Dec 29

Solipsism is the argument that nothing exists outside the mind or, at least, that you can’t prove the existence of anything outside your own mind. Of course, this is philosophical solipsism, which I’m discussing in this post, and not the psychiatric condition involving detachment from reality.  I have no problem discussing philosophy; however, I rarely hear these types of arguments when actually discussing philosophy. I’ve only heard this kind of talk from people trying to create a loop-hole where their beliefs can escape scientific scrutiny-or any kind of criticism.

I’d like to share a little anecdote of a conversation I had which sums up quite nicely the typical response I receive as a skeptic talking to a believer. The conversation was with a very nice, friendly new age woman who ended the conversation by telling me that it was fine that I needed evidence for things, but that some people “can just have an inner knowing of how things work”. She thought it was arrogant and close minded to “…Believe in what we can only process with our 5 senses…” That sentiment has become quite commonplace in my experience with new agers and religious proponents. It is quite frustrating, indeed, to be called arrogant by those claiming to have privileged knowledge of the universe; a special viewpoint of nature that is inaccessible to outsiders and immune to any standards of evaluation. This position, like that of solipsism, seems to be the ultimate egotistical world view.

That’s not to say that because an idea is self-centered that it has to be wrong as well. Of course not, it’s simply that I have become very cautious of ideas that put humans or individuals at the center of the universe; the pattern of discovery, to date, continues to dismantle ideas that place us in a privileged position. Long ago, we had to give up the idea that the universe was geocentric and Darwin proved that we can’t hold on to the idea that humans are the center of creation either; we weren’t specially formed, separately from other life on this planet. And so, it seems to me that solipsism and similar ideas are another attempt to carve out a special place for ourselves.

If we remember that ideas we are emotionally invested in should be held to even higher standards of critical thinking, then the claim that anyone (or everyone) has privileged and inaccessible knowledge of the universe definitely needs to be treated with an extra dose of scepticism. It looks like even though people have given up on the idea that they are physically at a center of the universe, the desire still remains, and so it is replaced with the idea that we are at a non-physical center. I can’t help but feel very cautious of this thinking; given the incredibly good track record nature has for being indifferent to human concerns.

And I can’t help but see a streak of intellectual dishonestly in using forms of solipsism in discussions relating to scientific discovery. Dr. Phil Plait, aka the Bad Astronomer, recently posted this to his twitter account: “If the Universe obeys rules (the supposition in question) then it will do so whether we are here or not. There is an objective truth.” When I hear people argue against objective truth, it’s usually a last attempt to save a deeply held belief from evidence against it. In a universe with only subjective truth, everyone’s personal beliefs are protected from the very scary concept of being wrong. And if there’s one thing that science can do is be completely unambiguous about what is untrue.

So it doesn’t really surprise me that a typical response to the fact that science deals with what can be known is that nothing can be known. If something can be known, then it is in the realm of scientific inquiry. But if you can never truly know reality, only experience it then all ideas are conveniently defended from criticism. Again, I have nothing against that idea as a philosophical argument, but nearly every time I’ve heard this point brought up in conversation, its purpose seems to be to avoid the evaluation of a belief by the scientific method. If I needed to turn the universe upside-down, redefine reality and truth, and throw the concept of knowledge itself out the window in order to make sure what I believe isn’t wrong, I just might have to stop and reconsider why I believe it’s true.

Again, I think it’s important to consider carefully why we want to believe some things are true. The idea that the universe needs us-that nothing exists without our own thoughts and experience-is tempting. But regardless of how self-centered solipsist-type ideas seem to be, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because the universe requires that you operate as if it were untrue.