical thinking to encounter world views that question pretty much everything, an argument with a sceptic can be quite refreshing! But it's not hugely relevant and common sense arguments usually are pretty effective. You could say that "well, in my reality gravity functions but you are welcome to float away...", or "I need oxygen to survive in my personal reality, but maybe that's not true for you, hey, let's experiment!" We really unarguably seem to share a common empirical reality, and it's not really very fruitful to any practical end to question it.

hgc · 12th June 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Such people probably don't get many second dates.

I used to wind out these pseudo-philosophical concepts about reality, etc at parties when I was in college. It made me sound very smart, and worked to my advantage vis-à-vis the ladies. After college, not so much.

JoeBentley · 13th June 2012, 03:21 AM

Either reality exists or it is an amazingly consistant shared delusion.

If we're just minds plugged into the Matrix then there has to be a reality in which the Matrix exists. If we're just shadows on the walls of Plato's Cave then that means the cave has to exist in reality. If I'm a brain in a jar then my brain and the jar have to exist in reality. If I can't remember if I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm a man or a man dreaming I"m a butterfly I'm either one or the flippin' other. If there's an evil demon whispering in my ear then the demon and my ear have to exist.

Solipsism and appeals thereoff serve no purpose. Unless we want to invoke some navel gazing equivilent to "Turtles All the Way Down" it hits the same brick wall all resursive arguments do.

Without the ulterior motives all of this could be a fine little thought exercise, a nice little mental stretch to kick around with your friends over a game of cards or whatnot, but I have literally never heard it invoked without "and therefore Woo" coming right after it.

BNRT · 13th June 2012, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

[...] I have literally never heard it invoked without "and therefore Woo" coming right after it.

Counter to my expectations, Descartes Meditations starts with "what if everything we experience is not real?" and ends with "and therefore science." It was a fun read, but that sort of thing probably only has a place in philosophy.

Malfie Henpox · 13th June 2012, 10:51 AM

It doesn't matter if your reality is real or not. It's the reality you live in (so does he), and it has rules. We could be brains in a vat. Or you could be dreaming it all. But it doesn't matter at all. At some point, you or whoever, or no one created a world in which some things are provable and some things are not. This is not a world where unicorns fly on giant cookies. It's a functioning, working world with falsifiable parameters and consequences.

You can prove this by getting drunk and calling him a doo doo head.

Malfie Henpox · 13th June 2012, 11:00 AM

Ahem... not a created world though. Obviously.

blutoski · 14th June 2012, 05:39 PM

JoeBentley nailed it: this is Solipsism^WP - not Skepticism. Some flavours of Solipsism compete with Skepticism, while others can be tools of Skepticism. But Solipsism is not a type of Skepticism.

PixyMisa · 14th June 2012, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by bumlet5

I recently went to a skeptic-based get-together (with the word "skeptic" in the meetup title) and met a very interesting person. He was all about atheism and that, but he went to a new degree in our discussions about critical thinking.

When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?"

This screamed of woo for me and I couldn't continue the conversation if there was not an agreement of the existence of reality.

Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again.

Punch him in the nose. Then when he protests, ask him HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Repeat until he gets a clue.

Edit: I see this approach has already been recommended.

Baloney · 14th June 2012, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Edit: I see this approach has already been recommended.

I think it's worth repeating.

JoeBentley · 14th June 2012, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by blutoski

JoeBentley nailed it: this is Solipsism^WP - not Skepticism. Some flavours of Solipsism compete with Skepticism, while others can be tools of Skepticism. But Solipsism is not a type of Skepticism.

And the really sad part is its not even really Solipsism. At least Solipsism is a real philosophical concept. As I mentioned earlier as a pure thought experiment, Solipsism is a fairly interesting concept. It could be an honestly interesting thing to kick around purely for the intellectual stretching of it.

What we see isn't Solipsism, it really is just sort of a knee jerk scorched Earth copout. It's a coffee shop pseudo-philospher excuse for Woo.

It's massively hypocritical to live your life under the assumption that reality is real, as everyone that doesn't live in a padded room does, then question it solely as way to break down intellectual standards when an irrational belief of yours is questioned.

KevinCanada · 14th June 2012, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by bumlet5

I recently went to a skeptic-based get-together (with the word "skeptic" in the meetup title) and met a very interesting person. He was all about atheism and that, but he went to a new degree in our discussions about critical thinking.

When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?"

This screamed of woo for me and I couldn't continue the conversation if there was not an agreement of the existence of reality.

Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again.

this guy was a scum bag, he pulled a cheap shot on you. He changed the conversation using a ambiguous statement then ended it with a question.

It's a automatic win from his point of view on the debate if you fall for it and laid down your King. He did not present a argument but used odds you fold. I work with the public I know. People pull this crap all the time when it comes to money. You'll notice he never gave any evidence to back up his statement. (that was the ambiguous part) He just played a mind game on you. Hence why I call the individual a scum bag.

JoeBentley · 15th June 2012, 02:21 AM

Signs that you're probably dealing with a Pseudo-Philosopher.

1. Constant demands to talk about the language.
2. Rewording the same question over and over.
3. Using linguistic traps, cliches, or sayings.
4. Word Salad / Wall of Text
5. Massive, unedited cut and paste from other sources.
6. Accusations that science is "cold" or "close minded" or "slow to change."
7. Calling science a "religion" or other monolithic entity.
8. Appeals to solipisism.
9. Use of the concept "We can't know for sure" or "There's still so much we don't know."
10. Inability to understand the burden of proof.
11. Misuse of scientific terms such as "energy" or "quantum."
12. Insistance that science doesn't understand things that it provably does.
13. Insistance that something they personally don't understand is unknowable to everyone.
14. The "And then what?" game.
15. Shifting back and forth between arguing something positively ("X exists.") and arguing it defensively ("I'm not saying X exists, I'm just saying you can't prove it doesn't")

6th June 2012, 01:12 PM	#1
bumlet5 Indescribable Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The dark recesses of my imagination. Posts: 4,171	Skepticism to a Fault? I recently went to a skeptic-based get-together (with the word "skeptic" in the meetup title) and met a very interesting person. He was all about atheism and that, but he went to a new degree in our discussions about critical thinking. When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?" This screamed of woo for me and I couldn't continue the conversation if there was not an agreement of the existence of reality. Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again.
	__________________ "I'm a soundwave tsunami, vocal origami, hijack the mic and it's not like anyone could stop me." -mc chris "I've seen so much death" <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> -Nathan Fillion

6th June 2012, 01:24 PM	#2
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,012	This is a philosophical conversation stopper; you might as well get out the magnifier and examine your navel lint 'cause it's just as productive. Arguing incessantly about the nature of reality takes your eye off the ball and lets the woo in the back door, so to speak. Ask him how he goes about his business every day, what assumptions he makes to do just that.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,012	Last edited by Resume; 6th June 2012 at 01:25 PM.

6th June 2012, 01:27 PM	#3
LibraryLady ...but not JUST a LibraryLady Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Building a house in the common ground Posts: 13,059	Yeah, sounds like a philosophy major. I date one of them once.
	__________________ What would Hüsker Dü? I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. Mildred Loving

6th June 2012, 01:32 PM	#4
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,540	What Resume said. I would also add that it doesn't matter if we know it's real because we know that making those assumptions works better than not making them. It may be imperfect like the scientific method, but (like the scientific method) there's nothing that's been shown to be better.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

6th June 2012, 01:35 PM	#5
James Fox Boss of the Moss Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Bunker Posts: 847	Carl Sagan makes a good point in one of my favorite quotations that may be of assistance, especially the last sentence. Quote: "It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all. "
	__________________ "If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all. " Carl Sagan

6th June 2012, 01:59 PM	#6
Spektator Dog Who Laughs Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,318	Possible comeback: "Do you know what there's no such thing as, sir? As it turns out, there is no such thing as you." But it's from the film Mary Poppins, and if you used it, Disney might sue.
	__________________ Anyone who is telling the truth does not type complete sentences all in capital letters.

6th June 2012, 02:50 PM	#7
Dogdoctor Canis Doctorius Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pacific Ocean Posts: 14,272	If everyone has a different reality then why does it appear that we are all restricted to the same set of rules? You need to establish some basic philosophy about reality before science or skepticism makes any sense. If reality isn't real then why bother with anything?
	__________________

6th June 2012, 03:03 PM	#8
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,166	He could just be a nut case. Unable to give any opinions himself. All he can do is just ask questions that have no answers.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home Last edited by rjh01; 6th June 2012 at 03:31 PM. Reason: Fix my words

6th June 2012, 03:06 PM	#9
Dunstan Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park Posts: 4,292	Originally Posted by bumlet5 Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? Yes. Quote: I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again. I recommend whisky.

6th June 2012, 03:09 PM	#10
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	I use the, "scientific process is successful, that's how we know it is the real reality", approach to that discussion. It's akin to the false logic that we simply 'believe' in science the way theists 'believe' their stories.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

6th June 2012, 03:17 PM	#11
OrangeCatz Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Northwest, USA Posts: 401	I usually look at it like: "What will this answer? If there is no reality, what does that get us? What does it get us to live like there is no reality? Is it even testable?" When my friend asked, "What if what I call red and what you call red actually look very different to us?" I replied that since we would identify the same wavelength as red and had the same feelings about it, it would be untestable and would make no difference anyway. I have strong doubts that anything is actually meaningful in anyway. But living like that would accomplish nothing for me, so I might as well live like everything means something and try to enjoy myself.
	__________________ I am very articulate and verbose and stuff. GENERATION 9: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

6th June 2012, 03:18 PM	#12
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,686	Dogs will never understand the internal combustion engine. Why shouldn't human understanding have similar limitations?
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

6th June 2012, 03:40 PM	#13
Baloney Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: America! (F, yeah!) Posts: 666	Personally, I agree with all of the above. From Russell Glazer (The Atheist Experience): What is objective reality?
	__________________ _{When I think about woo, I detect myself.}

6th June 2012, 03:45 PM	#14
Baloney Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: America! (F, yeah!) Posts: 666	Originally Posted by JihadJane Dogs will never understand the internal combustion engine. Why shouldn't human understanding have similar limitations? My dog understands the internal combustion engine. It's noisy and scary, and people make it that way.
	__________________ _{When I think about woo, I detect myself.}

6th June 2012, 05:26 PM	#15
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,517	These types pop up now and again on various forums and I find them tiresome as well. It's similar to the "Matrix" notion... "What if we're all living in a computer simulation?" Well, what if we are? It's not falsifiable. If the computer controls all aspects of reality, then for those of us in the program it essentially is reality and you have to deal with it. The same with the "We generate reality with our minds" types. Leading to the popular question, "what did the universe look like when there was nothing more complex than a sea slug?" Samuel Johnson's rejoinder... "I refute it thus!" is always appropriate, but mind your toes.

11th June 2012, 09:30 AM	#16
JonathanMaxBerman Student Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 33	Descartes refuted this line of thinking this way: "cogito ergo sum". In other words, it is pointless to act as though reality is constructed because in day to day life we are forced to live in reality. The only input we have are our senses, therefore so long as we are careful about their flaws, we must act as if they are true.
JonathanMaxBerman Student Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 33

11th June 2012, 11:50 AM	#17
TjW Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: up in the air Posts: 9,969	You could step on his toe. If he complains, tell him it wasn't real, and that he therefore has nothing to complain about.
	__________________ TjW People like TjW -- Kelly

11th June 2012, 12:16 PM	#18
BNRT Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 548	As a philosophy major myself, I would say that is indeed someone with at least an interest in philosophy. As other people have said, it's not a very useful line of thinking. Yes, it is a legitimate question (how do I know I'm not just dreaming all of you) but it is also a very useless one, as you can't find an answer. It might be fun to talk about with some other philosophers in a bar, but you don't gain anything from it. Traffic light is green? Maybe that's not reality and it is actually red. So what? You still have to cross the road in safety. Originally Posted by JonathanMaxBerman Descartes refuted this line of thinking this way: "cogito ergo sum". In other words, it is pointless to act as though reality is constructed because in day to day life we are forced to live in reality. The only input we have are our senses, therefore so long as we are careful about their flaws, we must act as if they are true. Don't forget to put God in there somewhere too. God exists and he wouldn't deceive poor old Descartes. Therefore there is a world outside 'the cogito' (or 'res cogitans' or 'thing that is thinking').

11th June 2012, 01:09 PM	#19
OntarioSquatch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 485	How about different perceptions of reality instead of a different reality?

11th June 2012, 01:22 PM	#20
BNRT Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 548	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch How about different perceptions of reality instead of a different reality? What do you mean? We already all have different perceptions of reality. Even the simple fact that we cannot both look at the same statue from the same position at the same time.

11th June 2012, 05:46 PM	#21
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,264	Originally Posted by bumlet5 I recently went to a skeptic-based get-together (with the word "skeptic" in the meetup title) and met a very interesting person. He was all about atheism and that, but he went to a new degree in our discussions about critical thinking. When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?" This screamed of woo for me and I couldn't continue the conversation if there was not an agreement of the existence of reality. Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again. It sounds like you met someone with a PhD in Philosophy. Which McDonald's does he work at?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

11th June 2012, 09:37 PM	#22
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	This does stink a lot of philosophy. However, there is an answer: It doesn't matter. Either you and they both agree that there is a speeding truck coming down the road, or you don't. If you don't, it doesn't really matter so long as they step out in front of it first. In fact, it has the potential to improve the overall intelligence of the species.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

11th June 2012, 10:55 PM	#23
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,702	Originally Posted by LibraryLady Yeah, sounds like a philosophy major. I date one of them once. Such people probably don't get many second dates.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

12th June 2012, 03:31 AM	#24
Skepdan Student Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 40	Woody Allen: “What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.”
Skepdan Student Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 40

12th June 2012, 04:23 AM	#25
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,762	Originally Posted by bumlet5 When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?" Protip: Whenever anyone uses the concept "But we can never know for sure" you can just go ahead dismiss them as quacks. But on to the larger topic if you adopt a skeptical mindset expect to get this little piece of BS Fluff thrown at you a lot. For some reason in recent years (since The Matrix came out oddly enough) Woo Slingers and Navel Gazers have really just latched onto this one idea. It's really impossible to defend against because if someone is making it they are making a tacit admission that they have giving up trying to actually think and are just going to have thoughts at random. It's a simple idea to dismiss because no one actually believes it. No one outside of a padded room with a jacket that laces up the back goes about their day to day life under the idea that reality is anything less than real. If you look both ways before crossing the street you forfeit your right to question reality to counter skepticism without being a hypocrite. And the fact that people that pull this only do it in very specific religious, pseudoscientifc topics proves how full of it the argument is. They don't run into political discussions screaming "It doesn't matter! You can't prove Obama and Romney aren't figments of your imagination!" or into discussion about painting your house screaming "No! Stop talking about it! You can't know for sure if the color blue you see is the color blue I see! IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE BWAHAHAHA!" despite that would be just as valid. So basically the Brain in a Jar / Plato's Cave / Butterfly Dreaming I'm a Man / We're in the Matrix malarkey serves one and only one purpose... to defend Woo. It's a sad, clumsy, scorched Earth kneejerk response to reasonable skepticism. And it doesn't even work. Okay so when I tell you that Bigfoot doesn't exist because there's no evidence and you turn around and go "Oh yeah... well prove you're not a brain in a jar!" how does that make Bigfoot more likely to exist? If reality is in question it makes any specific claim about reality less likely, not more likely. And really like most of these things it's just a sad little semantic word game. The whole idea of reality is the idea that there is a separate, objective existence in which we inhabit. Solipsism is basically going "What would reality be like if reality didn't exist?" Well it wouldn't, problem solved. It's like asking what's North of the North Pole. It's a mindset that once you throw it out there the conversation completely shuts down. It is the ultimate thought terminating cliché. Once it's in a discussion I have never seen the discussion go back to anywhere rewarding, intellectually satisfying or engaging, interesting, or useful. Once it's out there all you can do is sit in a circle twiddling your possibly not existent thumbs talking about the possibly not existent weather. It removes any anchor from the conversation, completely divorces it from reality, and leaves the discussion at the mercy of the person with the wildest imagination. Solipsism, pacifism, and practical level determinanism are all philosophies that can be easily countered by punching the person the claiming them in the nose, so I tend to dismiss them. I sorta think they response people are hoping for when they pull this is for the skeptic to go "Golly Gee you're right. I can't prove reality, so you making up crap is perfectly reasonable" and they seem rather shocked and put off when that doesn't happen. Quote: Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again. Yeah try "Every conversation ever" in the Religion/Philosophy sub-forum.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

12th June 2012, 07:18 AM	#26
Baloney Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: America! (F, yeah!) Posts: 666	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Protip: Whenever anyone uses the concept "But we can never know for sure" you can just go ahead dismiss them as quacks. [snip] Yeah try "Every conversation ever" in the Religion/Philosophy sub-forum. Terrific post!!
	__________________ _{When I think about woo, I detect myself.}

12th June 2012, 08:52 AM	#27
jdc324 Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 447	Originally Posted by bumlet5 I recently went to a skeptic-based get-together (with the word "skeptic" in the meetup title) and met a very interesting person. He was all about atheism and that, but he went to a new degree in our discussions about critical thinking. When asked to describe my own skepticism, I used the words "evidence" and "reality". This set him off on a tangent about "How do we know that reality is real? Maybe what your reality is isn't the same as my reality. If that's the case, the whole fabric of thinking unravels and we can't accept evidence as we get it. How do we know?" This screamed of woo for me and I couldn't continue the conversation if there was not an agreement of the existence of reality. Has anyone else gotten into a conversation like this? I would like to be more prepared if I run into him again. Hmm, not sure. I suppose you could ask what the basis for the fear is? Why do they think that 'reality might not be real'? Is the fear based on anything or is it groundless? If there's no reason to assume that reality is 'not real' then wouldn't it be sensible to proceed as if it were until there were good reason to think otherwise? Or I suppose you could focus on the practical - if they believe that we can't accept evidence as we get it then how do we make decisions? What do we use to guide our decisions? Gut feelings? Nothing? A toss of a coin? (I'll concede that gut feelings and intuitions may be useful in some instances but in other instances I would argue that it would be inappropriate to use them.)
jdc324 Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 447

12th June 2012, 09:21 AM	#28
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,358	His question, "How do we know that reality is real?" Doesn't make any sense without a reality to appeal to. That reality may be hidden, we may be mistaken about it, we might even honestly misperceive it -- but for the question to work, there has to be an underlying reality on offer. Now you've moved into, "What is the best method to determine what is real?" -- which is where you want to be anyhow.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,358

12th June 2012, 09:59 AM	#29
llwyd Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Helsinki Posts: 259	Well, I think that philosophical scepticism has been valuable in making people back off from claims to "absolute" certainty, it's also good for critical thinking to encounter world views that question pretty much everything, an argument with a sceptic can be quite refreshing! But it's not hugely relevant and common sense arguments usually are pretty effective. You could say that "well, in my reality gravity functions but you are welcome to float away...", or "I need oxygen to survive in my personal reality, but maybe that's not true for you, hey, let's experiment!" We really unarguably seem to share a common empirical reality, and it's not really very fruitful to any practical end to question it.

12th June 2012, 10:06 AM	#30
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,986	Originally Posted by Puppycow Such people probably don't get many second dates. I used to wind out these pseudo-philosophical concepts about reality, etc at parties when I was in college. It made me sound very smart, and worked to my advantage vis-à-vis the ladies. After college, not so much.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

13th June 2012, 03:21 AM	#31
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,762	Either reality exists or it is an amazingly consistant shared delusion. If we're just minds plugged into the Matrix then there has to be a reality in which the Matrix exists. If we're just shadows on the walls of Plato's Cave then that means the cave has to exist in reality. If I'm a brain in a jar then my brain and the jar have to exist in reality. If I can't remember if I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm a man or a man dreaming I"m a butterfly I'm either one or the flippin' other. If there's an evil demon whispering in my ear then the demon and my ear have to exist. Solipsism and appeals thereoff serve no purpose. Unless we want to invoke some navel gazing equivilent to "Turtles All the Way Down" it hits the same brick wall all resursive arguments do. Without the ulterior motives all of this could be a fine little thought exercise, a nice little mental stretch to kick around with your friends over a game of cards or whatnot, but I have literally never heard it invoked without "and therefore Woo" coming right after it.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

13th June 2012, 03:43 AM	#32
BNRT Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 548	Originally Posted by JoeBentley [...] I have literally never heard it invoked without "and therefore Woo" coming right after it. Counter to my expectations, Descartes Meditations starts with "what if everything we experience is not real?" and ends with "and therefore science." It was a fun read, but that sort of thing probably only has a place in philosophy.

13th June 2012, 10:51 AM	#33
Malfie Henpox Banned Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 3,812	It doesn't matter if your reality is real or not. It's the reality you live in (so does he), and it has rules. We could be brains in a vat. Or you could be dreaming it all. But it doesn't matter at all. At some point, you or whoever, or no one created a world in which some things are provable and some things are not. This is not a world where unicorns fly on giant cookies. It's a functioning, working world with falsifiable parameters and consequences. You can prove this by getting drunk and calling him a doo doo head.
	Last edited by Malfie Henpox; 13th June 2012 at 10:59 AM.

13th June 2012, 11:00 AM	#34
Malfie Henpox Banned Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 3,812	Ahem... not a created world though. Obviously.

14th June 2012, 05:39 PM	#35
blutoski Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 5,966	JoeBentley nailed it: this is Solipsism^WP - not Skepticism. Some flavours of Solipsism compete with Skepticism, while others can be tools of Skepticism. But Solipsism is not a type of Skepticism.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett