I'm gonna give my views on each of these.

1. Solipsism – Only your own mind is sure to exist.
Why it's unfalsifiable: Any evidence you receive — from people, books, or even me — could just be a product of your own mind. — Truth Seeker

While true that our perception is a product of our mind rather than objective (in the sense of true representation of reality), I'd argue that when someone face a complexity they cannot comprehend and over time learn to comprehend, Solipsism suggests that the mind created a complexity it didn't itself understand yet and later did. A progression of understanding that doesn't merge well with reality being a product of our own mind as that would suggest it would know all things but arbitrarily limit that knowledge in ways that are illogical to the concept.

2. Idealism – Only minds (or mental states) exist; the material world is a construct.
Why it's unfalsifiable: All physical evidence could be interpreted as patterns of experience or ideas within consciousness.

Implication: Challenges the idea of objective reality; everything may be “mind-stuff.” — Truth Seeker

Similar to solipsism, but more about the metaphysics. Deterministic events that can be witnessed by many suggests that there's an objective reality outside of the mind. This hypothesis is only true for the self and becomes an ego-arrogant observation of reality. In a broader context it suggests that all minds must share the same reality construct and that all measurable data about ourselves and reality must stem from some overarching "thing" that produce the same mental states for all.

It's an hypothesis that doesn't follow burden of proof and has no evidence for its claims.

3. Simulation Theory – We’re living in an artificial simulation (e.g., a computer simulation).
Why it's unfalsifiable: Any feature of the simulation could be indistinguishable from “real” physical laws.

Implication: If advanced civilisations can run simulations, and they would, we might be one. — Truth Seeker

If we are in a simulation, it is so advanced it is essentially reality for us, meaning, what's the difference between reality and a "simulation"? Comparing it to the holographic theory in physics, in which we are projections in 3D from a 2D surface outside of reality, it basically functions the same; without the fundamentals of the holographic nature of our reality, our reality wouldn't function as our reality.

So it doesn't matter if it's a simulation or not, the fundamentals of our reality is what it is and changing them would mean we aren't what we are.

4. Philosophical Zombie Theory – Other beings look conscious but lack inner experience.
Why it's unfalsifiable: You can’t access others’ inner lives; their behaviour might be perfectly human but devoid of sentience.

Implication: Raises deep questions about empathy, moral consideration, and what we can ever know of others. — Truth Seeker

Problem of qualia. But at the same time follows the ego-arrogant perspective of the self being more important than other beings. The question becomes "why you?" Why would others not have qualia and inner experience? The logic of the concept relies on the arrogance of the idea; that somehow you are the center of reality and everyone else is "fake". I'd say it's a form of fallacy out of paranoia, in lack of better description. While the concept is somewhat sound, it faces a logical gap too large to function in actually reasonable terms. In the end it becomes more of a science fiction concept in which the premise comes before the problem, in which there's a reason for others to be p-zombies and then the issue of knowing this or not becomes a reality. The question still remains, why are you at the center of this question? And why did someone else feed this theory to you if they don't have any inner life?

In essence, how can the question be asked by someone who does not have the knowledge of an inner life? How would the p-zombie who proposed this concept be able to conceptualize the difference between something with and without inner-life without an understanding of it?

5. Panpsychism – Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of all matter.
Why it's unfalsifiable: You can’t measure the subjective experience of an atom or rock.

Implication: Consciousness is ubiquitous — a kind of mental “stuff” in everything, not just brains. — Truth Seeker

This is not really just an untestable hypothesis. It depends on how we measure consciousness. If it turns out that consciousness is able to be measured in different states of gradual evolution based on the complexity of the thing being measured, then it can actually be tested. It is also a proponent in some theories in neuroscience.

What is being said here isn't measurable consciousness, but qualia. We can measure mental states and conscious activity in animals and even bugs. But we do not yet know if the physical processes of all matter have measurable consciousness, or if it's simply a matter of it being so minuscule that it becomes unable to be measured. Though, scientific research in this area is ongoing, so there's no conclusion yet.

And what is the difference between "everything" and "brain"? It's an arbitrary distinction as the brain is fundamentally just a composition of matter. From an outside perspective, what's the difference? Other than a certain and very specific composition that may give rise to an increased effect of being precisely an emergent consciousness?

6. Pantheism – Everything is God.
Why it's unfalsifiable: It redefines “God” as synonymous with the totality of existence — making it a matter of interpretation, not evidence.

Implication: Spiritual or religious reverence directed toward the universe as a whole. — Truth Seeker

Burden of proof and circular reasoning. "God" is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premises. Everything could be high energy ice cream of higher dimensions with the same argument.

7. Panentheism – Everything is in God, but God is more than everything.
Why it's unfalsifiable: Like pantheism, it’s a metaphysical interpretation that isn’t testable. It adds transcendence beyond the universe.

Implication: Allows both immanence (God in all) and transcendence (God beyond all). — Truth Seeker

Again, burden of proof and circular reasoning. "God" is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premises. Everything could be high energy ice cream of higher dimensions with the same argument.

8. Dualism – Mind and matter are fundamentally distinct.
Famous proponent: René Descartes

Why it's untestable: No clear empirical way to prove the existence of an immaterial mind separate from the brain.

Implication: Suggests consciousness could exist after death. — Truth Seeker

The problem isn't that it's impossible to empirically test consciousness outside of matter (brain), but rather that there's no evidence for them being distinct in the first place. It's circular reasoning basically and there's enough scientific evidence that points in the other direction, underlying that there is not consciousness without matter (brainbody or computer for that matter).

9. Theism – A personal God created and oversees the universe.
Why it's untestable: Claims about God typically lie beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

Implication: Provides a moral and existential framework for billions, but rests on faith or personal experience. — Truth Seeker

Again, burden of proof and circular reasoning. "God" is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premises. Everything could be high energy ice cream of higher dimensions with the same argument.

Faith is no ground for sound philosophy. It's why most religious philosophers struggled so much. A tremendously biased itch in their brain they had to shoehorn into their philosophies, fundamentally limiting their inquiries.

10. Deism – A non-interventionist creator started the universe but does not interfere.
Why it's untestable: The absence of divine interference is indistinguishable from naturalism.

Implication: God exists but doesn't respond to prayer or intervene in history. — Truth Seeker

If there's any hypothesis of a God that has some reasonable ground it's this. Since it can be fused together with the simulation theory; essentially, we are a petri dish universe, something kickstarted as a chemical reaction in their perspective. But as such, it doesn't matter, because it just becomes a question about interdimensional aliens rather than "God" in the sense humans view the concept.

Another way to interpret is similar to movies like Prometheus and 2001: A Space Odyssey. That some entity kick started life/consciousness, but they're not God, but another form of life/consciousness creating us, as we would create AI.

Still, it becomes a hypothesis that demands observation to even come close to validity. So far nothing in science supports this other than maybe panspermia, but even that doesn't have as much support as abiogenesis.

11. Nihilism – There is no inherent meaning, value, or purpose in the universe.
Why it's untestable: Meaning and value are subjective constructs.

Implication: Can lead to despair or radical freedom, depending on interpretation. — Truth Seeker

The more we learn about our reality, the more support this gets. There might still be a purpose beyond human understanding, but that also means beyond us and indifferent to us.

Despair comes before the realization that we are forced to produce our own meaning. When God dies, it's our responsibility to create meaning for ourselves and our existence. Nihilism is only the depression out of the realization there's no meaning, it isn't a constant for our existence. The ones who propose such lack imagination and curiosity to look further. They are no pioneers of humanity.

12. Eternalism (Block Universe Theory) – Past, present, and future all exist equally.
Why it's untestable: You cannot directly observe future events as already existing.

Implication: Time is an illusion; "now" is just a perspective. — Truth Seeker

There are many concepts of the Block Universe Theory, not all propose the future being in that block. It can also be that the future is composed of fundamental randomness of probability and that this probability collapse when interacting with the presence composed of known states of matter, which solidifies in a solid state past. That our perception of reality is fundamentally the experience of these quantum states collapsing.

There's a lot of support in physics for this and time as an illusion is kind of accepted already.

13. Multiverse Theory – There are countless parallel universes.
Why it's (currently) untestable: Other universes are, by definition, beyond our observable horizon.

Implication: Our universe may be just one of infinitely many, each with different laws or histories. — Truth Seeker

There are two version of this. One is a multiverse with formed bubble universes, almost like bubbles in carbonated water. Each bubble has its own progression that doesn't split (as in quantum physics concept of parallel universes), so our universe is based on specific laws of physics that produce the properties of our reality. We wouldn't even be able to enter other bubbles as reality works fundamentally different there and we wouldn't recognize or could even comprehend the perception of reality in that place. This means, we only have our own universe and reality, while there are infinite bubbles in higher dimensional realities.

The other version is the quantum physics interpretation (Everett). In which there are no quantum collapses and that everything exists in parallel universes. But what is missed is that the differences between them are basically the difference in one single collapse happening, and essentially produces such a large quantity of universes that it effectively needs to be counted as infinity. And most of them look identical as a quantum collapse in any part of the universe and reality would constitute a split. The idea of other universe "where we did other choices in life" is mostly fiction. While possible, the location is not a single thing, but closer to a gradient of infinites.

14. Reincarnation – Consciousness is reborn into new lives.
Why it's untestable: No conclusive way to track consciousness or memory between lives.

Implication: May promote ethical behaviour, depending on karmic beliefs. — Truth Seeker

Again, similar to arguments about God. Burden of proof and circular reasoning. The conclusion comes before any evidence or reasonable premises. Pure faith.

The only concept that comes close is that our matter returns to nature. In a sense we are formed and we consume matter that becomes us and then we are consumed back into nature. Like a bright point existing and then fading away. But nothing of this suggests consciousness does the same as it would need to first prove the Dualist concept and then needs to prove this state of consciousness moves deliberately.

That said, we don't yet know if we could copy our consciousness into something like a computer system. We wouldn't be able to "move" into it, but copying the brain composition and simulating everything in such detail that the mind functions in the exact same way would essentially be something like it. But then it becomes something else and isn't a fundamental part of what constitutes reincarnation.

And since most actual evidence speaks against dualism, there's little in support of consciousness being able to operate within the matter construct of another form of brain. The brain composition and the specific consciousness it produce seems fundamentally inseparable.

15. Absolute Idealism – The universe is the expression of a single universal mind.
Why it's untestable: The "absolute" mind cannot be externally observed.

Implication: All existence is interconnected as part of a single consciousness. — Truth Seeker

Similar to arguments for God and simulation theory. Conclusion before the premise as well as why would it matter? The effect on our reality would be the same regardless and the purpose of this single mind would be indistinguishable from questions about what existed before the big bang.

16. Nondualism (Advaita Vedanta, Zen, etc.) – There is no fundamental separation between self and universe.
Why it's untestable: It’s a shift in consciousness rather than a theory with predictive power.

Implication: Suffering arises from the illusion of separation; enlightenment dissolves this illusion. — Truth Seeker

Removing the religious components, nonduality holds ground in the sense that humans have an arrogance in how we view our existence in the universe and reality. Similar to the geocentrism, we place ourselves at the center of the universe and then think of existence as us in relation to it, when both logic and science says that we are part of the same universe as everything else and it's fundamental for the purpose of fully understanding reality and the universe.

The problem with Adaita, Vedanta, Zen is that the religious bits are invented out of the concept and generally becomes something other than the pure scientific perspective.

17. Cosmic Solipsism – The entire cosmos exists for one observer (e.g., you).
Why it's untestable: Similar to solipsism but extended to cosmic scale. — Truth Seeker

Fundamentally the arrogance of humans, the geocentrism fallacy, a concept out of the ego rather than rational reasoning. Faith not in God, but in the self as being the most important thing in the universe... yet we see examples of this arrogance a lot in society :sweat:

Empiricism says reality is what can be observed and tested.

Rationalism says reality is what can be logically deduced.

Phenomenology says reality is what appears in conscious experience.

Pragmatism says reality is what works — what lets you survive and make decisions. — Truth Seeker

Why not all combined? Each hold some merit in some form or another, they're not mutually exclusive.

I think most problems in philosophy around the subject of reality, perception and consciousness stem from the biases people have towards a certain school of thought they learned, rather than finding a holistic perspective that finds the merit in different thoughts.

For instance, reality can be logically deduced, then observed and tested and yet still be within the limited perception of experience we have.

People are too influenced by their biases, getting stuck in the mud of emotional attachment to some faith they have of a specific concept, losing the ability to reach into higher forms of understanding.

Essentially, most people just argue for their side like all of this was about their favourite sports team. It's why I think most people fail at philosophy. They argue for a belief, not what follows the rational, the logic, the evidence and so on.

I don't know a lot about Aristotle, but I've gathered that talking to him would be more like talking to a scientist than a philosopher in the contemporary sense. He lived in what some call the "age of essence." So he would just assume that the essences of things are available to us and we talk about them. I think he was foundationless about that? Is that true?

I defer to @Count Timothy von Icarus on that, though my impression is that Aristotelian metaphysics does depend on a robust concept of "essence."

If we are in a simulation, it is so advanced it is essentially reality for us, meaning, what's the difference between reality and a "simulation"? — Christoffer

None, in the sense you mean, but it would probably make a difference to us if we knew we were in a simulation. It's the same question as asking, "Are we in a world created by a God?" The answer seems to make a big difference . . . but maybe it shouldn't?

None, in the sense you mean, but it would probably make a difference to us if we knew we were in a simulation. It's the same question as asking, "Are we in a world created by a God?" The answer seems to make a big difference . . . but maybe it shouldn't? — J

What is that difference? The similarity is here with the concept of God would be Deism, and in that case also, the consequences for us are irrelevant as we are probably an unknown entity of the simulation to those running it.

If we weren't, there is no reason to hold the complexity of the simulation at the level it is, with us unable to probe the rims of this simulation. The simulation has to simulate the entire universe, with laws of physics unknown to us in a way with an expectation that we would find out about them as we have constantly done. This exponential complexity of the simulation makes no sense computationally, other than the simulation being that of the universe itself, meaning, our existence is not the goal, but simulating the entire universe, and our existence is merely the byproduct of the simulation's parameters.

So in the end our perception of reality, our experience of reality, becomes exactly the same as if the universe appeared without any creator. We are limited by the reality we exist in and knowledge about anything else outside it is unknowable to us due to these limitations. And if there was someone running an simulation specifically to simulate us, then we're not talking about a God, but a being or someone with a clear intention; an intention and purpose that we should be able to discern logically. So why would a simulation of this complexity be run? What's the purpose of this level of complex simulation?

Such a complexity suggests that the purpose is of a larger context and the inhabitants of it are irrelevant to that context. We then still end up with an existence of the same level of nihilism as if it wasn't a simulation.

I think the question of "why" is an important and forgotten one. The allure of the concept of reality being a simulation is the allure of the fiction that grows from it. It's a fascinating idea that spawns movies and stories like The Matrix. But even that movie ran into the problem of purpose as it's the weakest part of that story's lore. The purpose of a simulation is the most central and important aspect of it and it gets overlooked as a premise in any argument about it.

The simulation theory is often just an extrapolation of mathematical probability; the Niklas Boström argument is based on that probability. But without the proponent of purpose, it becomes a contextless probability that has no internal logic. There are tons of weird mathematics that looks wild on paper, but that doesn't mean you can extrapolate purpose that forms a concept outside of that math.

What is that difference? The similarity is here with the concept of God would be Deism, and in that case also, the consequences for us are irrelevant as we are probably an unknown entity of the simulation to those running it. — Christoffer

I'd think any concept of God would be parallel -- after all, the simulators are beings with personalities and desires, so perhaps more like the God of theism. Who knows what they know about us?

But I don't think that's the question. Your point -- that none of this should matter, since (without an interventionist God/simulator) it changes nothing in our possible daily experiences -- is perhaps correct, if humans were different sorts of creatures, more like Mr. Spock. But we care very much about meaning, about values, about who we are in the world, and for better or worse, the question of what created our world has almost universally been taken as mattering a great deal, on these questions. It's certainly my own experience. Again, you may be right that it shouldn't matter, logically, but that would involve some enormous changes in human culture.

Thank you very much for your detailed response. I agree with you. "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick.

Scientism is the belief that science is the most authoritative or even the only valid way to gain knowledge about reality. It often involves the idea that methods of the natural sciences should be applied to all areas of inquiry, including the humanities, ethics, and religion.

There are two main types:

Epistemological scientism – the claim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

Methodological scientism – the view that scientific methods are superior to other methods in answering all meaningful questions.

Critics argue that scientism is self-refuting (because the belief that science is the only path to truth cannot itself be proven scientifically), and that it dismisses valuable insights from philosophy, literature, art, and spiritual or moral reflection.

Scientism is the belief that science is the most authoritative or even the only valid way to gain knowledge about reality. It often involves the idea that methods of the natural sciences should be applied to all areas of inquiry, including the humanities, ethics, and religion.

There are two main types:

Epistemological scientism – the claim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

Methodological scientism – the view that scientific methods are superior to other methods in answering all meaningful questions.

Critics argue that scientism is self-refuting (because the belief that science is the only path to truth cannot itself be proven scientifically), and that it dismisses valuable insights from philosophy, literature, art, and spiritual or moral reflection. — Truth Seeker

I've also found that scientism is usually used as a criticism of arguments made with evidence found in science. I agree that there can exist an extreme reliance on science for everything, but at the same time it's the empirical power of evidence in science that is underlying most of what constitutes knowledge in the world.

The key is to use scientific evidence and the scientific method where it applies. Moral and abstract concepts that has to do with the experience of being a human being, is often not quantifiable by science.

I think there has to be a balance and most of the world already operates on such. I do however think that science should weight stronger than anything else; it's a component of rational reasoning and logic and is able to produce actual evidence compared to arbitrary ones and biased thinking.

Most of the time, the strongest critics of science usually have little insight into what science actually means. They argue about it as some form of singular entity of belief, which it's not. It's a method of thinking and practice aimed to remove human bias and emotion in search of evidence that explains an observation better than our emotional reactions to it.

In that regard, it's not much about seeing science as some solution, and more that science is the method and means, the tools to find answers. And in that way, science doesn't operate like some singular belief, but rather as a tool.

When we refer to "science" and "scientific evidence", we are referring to the result and answers produced by those who looked much closer than us at the thing we want to examine. To dismiss that process and those results in favor of that which better adhere to our emotional comfort, is to fail the logic of rational reasoning.

What we discussed in that thread isn't Aristotle's answer to the question Wittgenstein took up, just an ancillary point that the positive skeptic's position is self-undermining.

I don't know a lot about Aristotle, but I've gathered that talking to him would be more like talking to a scientist than a philosopher in the contemporary sense. He lived in what some call the "age of essence." So he would just assume that the essences of things are available to us and we talk about them. I think he was foundationless about that? Is that true? — frank

Pretty much backwards. Essence is more familiar to us than it was to Aristotle's age, because we are children of Aristotle. Aristotle was forging something which was in competition with the theories of other ancient philosophers.

Nutty TPFers like to inveigh against essences, but they are all essentialists. They log off and immediately start talking about dogs, trees, cars, water, etc.

That's in conflict with the little I've read about Aristotle, but ok.

- If you find the places in Aristotle where he develops the concepts you will see him considering and critiquing the alternative theories on offer. I don't say that the idea of substances was entirely foreign to Aristotle's age, but rather that it was much more foreign to that age than to our own. We have been simmering in the Platonic-Aristotelian soup for 2,500 years.

Aristotelian substance is about independence. Essence is about what makes a thing that thing.

Nutty TPFers like to inveigh against essences, but they are all essentialists. They log off and immediately start talking about dogs, trees, cars, water, etc. — Leontiskos

:D

Sounds to me like a transcendental error -- if they speak in this way, with nouns and such and believe it's true, then they must believe in essences even while proclaiming that they do not.

Aristotle was forging something which was in competition with the theories of other ancient philosophers. — Leontiskos

He was, true. His philosophy is a deep and original contribution to the practice, even with our ability to read him only through his lecture notes.

Sounds to me like a transcendental error -- if they speak in this way, with nouns and such and believe it's true, then they must believe in essences even while proclaiming that they do not. — Moliere

It's no coincidence that none of them can accurately characterize what is meant by an essence.

For both of you: I dropped references to freely accessible works related to this in a different thread. <Here> is the search. Use Ctrl-f on "Klima" and you will find most of the sources. Note that the SEP article on Universals is also Klima's, and that Spade's piece is also on point.

Now you have sources if you want to learn. :wink:

Now you have sources if you want to learn — Leontiskos

Thanks, but I'm ignoring both you and @Count Timothy von Icarus from now on.

Cool. I'll be honest in saying I don't think I'll be reading these anytime soon, but she looks interesting to me -- I like the notion that the medievals are good or better in various ways, I'm only skeptical because I think the attraction is a Romantic one: for a time that never was.

I think I can characterize what is meant by an essence, which is why I'm anti-essentialist -- I'm against this particular rendition and various other possible renditions that basically fit. I'd say "essence" is what makes an entity what it is: water can be wet or solid, but it will always be H2O, for instance.

Cool. I'll be honest in saying I don't think I'll be reading these anytime soon, but she looks interesting to me — Moliere

Glad you're open to reading substantial sources. :up:

I like the notion that the medievals are good or better in various ways, I'm only skeptical because I think the attraction is a Romantic one: for a time that never was. — Moliere

With Klima and most Aristotelians, we move on after finding contemporary philosophy subpar and realizing that there is something better.

I think I can characterize what is meant by an essence, which is why I'm anti-essentialist -- I'm against this particular rendition and various other possible renditions that basically fit. I'd say "essence" is what makes an entity what it is: water can be wet or solid, but it will always be H2O, for instance. — Moliere

So if the essentialist says that water will always be H2O, and you're against essentialism, then what do you say water is? Specifically, if you disagree, then when will water not be H2O?

Specifically, if you disagree, then when will water not be H2O? — Leontiskos

When we don't have that level of description -- namely, before chemistry became popular. In Aristotle "water" does not mean H2O, for example -- it's just one of the five elements.

I've started to think that Plato's ironic stance on philosophy is more correct than Aristotle's scientific stance, tho. In scientific terms I'd only be able to say that water will not be H2O if we manage to find another way to cut nature up that's more useful than the periodic table.

When we don't have that level of description -- namely, before chemistry became popular. — Moliere

So water was not H2O before chemistry became popular?

From the set of sources I already gave you, see Gyula Klima's, "Contemporary 'Essentialism' vs. Aristotelian Essentialism." He discusses water and your (very common) objection on the last three pages, especially on the last page.

Just brushing over the last 3 pages: Modern science can be integrated into the Aristotelian framework, of course.

I'm still sensing the same transcendental error though: interpreting others such that they have to mean "x" (in this case x = essence) because else they'd fall into incoherence, and here are the reasons why they really mean "x".

I can certainly see the Aristotle in our modern science, especially if I'm giving the with-the-grain interpretations of Aristotle.

But...

So water was not H2O before chemistry became popular? — Leontiskos

Yes, that's what I think. "water" nor "H2O" -- to use a phrase from your paper that I've only glanced at -- "pick out" what water or H2O is.

Yes, that's what I think. "water" nor "H2O" -- to use a phrase from your paper that I've only glanced at -- "pick out" what water or H2O is. — Moliere

But you must be able to see the strawman here? You say, ' "Water" does not "pick out" what water is.' But who in the world is saying that "water" "picks out" what water is? As if anyone with the five-letter token w-a-t-e-r would automatically understand what water is?

Again, Klima:

Of course, this move will make ‘water’ and ‘H2O’ have the same signification, that is, synonymous. Yet, this need not imply that whoever knows the signification of ‘water’ would thereby know that water is H2O. For one of course can have perfect possession of the concept of water without having any idea of chemistry whatsoever. What this person does not know is only that the chemical concept, which he or she does not have, picks out the same essence that his or her concept of water does. — Gyula Klima, Contemporary 'Essentialism' vs. Aristotelian Essentialism, 18

If it's a strawman then I must do the reading until I respond for reals.

Given my commitments I'm not doing it anytime soon, but I'll stop responding as if I know something since I haven't done the reading.

So if the essentialist says that water will always be H2O, and you're against essentialism, then what do you say water is? Specifically, if you disagree, then when will water not be H2O? — Leontiskos

I've started to think that Plato's ironic stance on philosophy is more correct than Aristotle's scientific stance, tho. In scientific terms I'd only be able to say that water will not be H2O if we manage to find another way to cut nature up that's more useful than the periodic table. — Moliere

Saying “water is H2O” is a bit misleading and may cause confusion. There is the everyday common understanding of “water” that we use, “please go fetch me a bottle of water, I am thirsty”, or “that body of water over-there is Lake Michigan”. What science does is use atomic theory and applied technology to say “this liquid you gave me, you call “water”, well it is 95% H2O, 4% NaCl, and 1% other stuff.” In nature, when we identify a liquid that appears like a liquid we typically call “water” may not contain H2O at all. Also, since liquid that contains “H2O” is consider a universal solvent, it will be present in nature as a mixture, not as a 100% H2O.

This whole idea “Water is H2O” is a sorry attempt by particular philosophers to gain some credibility from science to demonstrate how their theories have some sort of application to reality.

I (mostly) agree.

the last bit I disagree with. Where you say:

This whole idea “Water is H2O” is a sorry attempt by particular philosophers to gain some credibility from science to demonstrate how their theories have some sort of application to reality. — Richard B

I don't think that's true, because philosophers have no need of gaining credibility from the sciences -- except where the sciences are valorized and we must make proposals to say why our work will cure cancer, or whatever.

Where I agree -- "Water is H2O" is false in the strict sense, as you've noted -- it has various other chemicals in it and yet is still water.

- Fair enough. I think you are getting tripped up on the difference between signification and supposition.

I'm still sensing the same transcendental error though: interpreting others such that they have to mean "x" (in this case x = essence) because else they'd fall into incoherence, and here are the reasons why they really mean "x". — Moliere

If someone thought that water was not H2O before the 19th century then my assumption about them would be wrong. You claim that you think water was not H2O before the 19th century, but to be honest I don't really believe you. My guess is that you think water was not known to be H2O before the 19th century, which is a very different claim. You have switched to talking about signification, which is tangential to the crux of essentialism.

This whole idea “Water is H2O” is a sorry attempt by particular philosophers to gain some credibility from science to demonstrate how their theories have some sort of application to reality. — Richard B

This is a lot of nonsense. <Here's> a primer for you on the scientists involved in 18th and 19th century chemistry who discovered the molecular composition of water. The claim that "water is H2O" is not some philosophical conspiracy theory.

OK, my mistake. If it's not much trouble, could you give the citation in PA for the argument you have in mind? Many thanks.

The claim that "water is H2O" is not some philosophical conspiracy theory. — Leontiskos

To be fair to -- I didn't think he was claiming a conspiracy theory as much as thinking that philosophers make this claim because scientists have made this claim for a long time and they do it to bolster themselves with science.

I don't think this is a good way to do philosophy, or what most people do in philosophy -- but he wasn't claiming a conspiracy theory as much as speaking a false assumption.

I don't think that's true, because philosophers have no need of gaining credibility from the sciences -- except where the sciences are valorized and we must make proposals to say why our work will cure cancer, or whatever. — Moliere

My example would be Kripke’s attempt to show “water is H2O” is a posteriori necessary truth. This is not a demonstration of something true of realty but a construction of his imagination that he hopes applies to something in reality.