On 29 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?
Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other
people, they create a model in which other people are like
themselves, they test the model and it works. Problem solved -
except for people who don't know what the scientific method is.
This is how things actually work! We don't need to have an
exact definition of this or that, we operate with FAPP models and
'as if' definitions, we don't need exactness, so why is it treated
as so important? I invite you to check out any of Jon Barwise'
books, I like The Liar the most. It is a nice change of pace from
the ordinary treatments of logic and semantics and might help you
understand this issue of 'as if'.
What makes you think I don't understand it?
Oh, well good, please go on and finish the point that you where
making with : "Everybody solves it [the solipsism puzzle] by the
scientific method: they observe other people, they create a model in
which other people are like themselves, they test the model and it
works. Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the
scientific method is. ... "
You cannot make a comment by saying "read that book and you will
understand". You must make your point explicit (and you can add: see
that book which inspired my point). If not, you are just saying "I
know, you don't", and you stop to appear like the beginners/student
you pretended to be. You appear as the one using argument per authority.
I would be Brent, I would be rather angry. You did this to many other
people (including me) too, and it just doesn't work. Always make your
point explicit, and refer to the book or paper if you have use some
idea there, but gives the idea explicitly. If not, it is an
authoritative argument of the form "I know better than you". Only bad
philosophers and fundamentalist do this.
In this precise case, I don't follow your point, and I don't see how
Barwise's book can help. Nor do I see that book as a change from
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at