Are there any objective truths? What about the thesis that i cannot know whether i exist, or whether anything else exists. I want to argue that we can know that there are at least some mind independent truths. There are facts, there arent just interpretations. To support my point i want to critique several radical skeptical arguments: 1. The Dream Hypothesis. Is all reality just a dream? My answer to that is no. I have a challenge for anyone who takes this argument seriously. If you really believe that youre in a dream, then go take a leap off a tall building. If you start to fly, then maybe youll have proven a point that you are in a dream. It doesnt even have to be that either. You can use your imagination from here. Stick your hand in a fire, etc. We can do many things in dreams that we simply cannot do in our present state of mind. So, this argument cannot be used to call into question the existence of the real physical world. 2. What about Descartes evil demon hypothesis. This one suffers i think from two fatal flaws. One is that logically possible doesnt equate to probable. Its logically possible that O.J didnt do it. If the skeptic wants to defeat our senses, then its not enough just to show that its logically possible that we are wrong. I think Descartes arbitrarily pulled this evil demon out of his ass; he made this evil demon up to deceive himself, and he didnt even realize it. My challenge for him would be to give us some convincing evidence that there is this evil demon who is deceiving us. Descartes never even bothers to try and provide any adequate grounds for thinking that theres this evil demon. Something that this and other skeptical arguments fail to take into consideration, in their analysis, is the importance of induction. All of science is based on it, and so is the law. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is what they say in the courtroom. Thats because you are never 100 percent sure that the person, in question, is guilty. You can be highly sure without being 100 percent sure. Even with DNA evidence. Its logically possible that one day we will find two sets of identical DNA. However, after looking at millions of samples weve never found two. That inductively implies that if you find someones DNA at a crime scene, then that person was probably the one who was there. Its just like with the theory of evolution. Evolution is an inductive fact, and not a deductive one where you have 100 percent certainty. Without induction we would be left with incoherence, which my answer to David Humes problem about inductions circularity. We could not reason from our experience in order to make any general statements about the world. So, its a very important form of reasoning. Secondly, the evil demon hypothesis i dont think can be falsified. If an idea is to be considered scientific, then it must be falsifiable. This is not only an important concept in science, but in philosophy to. Anthony Flew and Sir Karl Popper are two philosophers whove written about it. It asks can you come up with some evidence that would show your theory to be wrong? This an important step in the scientific method also. 3. What about the Brain in a Vat hypothesis, and what about the Matrix hypothesis? The same objections listed above would also apply to these arguments. Just because its possible doesnt mean its probable, and these ideas arent falsifiable. Theres another objection to both of these. At most what these theories would show is that i dont know that I exist, but they would not show that i dont know whether anything else exists. In the Matrix theres still a real physical world, and its objective. However, the people in the simulation arent experiencing the real world. The same goes for the Brain in a Vat hypothesis. If theres a scientist in this or some parallel universe, and if this scientist is sending our brains these false signals to create a false reality, then theres still a real physical world. However, we arent apart of it. In short, we are in the simulation. I hope that ive managed to convince you that can know that you exist, and that world around you is real. That, and also that there is some objective truth to reality. To what extent this objective truth exists isnt entirely certain. It certainly isnt clear that morality is based on objective truth. Life does have some objective logically meaning, and some subjective meaning that you create for yourself. Science also has some objectivity. The law of non contradiction is a necessary truth, and thats guaranteed with 100 percent certainty. It doesnt matter who agrees with it. Theres no possible world where you can have a square circle, or have an unmarried husband. These things cannot exist by definition, because they are absurdities. The end for now.
Posted on: Wed, 07 May 2014 04:29:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015