Skepticism
 

To the pure skeptic (KA) I recommend Rene Descartes and David Hume.

You claim I can't prove whether reality is real. You're right. There is no way I can prove that what I sense is an accurate representation of some external reality. I can't prove that I am not dreaming. This is not really relevant, though. Who cares that I can't prove that I am not dreaming. For the sake of argument, lets say that this is a dream. This dream follows a certain set of physical laws; laws which are self-contained, absolute, and can be known through scientific inquiry. This dream world does not require any external deities to make sense. To postulate such a deity would be superfluous.

Now, how does whether or not I am dreaming matter to my knowledge-claims about the laws of the universe in this dream-world? It doesn't. This dream-world is, then, by definition reality, and in reality there are certainly thing which are not possible.

Seeing that we can't actually prove whether or not we are dreaming, is it really relevant to pursue this line of questioning? Are there any applications to the here and now? Of course not. Science deals with the universe as it is now, not with metaphysical skepticism. The assertion that there is a possibility that reality may not be real is certainly not scientific. It is by definition outside the realm of science.

I like science because it works. There are applications to reality. It describes and explains the fundamental nature of reality. Metaphysics can not attempt to do this.

As I stated in the other thread, there are many things that science can never prove, yet people still seek the answers to them. For instance, there are many things about black holes that we will NEVER know, because it is beyond possibility (according to this "reality", anyway) to know them. Yet still, very famous scientists theorize about such things, and debate about such things, even though we'll never know who is right.

Would you say that we shouldn't worry about these things, then, since science can't prove them?

Why are we even arguing over what's important? Seriously? What's important to you might not be important to me. I could make a case that almost every bit of scientific research, at least outside of the medical field, is pointless and wasteful.

In the end, in my opinion, it simply comes down to minding your own business and letting people do or think whatever they want. I don't think anything can be known or proven, you disagree. I don't think the billions that NASA spends on pointless shit like launching rockets to nowhere is even slightly important when there are people that are starving to death, even in our own country. I think it's all interesting, but as far as actual value, most science is probably pretty worthless. To me. But I don't tell you to stop theorizing or researching or whatever you're doing.

Such as?

Of course not. Just because we do not know them does not mean that their presence does not affect our universe. In contrast, whether or not this is a dream really does not affect us as far as this reality is concerned.

I'm not arguing about what's important. Importance is subjective. I'm arguing about what is relevant; what lines of inquiry produce applicable results, and what lines of inquiry are merely superfluous. I'm also attempting to establish a set of axioms based on which rational discourse can then proceed.


That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think, however, reading a bit on the history of science would change your opinion about this. Even if you don't think knowledge about our universe is important aside from it's applications to humanity, you would be surprised learn how some "pure" science has very tangible effects on humans.

http://www.atheistsunited.org/images...NoReligion.jpg