Non-existence

[Kyuuketsuki]

What would steping out in front of a lorry test? And why are you quoting 'theory'? What theory? Who are 'we'? Why do we assume anything? I think true skepticism is assuming nothing and working up from there.

Everything science is based on has at root the single assumption that what we see is real, it has to because it's (probably) the one thing we can't test ... everything could be a dream, or a computer simulation or we could live in a universe that started last Thursday. Who knows but we assume that what we see, what we can detect is real and the fact that everything holds together tends to support that assumption plus a number of other questions varying around the idea that if the universe weren't real it would be more complicated and the simplest answer is usually best. I happen to assume (and believe) the universe we observe around us is real and I invite ANYONE who claims it might not be to step out in front of a fast moving vehicle to test their "theory" ... of course they won't, I know they wont, they know they wont because, whilst they appear to be advancing a serious argument, all they are actually doing is engaging in mental masturbation.

I put "theory" in quotes because it is a cynical view of the use of the word "theory" by many (most?) theists who use it as anything from "[evolution] is only a theory" (implying a guess, a good idea or a wizard wheeze), to sophisticated philosophical "theories" in an attempt to equate them to science when they never can be because a scientific theory is the highest form of explanation known to science implying nothing of guesswork or uncertainty but instead encompassing a fully fledged explanation complete with mechanisms, evidence and so on).

I do think scepticism is the proper approach but some (at least one) foundation assumptions are required.

Kyu