• Bob@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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.

      • Bob@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 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!