Bonus meme:
“What’s the point of being a realist when 99% of realities are wrong?”
Because those 99% of realities are not equally wrong.
To paraphrase Asimov, Earth is a spheroid, not a sphere. To say the Earth is a sphere is wrong. To say that Earth is flat is also wrong. But the idea that the Earth is flat, and that the Earth is a sphere, are not equally wrong.
If you’re operating from any position except solipsism, then objectively certain approaches to reality have more reliable results than others; the ‘less wrong’ positions. If you operate from solipsism, then objectively certain approaches to the dream world being inflicted on your conscious, the exact nature of which you cannot truly perceive or comprehend but nonetheless dominate your qualia, have more reliable results than others
If you operate from solipsism, then objectively certain approaches to the dream world being inflicted on your conscious, the exact nature of which you cannot truly perceive or comprehend but nonetheless dominate your qualia, have more reliable results than others
I agree! As anarcho-antirealists, our goal is to carefully engineer worlds which are both robust against malfunction, using science, and good for people to live in, using ethics and social justice. The goal is to have both.
The soulist scientific method views scientific failure not as disagreement with objective reality, but as when one’s conclusions don’t follow from one’s premises. For example, climate change deniers. Climate change deniers believe in chemistry as a field. The greenhouse effect stems quite naturally from chemistry, there is no chemical argument against it. Thus, climate change deniers are hypocrites. Hypocrisy is a very good indicator of a poorly engineered world. Climate change deniers have built a reality for themselves which is very badly made and very prone to fatal malfunctions. We can do better if we have stronger scientific skills.
