Instigator / Pro
13
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#665

Solipsism is False

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Wrick-It-Ralph
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

My claim is that the claim of solipsism is false.

I am using solipsism as a blanket term anybody who doesn't think reality is what it seems. This includes: brain in the vat, the matrix, only mind in the universe, etc.

I will attempt to rebut your specific claim as well as all of the claims that generally arise in this topic.

Good Luck.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro starts off with a fairly reasonable debunking of solipsism. Firstly as a proof that reality is real (even if your not perceiving it correctly), the second is that other sentient minds indistinguishable from his own exist.

Cons primary counter argument specifically relevant to the debate premise appears to be that for things to be true, they have to be true to you; and as a result, you can’t wholly tell if more than you exists - as you existing is the only thing that can be established.

Pro starts off with picking our specific off-the-cuff claims con made, about the nature of reality. He asks con to prove that he lives in a simulation, and whether it’s a delusion (he points out if it’s consistent, it can’t be a delusion). Imo these points are side tracks.

Con rebuttal here drops a major point: who made the simulation? Without an ultimate maker isn’t there infinite regress? This seems on it face paradoxical.

The second rebuttal point, which becomes the thread underpinning the rest of this debate is the role of knowledge.

Specifically con points out that you can know that other minds within this universe exist - because knowledge is based on observation rather than certainty. It is more of a scientific approach that once you start accurately describing reality - you can form knowledge that other minds exist.

Cons reply - seems more fixated on the role of truth and certainty. Specifically arguing that we can’t tell for certain that reality exists - and only that we ourselves exist.

In my opinion this misses the point of cons opening and secondary argument: leaving these points unrefuted. Namely: that reality is consistent meaning that you can test it, measure it - and that forms the basis of the knowledge you can have about that reality: and that whether reality is as we observe or something else. Those measurements still indicate that there our other minds.

I don’t think Con is wrong here. Just that he’s arguing over pros main point. Pro reiterates the consistency of reality - and both these arguments in his follow up. There is more here - which goes into more detail about brain in vats, but in most cases they are just reiterations of the previous point.

Cons reply here - was actually more of a non response. He acknowledges the consistency of reality, but fails to target the conclusion pro draws from it: and imo the final rounds follow this same form.

My initial reading of this debate was skeptical about pros position: as he took on more burden of proof than he needed to. However, rather than this debate being fought on the battlefield of reality, it appears pro made the battle about knowledge and what it means to “know” something.

Pros case boils down to us knowing other minds exists through observation, even if we don’t necessarily know what that reality is.

In an epistemological sense, I don’t feel that con grasped the implications of this line of attack : pro effectively pushed con into the position where he was required to refute empiricism - which he did not.

As a result, pro did enough to actually show I know other minds exists in the same way I know gravity exists. Cons response is mainly aimed at requiring knowledge to be certain to be knowledge - and he doesn’t do enough to either establish this, or refute cons argument about practical knowledge in reality.

As a result, pro set a premise where I know other minds exists, because knowledge is based on my observations of reality - rather than having to be absolutely certain: and cons didn’t make much of an argument in this reality that for me to be able to know something, it must be certain.

There may have been able to be more of a Clash about the intent of knowledge, or making a special case about philosophical knowledge in this case, but as there wasn’t, I have to award arguments to pro.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

pro establishes BOP through consistent interaction based on our perception of reality.
Con argues that self is more defined through understanding and knowing of self apart from reality
Most of the arguement i feel is picking at straws and a few metaphors that went unaddressed, con in his attempt to show the uncertainty of knowing establishes that he himself does exist in not affirming himself with "Simulation" and that we are not "Everyone" however i feel he failed to address in what way a person could be "Everyone" in regards to interdependance on the "Simulation" we may or may not be involved in.
Pro does not adequately address the "Detachment" which is associated with solipsism in the sense of meaning, not perception or observation of surroundings.
At the last round pro misspelled vain... oi!

In order for con to convience a person associated with reality he had to link sources that we associate with reality to prove his point of our "simulation" I feel he could have proved his point better with more psychological links instead of definitions.