Applying Occam's Razor to Solipsism vs. Empirism

[Tolya]

Can it be done? I could argue that Empirism is simpler, because things just "exist", vs. solipsism, where things exist through the mind of the solipsist. So that would be adding a new entity that is quite unnecesary to explain observable phenomenna.

I don't want to dwell too much on how absurd solipsism is, Im just curious about ways to disprove it - and I was thinking about using Occam's Razor to do that.

If it works, has anyone tried it? What were the responses? I debated a solipsist once, but a) he was a complete philosophicaly-educated nutjob b) it was a new concept to me and my arguments didn't really got to him.

[Oskuro]

Isn't Solipism a philosophical concept, and as such worthless for actual empirical debate? How can you apply Occam's Razor to something that proposes no solution whatsoever to a problem?

[Tolya]

Well, Solipsism offers an explanatory mechanism for the observable universe, doesn't it?

I've been browsing the web and I was reminded that Occam's Razor can be used to compare two theories with equal explanatory power, which makes my original question a bit dumb.

[LaCroix]

Futile, since you can't persuade a solipsist that occam's razor even exists.

[Dooey Jo]

Occam's Razor doesn't exist; it is a logical tool, not some kind of law, which is also why it can't be used to disprove much of anything. You can use it to tell solipsists that their worldview is less useful, but they wouldn't care about that.

[salm]

Furthermore it´s a logical tool used by empirism. It´s a tool used within a philosopical set and can not necesarily be used outside of this set. Doing so would be like claiming that the entire American Law system is wrong(factually wrong since this has nothing to do woith ethics) because according to German law it´s illegal to insult people.
It´s a tool used on a different level.

[Tolya]

Still, we use Occam's Razor in debating theists... how is that different?

Is there any actual way to convince a solipsist? It seems to me that they can employ their solus ipse in a similar way that theists employ the wall of ignorance?

[Dooey Jo]

Still, we use Occam's Razor in debating theists... how is that different?

We don't use it to prove that God doesn't exist, we use it to show that their "scientific" "theories" are inferior since they include an unnecessary term. It's still possible for God to exist even if he has no relevance, and it's possible for solipsism to be true even if it is more complicated than empiricism (which can be debated).

[Darth Wong]

Furthermore it´s a logical tool used by empirism.

It's a logical tool used by any epistemological system, not just empiricism. It points out that redundant terms are pointless in any kind of logical explanation of facts, and it was described long before empiricism was widely accepted. Even in a non-empirical world-view, you still have certain pieces of information which are considered to be facts, and you could still use Occam's Razor to sift through theories which have more or less useful terms.

[Darth Wong]

Can it be done? I could argue that Empirism is simpler, because things just "exist", vs. solipsism, where things exist through the mind of the solipsist. So that would be adding a new entity that is quite unnecesary to explain observable phenomenna.

Occam's Razor does not work that way. You don't determine whether a theory restricts itself to the minimum number of necessary terms by subjectively judging how simple it seems to be.

The correct way to use Occam's Razor against solipsism is to point out that there is no piece of information which requires this theory. Dreams and hallucinations can be described within the constraints of the physical universe without needing to invent a whole extra universe beyond it.

In fact, the larger question here is: "what does the solipsist mean when he says that the physical universe might not be real?" It's indisputably real in the sense that it consistently provides us with all of our sensory input. It's indisputably real in the sense that you need to understand its rules in order to live your life and function. If there is something else which is more "real" than that, yet it provides us with no detectable information, then what does it mean to be "real"?

Any solipsist world-view must necessarily incorporate empirical thinking in order to understand the physical universe because the solipsist cannot ignore it any more than the empiricist can. Ergo, the solipsist's imaginary "real" universe outside this one is an unnecessary term as per Occam's Razor.

To use "The Matrix" (which is pretty much where most of these idiots got their philosophy anyway) as an example, the Matrix clearly exists. Even in the imaginary world of the film, the Matrix exists as a complex computer system, so it does exist. Therefore, the question becomes: "do we have evidence of the larger universe outside this Matrix?" Of course, in the film we do, but that doesn't mean we do in reality. And without any such evidence, Occam's Razor says the idea of such a larger universe is an unnecessary and therefore redundant term.

[Simon_Jester]

On the original topic, the problem is that you can't make an ironclad deductive statement of the form "Occam's Razor, therefore X is false." You can make inductive statements (X is probably false, even very probably false), but deduction applies a higher standard that the Razor can't meet. The intellectual problem with solipsism is that it is the ultimate in nonfalsifiable claims, even more so than belief in the supernatural. And the only way to crack a nonfalsifiable claim outright is by deductive logic; even if it can't be proven wrong by experiment, it must surely be wrong if it contradicts itself!

But solipsism doesn't contradict itself (Descartes' argument to the contrary being pure gibberish), so you can't break it deductively. And it's too heavily armored for inductive tools (like Occam's Razor) to attack it effectively. Which is why it's been around for over three hundred years; solipsism is the textbook case of "invincible stupidity."

Furthermore it´s a logical tool used by empirism. It´s a tool used within a philosopical set and can not necesarily be used outside of this set. Doing so would be like claiming that the entire American Law system is wrong(factually wrong since this has nothing to do woith ethics) because according to German law it´s illegal to insult people.

Out of curiosity: is it illegal to insult people in Germany?

To use "The Matrix" (which is pretty much where most of these idiots got their philosophy anyway) as an example, the Matrix clearly exists.

To be fair, some of these idiots got their philosophy from sources much older than the Matrix. The First Idiot of this particular school of absurdity was (to the best of my knowledge) Rene Descartes, who not only created solipsism, but then proceeded to dismiss it with a very bad argument:

"I can imagine something better than me, therefore perfection exists, therefore God exists, therefore God wouldn't let my senses be fooled so horribly."

[Darth Wong]

Occam's Razor doesn't tell which theory is absolutely true, but there is no such mechanism for determining which theory is absolutely true. We only have mechanisms for determining which theory is inferior, and solipsism is definitely inferior. It is completely useless.

[Oskuro]

My understanding of Occam's Razor was that given two solutions to the same problem, the one with lesser cost (less complexity) is the preferred one. I'm obviously no expert, but solipism to me seems to offer no solutions to any problems, it just seems to propose new questions (wich admitely are interesting to think about). So from this limited understanding of both concepts, solipism simply doesn't qualify as something to be measured under Occam's Razor.

[Civil War Man]

My understanding of Occam's Razor was that given two solutions to the same problem, the one with lesser cost (less complexity) is the preferred one.

Assuming both solutions are correct, yes. When comparing 1+2=3 and 1+2+0=3, the former is better. However, when you have 1+2=4 and 1+2+0=3, the latter is better because the first is wrong.

The problem as I see it is that solipsism philosophically rejects empiricism (even if its proponents still rely on empirical data to live their lives). So the hypothetical solipsist you are arguing with will just reject any Occam's Razor-like arguments as you being fooled by the Matrix or whatever. They can be a bit like conspiracy theorists in that way.

[Oskuro]

That's what I meant with "it provides no answers". It doesn't try to provide 1+2=4 answers, or even 1+GOD=3.1416, it just goes on and on about the lack of spoon and the falsehood of the cake.

[Molyneux]

On the original topic, the problem is that you can't make an ironclad deductive statement of the form "Occam's Razor, therefore X is false." You can make inductive statements (X is probably false, even very probably false), but deduction applies a higher standard that the Razor can't meet. The intellectual problem with solipsism is that it is the ultimate in nonfalsifiable claims, even more so than belief in the supernatural. And the only way to crack a nonfalsifiable claim outright is by deductive logic; even if it can't be proven wrong by experiment, it must surely be wrong if it contradicts itself!

But solipsism doesn't contradict itself (Descartes' argument to the contrary being pure gibberish), so you can't break it deductively. And it's too heavily armored for inductive tools (like Occam's Razor) to attack it effectively. Which is why it's been around for over three hundred years; solipsism is the textbook case of "invincible stupidity."

Furthermore it´s a logical tool used by empirism. It´s a tool used within a philosopical set and can not necesarily be used outside of this set. Doing so would be like claiming that the entire American Law system is wrong(factually wrong since this has nothing to do woith ethics) because according to German law it´s illegal to insult people.

Out of curiosity: is it illegal to insult people in Germany?

To use "The Matrix" (which is pretty much where most of these idiots got their philosophy anyway) as an example, the Matrix clearly exists.

To be fair, some of these idiots got their philosophy from sources much older than the Matrix. The First Idiot of this particular school of absurdity was (to the best of my knowledge) Rene Descartes, who not only created solipsism, but then proceeded to dismiss it with a very bad argument:

"I can imagine something better than me, therefore perfection exists, therefore God exists, therefore God wouldn't let my senses be fooled so horribly."

Didn't he preface that entire thing with the rough equivalent of "You know, this is all just pissing in the wind so don't take it seriously, but..."?

[Simon_Jester]

Didn't he preface that entire thing with the rough equivalent of "You know, this is all just pissing in the wind so don't take it seriously, but..."?

Possibly; I can't remember. Maybe I'm being unfair to the man because I feel he's been proven wrong on so many issues (and because I blame him for inventing solipsism).

It's still a bad argument, even if he didn't really mean it.

[Terralthra]

Descartes didn't invent solipsism. That particular achievement can be laid at the feet of Greek philosopher Gorgias, as far as I know.

Also, the idea of a "more real" universe outside of the physical one observed is not an inherent conceit of solipsism. It has far more to do with the epistemological certainty of various knowledges. Specifically, since every perception we have of the physical universe is filtered through our mind, it is impossible to know with absolute certainty that the physical universe exists at all. Everything other than the mind itself could be a hallucination (Descartes, since he was reasoning in a Christian perspective, said something about how it could all be the devil tricking the mind), but since there still must be a mind to be tricked, the only thing that a thinker could be absolutely certain existed was his own mind.

To the assumed existence of anything else, a dedicated solipsist could simply reply, "I appear to have quite an imagination." To the solipsist, the objective, empirical, physical universe is the entity assumed to exist without being, strictly speaking, necessary. I think that it's a load, given that no solipsist would be able to function without making said assumption at some point in order to interact with what they would say is only assumed to be the real world. But, from some outlandish point of view, it could be considered the argumentio ad absurdiem of occam's razor - once the existence of a mind with an imagination is posited, nothing else need exist; every piece of evidence thought perceived by the senses is actually explained by the imagination of the mind in question, and any "objective" reality thought to exist is simply an extremely useful assumption.

[Darth Wong]

That argument has always been addressed primitively by asking if the solipsist is willing to throw himself off a bridge to test his hypothesis, but it comes off as bullying. However, that's mostly because it is gruffly expressed; the concept is not without merit. Let's say that the universe is indeed a figment of the solipsist's imagination. If that is the case, then he must still deal with the fact that it is a remarkably consistent figment of his imagination, and does not appear to bend to his will. This means he must live within it, and necessity dictates that he learn to understand its rules.

In effect, the entire edifice of science and empiricism must be constructed and understood even if you are a solipsist, because you are forced to interact with this thing called "the universe" regardless of whether you believe it exists outside your own mind or as an extension of it. Given that fact, a failure to accept empiricism only means that you will have a very poor understanding of this thing that you are forced to interact with.

[Mayabird]

Not all that mean to people who have an imagination. At times when I know that the world is all in my head - dreams - I go wild. All rules are off, and I always wanted to telekinetically pick up a guy and hit another guy with him. I wouldn't so much throw myself off a bridge as just plain fly off, and maybe juggle some cars to show off. Though after a couple minutes there would probably be a point where I'd go, "Why am I even trying to prove myself here to these people? They don't really exist either, because they're also just figments of my imagination." No point in getting into boring philosophical arguments with unreal people when there are much cooler things to do.

But that only works for strict solipsists, what Terralthra was talking about, of which there aren't many and most just got out of a freshman philosophy class. Far more common and annoying is what I call 'soft' solipsism, where they're willing to admit that yes, there is an outside universe that seems to be internally consistent, BUT there are things that are senses don't pick up or don't process correctly or it's actually much different than what we think with our puny brains or so on. Occam's Razor might actually be useful here since they're adding in lots of extra terms, "external universe + ghosties."

Though being of a biology bent, I like the pithy evolutionary argument against it: "Monkeys that try to swing on imaginary branches tend not to pass on their genes."

[Junghalli]

Though being of a biology bent, I like the pithy evolutionary argument against it: "Monkeys that try to swing on imaginary branches tend not to pass on their genes."

This actually brings up an interesting point: where did humanity's massive capacity for self-delusion come from? It's always puzzled the hell out of me because it seems so obviously maladaptive; you'd think it would have been one of the first things to be selected away in the dawn of human sapience. Is it just an emergent product of other cognitive processes that were adaptive?

[Simon_Jester]

People tend not to have such colossal delusions about concrete things. No matter how crazy-superstitious someone is, they'll still tend to make a pretty fair carpenter or ditch digger, because we're good about not developing grossly false beliefs about wood and rocks and dirt.

The delusions are more likely to apply to metaphysics and the 'hidden' causation behind natural phenomena. Not understanding those isn't maladaptive in a Stone Age villager. Monkeys that try to swing on imaginary branches tend not to pass on their genes, but monkeys that think the world is flat are just as functional as any other monkeys.