No because it is abnormal (using common sense alone, the normal is to not hallucinate), and so we would need to further explain the cause of that abnormality. In contrast, we don't need to further explain the existence of an oasis, as it is not abnormal."I'm hallucinating" is a very simple explanation — Echarmion
Might as well believe that the whole world is an illusion, on the mere grounds that it is logically possible. But logically possible does not entail reasonable. For this, we appeal to further principles of reasonableness like Parsimony.while I am hallucinating, perhaps I am also hallucinating the people that agree with me. — Echarmion
This discussion defends the PUP on the grounds of Parsimony, which is indeed assumed. I am hesitant to defend that here, with fear that I would need to defend the premises for Parsimony etc. All I will say for now is that it is a perfectly accepted scientific principle, and that the alternative (that more complex is more reasonable) leads to a reductio ad absurdum: Can't prove there is no teapot in space? Then we'll believe there is.The bigger issue is that you haven't justified the principle of parsimony. Why is the less complex explanation closer to reality? Is reality obligated to be simple and parsimonious? — Echarmion
I'm not sure that statement makes sense. Reality implies objectivity. And as both philosophy and science aim to predict reality, what works for science for that aim also works for philosophy. Note also that the Principle of Parsimony was first introduced not for science but for philosophy; and that science is a branch of philosophy (ie the search for truth), specializing in what is empirically verifiable.The reason we can use the parsimony as a principle in the scientific method is because we're concerned with making predictions, which means making working models of reality. A simpler, more inclusive model is more useful than a complex, less inclusive one. But it's a tool for of practicality, not objectivity. — Echarmion
Why is this claim the most reasonable one? Appealing to the Principle of Parsimony, you (or Hume) have the onus of proof to defend it.Hume would simply say more people [...] are mistaken. — Wolfman
That I think you are applying the PUP when you say you are more inclined to pick scenario (1) over (2). We are in agreement that reasonableness does not give certainty, but it is powerful enough to tip the scales.So...your point is? — Frank Apisa
This is an aside, but I want to say that your demand for certainty, all or nothing, is unreasonable for this world. Sure, this horse experiment is not consequential, but a lot of things are. We are not certain that Climate Change is real, but being agnostic is not a choice in this case. Either we fight it or we don't. And a 97% agreement among experts (let's assume that part is true) is sufficient to pick a side.Now...the answer I would much prefer. Neither! I do not do "believing"...by which I mean I NEVER EVER say that I "believe" anything. — Frank Apisa
The fact that is it possible for people to lie does not count against the PUP. It is like saying that the scientific method is flawed because scientists who apply it can always lie about the results.I know that people lie — unenlightened
Don't these two sentences contradict? Unless you say you are above the second claim; and indeed, that does sound arrogant :joke: .I will trust my eyes [...]
I know that [...] people see what they want to see — unenlightened
This is true, and we must take it seriously. Fortunately, it can be controlled by doing things like a double blind test, etc.people conform. — unenlightened
Now...the answer I would much prefer. Neither! I do not do "believing"...by which I mean I NEVER EVER say that I "believe" anything.
— Frank Apisa
This is an aside, but I want to say that your demand for certainty, all or nothing, is unreasonable for this world. Sure, this horse experiment is not consequential, but a lot of things are. We are not certain that Climate Change is real, but being agnostic is not a choice in this case. Either we fight it or we don't. And a 97% agreement among experts (let's assume that part is true) is sufficient to pick a side. — Samuel Lacrampe
Why is this claim the most reasonable one? Appealing to the Principle of Parsimony, you (or Hume) have the onus of proof to defend it. — Samuel Lacrampe
No because it is abnormal (using common sense alone, the normal is to not hallucinate), and so we would need to further explain the cause of that abnormality. In contrast, we don't need to further explain the existence of an oasis, as it is not abnormal. — Samuel Lacrampe
Might as well believe that the whole world is an illusion, on the mere grounds that it is logically possible. But logically possible does not entail reasonable. For this, we appeal to further principles of reasonableness like Parsimony. — Samuel Lacrampe
All I will say for now is that it is a perfectly accepted scientific principle, and that the alternative (that more complex is more reasonable) leads to a reductio ad absurdum: Can't prove there is no teapot in space? Then we'll believe there is. — Samuel Lacrampe
I'm not sure that statement makes sense. Reality implies objectivity. — Samuel Lacrampe
And as both philosophy and science aim to predict reality, what works for science for that aim also works for philosophy. — Samuel Lacrampe
Note also that the Principle of Parsimony was first introduced not for science but for philosophy; and that science is a branch of philosophy (ie the search for truth), specializing in what is empirically verifiable. — Samuel Lacrampe
it can be controlled by doing things like a double blind test, etc. — Samuel Lacrampe
the scientific method is flawed because scientists who apply it can always lie about the results. — Samuel Lacrampe
What problem would that be, that is not covered by the PUP?on Hume’s view, there is a problem with how perception operates in the first place. — Wolfman
The Principle of Parsimony is flawed? Why is that?And you don’t do this by appealing to the very system he says is flawed — Wolfman
This is risible.The Principle of Universal Perception (PUP) states that if a large majority of subjects perceive the same object, then it is reasonable to conclude that the object perceived is objectively real. — Samuel Lacrampe
I cannot agree with you there. Have you heard of the "absurd"? Reductio Ad Absurdum? All valid philosophical terms which criteria of judgement is common sense or common life experience."common sense" won't fly in a serious discussion. — Echarmion
No sir. The onus of proof is on he who disrupts the status quo, and the status quo is that it is not normal to hallucinate.You have to actually give reasons why it's "not normal" to hallucinate. — Echarmion
How is a teapot unobservable?For example, one might say that statements of existence or nonexistence about an object which is defined as unobservable are equally meaningless. — Echarmion
Are you confusing the terms objectivity and subjectivity perhaps? Objectivity is defined as "external reality". SourceThe problem Hume brings up is exactly that there seems to be nothing connecting reality (the things we experience) and objectivity. — Echarmion
True. I should have said that both science and philosophy aim for truth, which is conformance to reality.Philosophy isn't necessarily concerned with predictions. Epistemology, for example, is concerned what we can know, not what we will know. — Echarmion
As previously mentioned, it is defended by the fact that the alternative method (that more complex explanations are more reasonable until proven false) leads to a reductio ad absurdum. Can't prove that invisible unicorns don't exist? Then they exist. And please don't ask me to defend the reductio ad absurdum principle, because we will then have a case of infinite regress.But regardless of it's origin, the principle must stand for itself. — Echarmion
What problem would that be, that is not covered by the PUP? — Samuel Lacrampe
Something that might help in general: The first line of the OP on Hume merely served as an introduction to present the PUP. I am not really looking to refute a claim by Hume, but to determine if the PUP is valid. — Samuel Lacrampe
I cannot agree with you there. Have you heard of the "absurd"? Reductio Ad Absurdum? All valid philosophical terms which criteria of judgement is common sense or common life experience. — Samuel Lacrampe
No sir. The onus of proof is on he who disrupts the status quo, and the status quo is that it is not normal to hallucinate. — Samuel Lacrampe
How is a teapot unobservable? — Samuel Lacrampe
Are you confusing the terms objectivity and subjectivity perhaps? Objectivity is defined as "external reality". — Samuel Lacrampe
True. I should have said that both science and philosophy aim for truth, which is conformance to reality. — Samuel Lacrampe
As previously mentioned, it is defended by the fact that the alternative method (that more complex explanations are more reasonable until proven false) leads to a reductio ad absurdum. Can't prove that invisible unicorns don't exist? Then they exist. — Samuel Lacrampe
Did you conduct the demonstrations yourself, — Samuel Lacrampe
Regardless, this is a misunderstanding about the PUP. As described in the OP, it states that "if a large majority of subjects perceives the same object, then [...]". It says "perceives", and not "claims to perceive". — Samuel Lacrampe
Hello.
If I understand your post correctly, you say the PUP fails against radical skepticism, because the explanation of collective hallucination already presumes some things about reality, such as the reality of other subjects, where as the evil demon theory is more radical and makes no presumption about reality (except for the existence of said demon).
This is true. But although outside of the PUP, the evil demon theory also fails the Principle of Parsimony (which falls under rationalism and not under perceptions) which the PUP is also based on, because positing the existence of an evil demon is more complex than not. — Samuel Lacrampe
Samuel Lacrampe
794
↪Frank Apisa
This is definitely a tangent, but... let's do it.
I think I have a clear enough understanding of the distinction between belief and guess, supposition, and estimate. But what is the difference between belief and opinion? Genuinely asking. — Samuel Lacrampe
I could claim everything is a metaphysical phantasm. — neonspectraltoast
So you claim that when we perceive an object, it is never the object in reality. And why would that be? If it looks, sounds, and feels like a duck, is it not reasonable to believe it is in fact a duck, until given a reason to believe otherwise?we can only perceive perceptions — Wolfman
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.