(September 14, 2015 at 6:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Premises 1 and 2 are a classic argument from ignorance, and hence the conclusion that solipsism is possible doesn't follow.
wikipedia Wrote:Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.
is that so? the first two premises was specifically to show it is by definition it is unreasonable to believe solipsism is impossible. that means to our epistemic knowledge (for all we know and could possibly learn) solipsism is possible. as such, it is then also reasonable to conclude solipsism is actually possible. you can try to argue we can't use epistemic knowledge to make metaphysical claims and therefore we should be undecided in those terms... but then that would also be to divorce metaphysical knowledge from knowledge you could attain. thus it would not be reasonable as to say 'we can't know about the metaphysical' as that itself is a metaphysical claim that you likewise could not claim to know. thus the only reasonable alternative is to presume we can know of the metaphysical and therefore solipsism is possible.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo