Xavion251 t1_je526zc wrote on March 29, 2023 at 1:56 PM

Reply to comment by EatThisShoe in Scientism Schmientism! Why There Are No Other Ways of Knowing Apart from Science (Broadly Construed) by CartesianClosedCat

>It fundamentally comes down to this: If your belief, or your logical conclusion, or our shared experience does not match reality, then which is correct?

How would you know if those things don't match reality? You can't observe reality independently of these methods (experience, belief, logical conclusion, science, etc.).

>Experiences are subjective, even if you and I agree on something that does not mean it is true. And it is absolutely not the same as logically proving that it is true.

Fundamentally, experience is all we have. Even in science, everything boils down to an experience. You experience the data and the experimentation through your senses. Experience is inescapable, it is all we have, all we are.

> I said that every logical conclusion is based on premises, and those premises are things that people take for granted, not things that are proven true with logic.

All premises eventually go back to experiences we can all agree on. Even things as basic as "the world exists", "humans exist", etc. You can't transcend/escape that, even with science.

You can't leave your own subjective experience, that's ultimately the only way anyone can know anything. You wouldn't be able to know science works at all if you didn't experience it working.

EatThisShoe t1_je5lihe wrote on March 29, 2023 at 4:04 PM

> How would you know if those things don't match reality? You can't observe reality independently of these methods (experience, belief, logical conclusion, science, etc.).

We don't do it independently of our experiences. We do it by having new experiences. Our experiences are not truth, they can be inconsistent.

> All premises eventually go back to experiences we can all agree on. Even things as basic as "the world exists", "humans exist", etc. You can't transcend/escape that, even with science.

I think we're in a greement here. The issue is that you said this:

> a (obviously purely hypothetical) person who is 100% perfect at understanding and applying logic could always deduce the truth with perfect accuracy - without testing anything.

That doesn't follow unless you assume that your experiences are always true, and that any logical conclusion drawn from your experience then must be true.