The metaphor I like is a tool box. When you have something to do, you pull out the tool that works best. — T Clark
Wouldn't realism being the most likely inference from experience qualify? We don't need to posit demons or computer simulations. We can just say the things in perception continue to exist while not being perceived, along with other things we can't perceive, but we can infer from things perceived, like elementary particles.
That goes well with science, which doesn't infer demons or simulations or brains in vats, but does infer plenty of unobservables that make good sense of what is observed, along with object permanence. — Marchesk
In the Kantian approach, sentience holds within it aprior understanding of causation in the abstract, thereby facilitating belief that things causally continue to be even when not perceived or thought of. — javra
In a strictly evolutionary approach, were intellect-endowed sentience (sapient or otherwise) to not have evolved unconscious aptitudes for discerning how things continue to be when not perceived or thought about, the given sentience would perish; lifeforms would either be, for example, quickly killed by stealthy predators or predators would quickly starve to death. — javra
The difference between realism and all other metaphysics is that realism is the metaphysical view we're born with. Kids play catch, they expect the laws of physics to work, they act as if the laptop (to borrow another example on this thread) is going to be the same laptop when they open their eyes as it was a minute ago., they act as if effect followed cause, and investigate cause using their senses fully anticipating that this will yield fruitful results. All other metaphysics are something people made up. That doesn't make them wrong, I think we've firmly established it would be impossible to prove that, but it does mean that, like the banana-fudger, they should not just be automatically stored alongside our native realism as an equally viable option, they must prove their worth. — Inter Alia
It's because young children don't know that something is still there when they cover their eye — T Clark
Are you suggesting that every single parent without exception just happens to indoctrinate their child with realism despite many equally reasonable alternatives, no-one in all of history has ever decided to teach their child solipsism and had the child obediently grow up to be solipsist? — Inter Alia
The same is true of Realism, we are all taught as children that things exist unperceived - or this is implied by other things we are taught - and we all swallow it just like we swallow the Santa story. We never question Realism because it makes no practical difference whether it is true or not, and there is no evidence against it. This, together with the fact that it is very easy, if you don't do philosophy, to mistakenly think that you can 'just tell' by sense perception that Realism is true, mean that Realism goes unquestioned for the majority of people. — PossibleAaran
Sorry for the double post, but perhaps I should add to the above that most people have never even noticed that Realism is something which they believe, although they would accept it if you brought it up. Until you do philosophy, it is very easy to completely fail to notice your own Realism or that there is an alternative. That is another reason why the teaching goes so smoothly. — PossibleAaran
I think you may be under-defining Realism. The fact that people believe in something they haven't yet sensed is different to them believing in something other than what they sense. — Inter Alia
Beyond that, I think very few people actually have world views that you would consider "realist." In the US, something like 45% of adults do not believe in evolution. More than 80% believe in God. — T Clark
To doubt, you need a reason to doubt, not just a contextless wondering whether things might be different than you think they are. — gurugeorge
That doesn't make you non-realist. That just means you think reality is different than the naturalistic version. — Marchesk
You're using a realist argument to help PossibleAaran defend realism — T Clark
Generalized doubt, Cartesian doubt, or global scepticism, is fundamentally incoherent, especially if it's based on merely imagining that things could be different than they appear to be (imagining alternative "logical possibilities"). To doubt, you need a reason to doubt, not just a contextless wondering whether things might be different than you think they are. — gurugeorge
it can't coherently be elevated to a permanent cognitive stance that doubts everything. — gurugeorge
That doesn't make you non-realist. That just means you think reality is different than the naturalistic version. Metaphysical realist means a belief in a mind-independent world. I grew up Christian, and most of those folks believed God created a material world that may or may not be compatible with what scientists say. I don't recall anyone espousing Berkeley's idealism, other than reference to Christian Science or gnosticism, which was considered heretical. — Marchesk
So I can't make much sense of what you said here. — PossibleAaran
Any "why believe that?" question can be answered normally. Why believe there's a table in front of you? Because you can see it, it's got the functional form of a table, you can rap on it, etc. Those sorts of things are the standard for answering "why believe?" questions. — gurugeorge
You can't extend doubt to everything because, as I said, you can only doubt on the basis of some other things held to be true, because that's how doubt works, it's leveraged off of truths. Truth comes first, doubt is secondary. Truth is the usual state, doubt departs from it and returns to it. — gurugeorge
For example, you can only say that something is an illusion on the basis of some other corrective perception that tells you it's an illusion. But that means you're accepting the corrective perception as valid. But that means you can't doubt whether all perceptions are illusions, only some...
IOW, if there's such a thing as illusion anywhere, then there logically must also be such a thing as valid perception somewhere, because without valid perceptions no such thing as illusion could possibly be revealed (or: "illusion" would have no meaning). They're inextricably tied together, depend on each other for meaning, so the idea of "extending" doubt to all perception is incoherent, it seems like something you might be able to do, but you can't actually do it, except as an imaginary exercise. But no truths hang on the use of the imagination. — gurugeorge
so the hypothesized BiV predicament can't possibly cast doubt on all perception, only one's own. But we already knew that our perception can be mistaken, that's why we sometimes check things by asking other people. — gurugeorge
For example, you can only say that something is an illusion on the basis of some other corrective perception that tells you it's an illusion. — gurugeorge
I am assuming that by 'doubt' here, you mean suspend judgement. — PossibleAaran
We cannot prove to someone who doubts it that the objects of sense perception exist unperceived, — PossibleAaran
I have given a perfectly clear meaning of 'illusion' which doesn't at all depend on any of our perceptions being veridical. — PossibleAaran
I think the early sceptics doubted convention and conventional ways of understanding, and cast doubt on the values imputed by those around them on such things as wealth, possessions, social status, respectability, the social contract, and the kinds of things that ‘everyone knows’ to be true. — Wayfarer
Who says being in the world is primary (other than Heidegger)? — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.