Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sticklebat t1_irkdp2b wrote

You’re talking about solipsism. It cannot be disproved, even in principle. However, it is typically presumed implicitly false in any conversation about reality, because otherwise there’s no point in the discussion.

4

TMax01 t1_irmnnpe wrote

The idea thebeatifulseason identified generalizes to solipsism, but not all metaphysical uncertainty goes that far. Ultimately, solipsism itself is merely an instance of a broader category of unfalsifiable theories concerning consciousness. Other examples include simulation theory/brain in a jar, theism, panpsychism, and Last Thursdayism. They are not presumed implicitly false epistemically, although they are typically not worth discussing ontologically. However, this leaves the area of theology, which is to say morality or ethics, not merely theism, the existence and characteristics of God.

In science, an unfalsifiable theory is one that is logically incoherent or unnecessary, to the point it cannot be falsified empirically; it is "not even wrong". (A phrase which means "not even true enough to be incorrect", supposedly a remark made by Richard Feynman when presented with a naive and unfalsifiable hypothesis.) But philosophy is not science, and must confront rather than dismiss theories that cannot be disproven even in principle. In a very important respect science is a part of philosophy: science is all the easy parts of philosophy, the questions that can, in principle, be answered empirically, physics, while philosophy is everything left over, metaphysics.

2