3

I am looking logical arguments and scientific evidence that undermine this view.

Ahmed Abdullah
  • 585
  • 2
  • 13

3 Answers3

2

I agree with the above and will only add the following.

The problem of solipsism is a problem of absolute skepticism or radical doubt, and, unlike so many philosophical problems, did not occur at all to the premodern philosophers.

It arose with Descartes and continued through the Locke and the empiricists. The argument, crudely put, is that because our senses cannot be trusted entirely, only intuition or "immediate" reason provides a firm basis for knowledge. Though Locke, et al, took "experience" to be the basis of knowledge, it remained "within" the mind in the form of "ideas" and not "real external objects." Thus "empiricism" can evolve from Locke to the "near solipsism" of Berkeley.

Such radical doubt cannot be "disproven" or terminally "falsified" for the simple reason that nothing can. It is quite easy to begin with radical doubt and logically wind up with solipsism.

The main argument against is thus that it is historically anomalous and seems to carry out its own reductio ad absurdum. Thereby casting doubt on Descartes's first principles. It seems an "absurd" overreaching of "reason" as prior to "sensation" and "common sense."

The best argument from "common sense" is probably Thomas Reid's. Since any logical system will require some axiomatic grounding, why do we accept as evidence Descartes's absolute priority of "reason" and radical doubt over "sense"? Reid claims that both are distinct and equally valid sources of "evidence," and the sense is prior. Interestingly, even in the 18th century Reid cited child development as a source of proof.

It you assume as first principle a validity of "sense" and "common sense" you have no problem with the existence of the world and other minds in the world.

Nelson Alexander
  • 13,331
  • 3
  • 28
  • 52
  • If nothing can "disproven" or terminally "falsified" what are you talking about? – John Am Oct 09 '15 at 07:11
  • You can't refute solipsism because you are solipsists yourself. That's the reason you can't Prove" anything and believe existence of the world is a matter of "acceptance". You really believe everything is a mind! It's funny watching empiricism eating his own fleshes. – John Am Oct 09 '15 at 07:29
  • 1
    I don't think you are following my argument concerning Locke and Reid (have you read them?), and I'm not sure that you grasp the limits of logical or scientific proofs. Please provide your own answer to the question if you wish, instead of ungrammatical, somewhat trollish comments that add little to the discussion. It is hard to tell what exactly you are arguing. – Nelson Alexander Oct 09 '15 at 12:44
  • You are right, Philosophical thinking and writing for me in English language is only 25 days old, (by using this forum). It would be great if we were able to communicate in my native language (Greek). Sorry for my rusty English! – John Am Oct 09 '15 at 13:58
  • That's fine, many respondents are not native English speakers. But I still fail to grasp your argument or even your meaning. First, you appear to think that my historical summary of the problem indicates seem odious personal empiricism. Second, you seem to think I believe "nothing can be proved" or "everything is in the mind." I am simply referring to the limits of positive "proof," well-argued by everyone from Kant to Popper and Godel. Down votes are fine, but to articulate some sort of reason is only civil. – Nelson Alexander Oct 09 '15 at 14:20
  • About your argument i don't believe senses can be used to refute the solipsist proposition. (vision, hearing, etc are not producing notions neither thoughts, mind does) . About down voting personally i prefer commenting and explaining of the reason but another member of the forum informed me that it is optional. So i vote according to my personal preference (i agree that this is a bit uncivilized practice). Perhaps we can continue the discussion in chat so to avoid creating another long chain of comments. – John Am Oct 09 '15 at 14:27
  • 1
    Reid's argument from common sense is not really based on the "senses" per se. The interlocking structure of "ideas," "perceptions," "senses," "beliefs," and "concepts" is complicated and handled differently by different philosophers. Reid argues that Locke, Berkeley, et al, conflate "sense" and "perception." The "sensation" of the rose's smell is "in the mind." But the "perception" also includes a "clear and immediate" idea of an "external rose." This, he claims, is just as forceful as Descartes' immediate self-certainty of "reason." I'll forgo chat, but post a question if you wish. – Nelson Alexander Oct 09 '15 at 14:53
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/30068/discussion-between-john-am-and-nelson-alexander). – John Am Oct 09 '15 at 15:03
  • I agree with this, but just wanted to add an observation I read in Kierkegaard journals where he called Descarte an 'honest' thinker and pinned, or so it seemed to me, solipsistic thinking on his followers. – Mozibur Ullah Oct 18 '15 at 09:51
2

I believe that the nearest one can get to an argument against solipsism is that it is hard to account for a deep sense of either surprise or mystery when dealing with others if they are a creation of one's own mind.

One may, of course argue (as the creationists do about evidence for evolution) that things were arranged so as to permit surprise - but the further you pursue that line of reasoning the thinner the sense of substance to the stance gets. One eventually arrives at the point where the stance has no explanatory power because of all of the extraordinary wherefores and whereas's which must be included to keep the solipsist stance meaningful.

M Willey
  • 153
  • 3
1

The main objections against solipsism are neither logical arguments nor scientific evidence. The main objection comes from pragmatics: A solipsist does not act in his daily life according to solipsism, denying the existence of other people or of physical objects.

There exists a well known episode where Samuel Johnson refutes in a pragmatic way a solipsistic position ascribed to bishop Berkeley http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html

Thanks to @conifold: For a discussion of solipsism see

http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Jo Wehler
  • 20,817
  • 2
  • 26
  • 77
  • I am suspecting there is no argument and with respect to scientific evidence i think Popper was right to point out that solipsism is not falsifiable. – Ahmed Abdullah Oct 08 '15 at 03:47
  • Please see my added reference. – Jo Wehler Oct 08 '15 at 08:37
  • Your reply is exactly what a solipsist would object. It confirms the view that there is no refutation by a logical argument. - But also a solipsist would act and behave like an empirist and avoid stepping against the next rock. That's the refutation by pragmatics. – Jo Wehler Oct 08 '15 at 10:11
  • 1
    Berkeley was not a solipsist, he was an idealist, which is not at all the same thing. And Samuel Johnson didn't refute him, although he certainly claimed to. – Chris Sunami Oct 08 '15 at 13:15
  • @Chris Sunami You are right. I corrected my statement. – Jo Wehler Oct 08 '15 at 13:47
  • @JohnAm Berkeley believed that multiple beings, including God and other human minds, existed. Although there are several different meanings for *solipsism* I would characterize the main one as the belief that the self is the only real being. In the weaker form of not believing oneself to have proof of the existence of other beings, there is overlap with subjective idealism, but I think they are still differentiable. – Chris Sunami Oct 08 '15 at 14:04
  • @JoWehler Thank you. I think this answer has some good things in it, but it still conflates idealism and solipsism with the phrase "denying the existence of other people or of physical objects." An *solipsist* denies the existence of other people. An *idealist* denies the existence of physical objects. One can certainly be both, but one can also be either, exclusively (although a materialist solipsist would be a true oddity). – Chris Sunami Oct 08 '15 at 14:08
  • @JohnAm The categories of "mammal" and "land animal" have a considerable amount of overlap, but they are not at all the same thing. When you say that *solipsism* is the same as *subjective idealism*, you are incorrect. – Chris Sunami Oct 08 '15 at 14:12
  • @John Am Only when the Johnson experiment were considered a *logical* refuation we had a logical fallacy of a type considered in the book quoted in your link. But I consider the experiment a refutation by *pragmatics*. - And to overcome the objection of Chris Sunami that the experiment aims at subjective idealism and not solipsism, just change the setting: Imagine a solipsist who is stoned by a second person. The solipsist will not change his mind but defend himself against the latter person. – Jo Wehler Oct 08 '15 at 19:19
  • @John Am Do not consider the solipsist's words but do consider his deeds: He will defend himself against the aggressor :-) – Jo Wehler Oct 08 '15 at 19:54
  • @ John Am Also an solipsist will have learned how to distinguish the maiority of his dream states from his waking states. – Jo Wehler Oct 08 '15 at 20:02