Tfw science cannot ever access or correspond to "reality"

Reminder that STEM kids believe that they are ''deep'' because they use formal classical logic.

are you trying to rationalize your stupidity?

>tfw solispsism passes for srs discussion.

>tfw still cannot disprove solipsism so you must assume that it is false

Solipsism is arbitrary and pointless. It no mores requires "disproving" than God or unicorns.

>tfw solipsism is a rejection of proof ab initio and must therefore be treated as a logical fallacy or grammatical error.

ad-hominen is a sign of intelligence

as soon as you listen to another human and act on what you hear form humans, you suppose that solipsism is false

Exactly. Try telling your gf mid sex that she is just a figment of your imagination and see how much longer that lasts.

Proof OP has a very limitted grasp of science and does not belong on this thread, posting his bullshit.

Explain how scientific laws are fairytales

Science can correspond to reality, but we can't know when it does.

You again? Man, you keep getting lost, let me help you out.

nice opinion

i doubt that you can explain this. it doesn't sound like you know what solipsism is at all

Reality: the state or quality of having existence or substance.
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

better luck next time

Reminder that philosotards don't even know about lindebaugh-tarski algebras.

This is accurate. Anyone who thinks science gets at "the truth" in things is stupid, science just makes models that seem to work more often than others.

*tips fedora*

rightfully

Suppose that Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job. And suppose that Smith has strong evidence for the following conjunctive proposition: (d) Jones is the man who will get the job, and Jones has ten coins in his pocket.

Smith's evidence for (d) might be that the president of the company assured him that Jones would in the end be selected, and that he, Smith, had counted the coins in Jones's pocket ten minutes ago. Proposition (d) entails: (e) The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.

Let us suppose that Smith sees the entailment from (d) to (e), and accepts (e) on the grounds of (d), for which he has strong evidence. In this case, Smith is clearly justified in believing that (e) is true.

But imagine, further, that unknown to Smith, he himself, not Jones, will get the job. And, also, unknown to Smith, he himself has ten coins in his pocket.
Proposition (e) is then true, though proposition (d), from which Smith inferred (e), is false. In our example, then, all of the following are true: (i) (e) is true, (ii) Smith believes that (e) is true, and (iii) Smith is justified in believing that (e) is true.

But it is equally clear that Smith does not know that (e) is true; for (e) is true in virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief in (e) on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

before you defend knowledge it may help to define knowledge first
and as you can see, that's impossible

Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.

mathematics are about formalizations of your speculations (which you form from your desire to see things that you experience [the empirical world, once you chose to objectify what you feel] through induction, as similar or dissimilar) to the point that you have a structure more formalized than your speculations structured in natural languages.

Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.

It turns out that plenty of mathematical structures are cast into some formal deductive logic (like set theory formalizes your structures of numbers).
I meant your usual set theory cast in FOL. Set theory is just a structure too and it turns out that you can interpret a part of this structure as some kind of numbers.

Science is just claiming that your formalized structures (in formal languages or not) gives you access to some *reality*, more or less hidden with respect to what you are conscious of[=the empirical world, once you choose to ''externalize, objectify'' what you feel].
Same thing for the religions which go beyond empiricism [=claiming that you feel and think is **not** enough from which you choose to dwell in your mental proliferations].

Some mathematicians, typically Brouwer, think that mathematics should, equally to the speculations (however formalized) of the scientists, talk about the empirical world. So typically, your formal symbols are real entities: these entities belong to some world and they connect or not back to the empirical world.
to be clearer, the symbols are names of real entities and, since you begin always from the empirical world, this world constrains you on the creation and usage of these real entities. then these real entities can or cannot belong to some other world as well.

Hahahahaha STEMplebs fucking ruined for all time

Holy shit, you just blew my mind user. At first I thought that "you can be right for the wrong reasons" could be said in a single sentence. But you've shown me that it can be said in several paragraphs, after spending several years studying philosophy. Thank you so much for enlightening me.

>Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.
no it's not.

...