There's nothing to refute yet. You have not said why you think something exists.
This is the position all rational people are in once they've considered it. Sokal & Bricmont put it well.
-
-
In their refutation of pomo.They say its possible the natural world does not exist but its a reasonable hypothesis that it does
-
And because we accept that it does, we can use science to develop medicine and technology & live longer and achieve things.
-
Even if we're not really doing any of that. The only alternative is to do nothing and die.
-
No, you could lead an entirely selfish life, and end up locked up in an institution.
-
You'd still have to assume reality existed to do that. You have to assume reality exists to do anything.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How do you know it is all? Or is this a no true Scotsman thing?
-
Yes, it is. I am considering ppl rational if they recognise that they can't disprove this but its not useful to assume it is true.
-
You do understand no true Scotsman is a fallacy?
-
Yes, but it doesn't literally apply here. I am simply saying it is rational to accept the truth of this but continue living anyway.
-
You can disagree and say either that you can prove the world exists (you'd be wrong) or that its rational not to live (OK, why?)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.