(March 23, 2019 at 6:02 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(March 23, 2019 at 5:56 am)bennyboy Wrote: This statement seems a little peculiar to me, and I'd like you to clarify on it. Is science really the vehicle by which you know what exists? Like, are you suspicious of putting books on a new desk until you confirm the hypothesis that it's a real desk?
The way to confirm that hypothesis would be to put books on what appears to be the desk. If the books remain supported by the desk, we may consider the hypothesis confirmed, or at least supported (get it?).
If, on the other hand, the books fall through what appears to be the desk and land on the floor (or the desk turns into a flock of hummingbirds or the desk begins singing an aria, etc) we can be pretty confident in rejecting the 'This is a desk' hypothesis.
Boru
If you had doubt, you could do that. But I see very many objects in my environment, and do not normally test their existence. Most things, I take for granted-- for pragmatic reasons, I suppose, though I never really make a philosophical decision to treat them that way.
In other words, I don't think most of our existential beliefs are based on scientific observation. My view is quite different-- we have a collection of experiences, and we categorize and systematize them in order to communicate or to look for useful patterns.
Some experiences, however, are not shareable. If I want to understand how my mind works, I may very well read a book about neurology. I'm also quite likely, however, to see different kinds of truths in the experience of musical or artistic ideas, in meditation, in drug use, or whatever. And nobody else can have any access to that experience of truth except insofar as I can verbalize them.