Can a theory be logicaly possible but incoherent and foundationless??

Question

i have talked to many philosophers and also alot of website. and all of them said they were irrefutable, but also "neccesserily incoherent" is the most commonly phrased when describing solipsism. it is also declared baseless and foundationless in order for it to make sense to itself.

so with this in mind how is solipsism "irrefutable"?

Answer 1

Look. It all has to do with proof.

Take a murder case. You find a guy standing over a dead person holding a smoking gun in his hands. He has powder marks on his arms consistant with having fired the weapon. Ballistics for the bullet in the victim's head demonstrates that it came from the gun, and forensics indicates that the bullet was the cause of death. We'll even top it off by saying that the shooter admits to doing it. Does this prove the guy with the gun is a murderer?

For most of us, this would be more than enough evidence. But other people might argue further. If it's possible to construct an alternate theory that explains all the facts, they might say, then you haven't proved which is true. Maybe invisible hamsters changed all the evidence before you arrived. We don't KNOW that didn't happen, right?

And that is the point. It is possible to construct theories that, by their nature, are impossible to ABSOLUTELY disprove. We have to allow that although the idea is absurd, it is concievable that there are magic hamsters... just not reasonable that there are.

Thus, although 99.99% of everyone might say that because there is no reason to believe anything else it is satisfactorily proved, a hamster-lover could say otherwise. So it is with solipsism.

Solipsism is an overly-complicated theory that takes as a core rule that there is no proof against it that can work. How do you disprove an idea that denies the validity of proof? You can't. Does that mean it's a good idea, or a reasonable one?

Not even vaguely.

Answer 2

It's irrefutable because it denies evidence to the contrary because evidence to the contrary must come from without of the mind. So if you never acknowledge anything but your own mind, then you have an irrefutable theory. You're always right because you say so, and no one else's opinion matters because theirs isn't real. So it's not refutable, from your own frame of reference. At the same time, though, it's incoherent because one must acknowledge the existence of things outside itself even to come to the point of understanding logic to begin with. It's one of those things that just illustrates a point that logic exists independantly of a coherent explanation...it's a generic term really.

Answer 3

nicely. in no way actual heard of solipsism till now this, yet I have been preaching it for somewhat some time. hmmm. i might think of that this question is relating the reality that some ideologies, at the same time with religion, are in accordance with contradictory evidence and upon paradoxes, particular? if so, people who have self assurance in religious philosophy profess that acceptable style- one that has no actual backing and is ridiculous if seen from an exterior source, and one that is logically incredible- of philosophy which you seek for. As for logically achieveable, issues like the Hegelian dialectic are sensible and logical, yet are in prepare and (as seen with the aid of many as logically) unsuitable. The hegelian dialectic does not something for the liver, that guy or woman who tries to actual verify and think of for himself. It ids in basic terms a gadget for hypothesizing approximately what would have been, and for reading the previous. yet logically, the gadget for thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, is totally nice- it takes a center floor on each and every element. As for solipsism, i've got self assurance that issues would desire to be equipped around one's wakeful and one's concept of fact. If one perceives fact as thoroughly blue, then their finished discovering base is stemmed from a blue worldwide. yet as for not the rest present yet your innovations, you're first assuming that the philosopher exists. with the aid of development quickly from the floor, you may see that it is not a guy or woman that exists, yet a awareness. This awareness creates for itself a acceptable self and develops a acceptable worldwide to stay its wakeful interior of. The perceptions taken in with the aid of skill of the senses that shape the wakeful each and each do their section in transforming into the undeniable fact that the wakeful projects against its very own eyes. for this reason, the wakeful interprets all it desires, and it knows basically what it somewhat is informed. for this reason a wakeful is a learnable self that has the skill to venture its awareness upon its progressed self. reliable success.