Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 7th, 2022, 11:42 am
Sorry, you've just answered my question (above). OK. ... But Objectivity — 'mind-independent correspondence with that which actually is
' — cannot be confirmed (or denied) via "rationality, logic, and deduction". For example, if I thought that we might be brains-in-vats, how would you use these tools to confirm or refute my suspicion? [Remembering that the 'reality' we experience as brains-in-vats is completely identical
to what we would experience in a world where 'reality' actually is what our senses show to us.]
Objectivity would indicate that predictions, analysis, and answers/solutions, must correspond directly to Reality. Therefore, if "brain in a vat" theory were even remotely probable, then there would be clear and obvious indications for such a theorem. Sadly, there's not. There's no significant or convincing reasons or causes for most people to believe in that theory.
You can claim that Santa Clause is real, if you want to....
If that's your argument, then go ahead. I don't think it's a good argument. Even with Theories of Gravity, of General Relativity, of Conservation of Energy, Etc. all of these have different degrees
of believability. Is Brain-in-a-Vat theory relevant? Is it scientific? Is it empirical? Or is it, simply, subjective and solipsistic?
In short, you're not making a good case for a complete disconnection from 'Objective' Reality.
Just like saying, "Well...Santa Clause *COULD BE* real!" is also not going to convince many adults.