• Akasazh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yes it’s quite an ok basis for the scientific method, but op was referring to objective truth. Shared subjectivity might be the best approximation, however it’s no basis for objective ontology

      • Akasazh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        How can you be sure it’s not a Cartesian ghost trying to fill your senses into seeing one?

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          If you think there is a ghost it is up to you to provide evidence for it. And after you do that please explain how your ghost interacts with the real world in a perfectly consistent manner.

          Remember it is always up to the person claiming something exists to advance evidence

          • Akasazh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            real world

            Ontology is about how we would objectively prove there is such a thing as the real world. There is a reason in science we’re not talking about truth finding, but falsification.

            Basically we can only come up with theories and try to disprove them. Objectively proving existence is an unsolved problem.

            But that’s a tldr of the entire history of philosophy, there’s plenty of there to explore.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              We got it backwards from the beginning. It is all these weird brain in the jar arguments that need to prove themselves not the physical world that does.