• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Absolute nonsense. That’s like saying that you lose your voice in order to fill out a health insurance card as you wait for treatment. Don’t put des hoarse before des carte.

    • Bob@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well, drole response I suppose, but there’s no way of applying the scientific method without first believing in the non-phenomenal world, so the scientific method can’t act as the horse there.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, someone arguing that there’s no objective reality WOULD claim that the best method to objectively prove reality depends on already believing in objective reality.

        I’ve seen coins less circular than your logic.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          It never goes anywhere with them. They keep presenting useless skepticism until finally you admit that in theory you could be brain in a jar. Then they “win” and get to claim God.

          I assume you are like me. I take the evidence and see where it goes. What they do is they throw away the evidence so they can get the result that they want.

          These things break my theory

          Me: my theory must be wrong.

          Them: you can’t really know anything.

        • Bob@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I didn’t say anything about it being the best method, and just that something helps my case doesn’t make my logic circular. You could say that it’d be circular to say “the scientific method relies on the real world existing, and the real world existing relies on the scientific method”, but that’s exactly what I’m saying is not the case; in fact, my whole point is that you can’t use the scientific method to prove that the real world exists exactly for that reason. I literally typed “not the other way around”. The results of the measurements you make of the non-phenomenal world exist themselves in the non-phenomenal world so they can’t be proof that that world exists. I don’t know how to put it in simpler terms!