Can we say with any degree of assurance that “something exists”?
It’s a simple question deserving a simple answer: yes we can. But what then of the skeptic who says there is no way to distinguish the real from the imaginary?
For example, if I were to say, “I know for a fact that an invisible dragon sits in the corner of your room where you now sit” . . . is there a way to prove (or disprove) such an assertion?
We humans must often act on practical assumptions and common sense . . . we cannot abandon our basic perception of material reality merely because this or that person insists that something exists which others cannot see . . . nor does it behoove us to waste time trying to think up “exceptions”.
Under consideration here is the general principle by which we acknowledge that tables, chairs, desks, and walls are self-evidently real . . . yes, there are clever illusions possible as well as drug-induced hallucinations and distortions of the unstable mind and very superstitious persons may insist they have experienced inexplicable events . . .
There may indeed be subtle or minute aspects of physical reality different from what we normally see and think–Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, for instance–but the general principle remains: people can agree that their environment is real and that we ourselves are real.
As Descartes put it “Cogito ergo sum”: “I think, therefore I am.” We must trust our senses for a beginning point even though we know that in certain circumstances our senses may make an occasional mistake.
Thus, we establish a standard by which to approach far more questionable claims and dubious assertions, at least from those individuals who would cast doubt on a human being’s ability to establish any definitive sense of reality at all.
Most of us accept reality as it is. It is our daily lives; we must act to live and live we do.
It doesn’t matter if we sometimes have trouble precisely analyzing the hidden sophisms in the minds of the superstitious or theologically challenged. It doesn’t matter if we are momentarily baffled by the intricacies of unusual phenomena (but phenomena nonetheless) or if we have trouble articulating our differences with those who practice extreme sophistry, narrow-minded fanaticism, and disreputable philosophy.
Tautologies are sometimes hard to counter for that reason, even though the assumptions of their basic beliefs may be seriously flawed. A person remaining silent may be more rational than a truckload of people or professors defending the logically indefensible.
Dogmas seldom depend on reason, science, and persuasion to maintain their clout. “Dogma” (official religious doctrines) once said the earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies revolved around it; this belief is patently false.
When a person believes something that is false, he or she may think that if they believe hard enough and long enough somehow the false notion will be recognized as true.
In dealing with knowledge of the real world, it is not the “fervor” of the believer that determines the factual nature of that belief: otherwise we would have to say everyone who ever believed anything—however ridiculous or absurd—has a right to claim the belief is true simply because they believed it!
I might believe there are tiny green Martian people living on the earth’s moon but in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support such a claim, mere “belief” can hardly be depended upon to prove that this assertion is true.
