# Have there been any autistic savants of philosophy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2007, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579 "2007-02-17T01:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/81 "2011-01-03T06:28:16Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I’m asking you to be more precise. Oh, you know, kinda like you did here, and here. Remember that? Huh? Do ya? Of course I remember; I wrote the following: _“I don’t want another possible equivocation to cross us up; spell out, word-for-word, exactly what you mean by ‘A =\> B’. No shorthand. No colloquialisms. I want to make sure we’re on the same page.”_ Here, then, are the word-for-word sentences that are meant to spell out exactly what I mean by “requisite bearing”: _I’m using “requisite bearing” to mean that the conclusion does require the chain of reasoning in question. If a chain of reasoning lacks that requisite bearing, then disproving it doesn’t disprove the conclusion; if it has the requisite bearing, then disproving it disproves the conclusion._ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/82 "2011-01-03T06:38:36Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Just because you make some assertion about physical reality does not make it automatically objective. It is subjective until observed to exist as a “material thing in objective reality”. Again, I’d sure like a cite beyond your say-so. The dictionary definitions I’ve seen don’t require observation; as far as I can tell, they pertain to a material thing in objective reality that exists _ **independent** _ of subjective observation. Possibly you can supply a dictionary definition that _ **requires** _ observation to move something from subjective to objective; I’ll wait. > [@](#): > > I’m suggesting that the pink elephant sitting beside me is subjective. \ Yep, it’s subjective. It’s not part of physical reality. It exists inside my mind. But you’re _ **not** _ suggesting that the moon is subjective, right? You’re suggesting that it _ **is** _ part of physical reality, and _ **doesn’t** _ merely exist within your mind? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/83 "2011-01-03T06:43:05Z")
This definition of “requisite bearing” is vacuous at best, and begging the question at worst. I’ll give a real-world example in plain English to illustrate my point: In 1993 Andrew Wiles announced a proof of [Fermat’s Last Theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem). It turned out to suffer a serious problem. Luckily, Wiles was able to fix the problem and publish the proof of the theorem in 1995. Now, obviously the fact that his first proof was faulty did not render the theorem false. In fact, over the centuries there have been hundreds of serious attempts to prove the theorem, all failing. The failure of these proofs did not impugn the theorem itself. Now, you would say that the theorem did not have “requisite bearing”? Isn’t this just a synonym for “not proven”? Finally, Wiles, in 1995, gives the theorem “requisite bearing”. Oh. You mean he _provided a valid proof_ of it, right? How is your term “requisite bearing” necessary? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/84 "2011-01-03T06:53:12Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > This definition of “requisite bearing” is vacuous at best, and begging the question at worst. I’ll give a real-world example in plain English to illustrate my point: > > In 1993 Andrew Wiles announced a proof of [Fermat’s Last Theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem). It turned out to suffer a serious problem. Luckily, Wiles was able to fix the problem and publish the proof of the theorem in 1995. > > Now, obviously the fact that his first proof was faulty did not render the theorem false. In fact, over the centuries there have been hundreds of serious attempts to prove the theorem, all failing. The failure of these proofs did not impugn the theorem itself. > > Now, you would say that the theorem did not have “requisite bearing”? I apologize; apparently you didn’t understand what I’d meant by it, and I should’ve done a better job of spelling it out. It’s _ **not** _ whether, as you say, ‘the theorem did not have requisite bearing’. It’s whether the alleged proof had requisite bearing on the theorem – such that disproving the alleged proof would disprove the theorem. Which, of course, wasn’t the case. > [@](#): > > How is your term “requisite bearing” necessary? I thought it would simplify the explanation. Apparently I was mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/85 "2011-01-03T06:59:22Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Again, I’d sure like a cite beyond your say-so. The dictionary definitions I’ve seen don’t require observation; as far as I can tell, they pertain to a material thing in objective reality that exists _ **independent** _ of subjective observation. Possibly you can supply a dictionary definition that _ **requires** _ observation to move something from subjective to objective; I’ll wait. There is no dictionary definition for strings of words. What we are discussing requires strings of words, for example: (your definition) _of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality._ So what do you want? The string of words _material object_ presupposes _existence_ of said material object. My dictionary defines _existence_ in terms of the word _objective,_ which is tautological. But stepping back, it is an obvious presupposition that _existence_ or _material object_ are things that are _measured_. Again, the magical pink elephant beside me is not a _material object_ because it cannot be measured outside my mind. It is subjective. The book on my table, on the other hand, exists outside my mind. It can me measured outside my mind. It has objective existence. To me this fact is so obvious as to be implicit in any such discussion. To wit, the first few lines from [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29): _a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject_ The magic pink elephant beside me, the cheese moon, etc, are not mind-independent – they result only from judgements made within a brain. They are not objective, according to Wikipedia. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But you’re _ **not** _ suggesting that the moon is subjective, right? You’re suggesting that it _ **is** _ part of physical reality, and _ **doesn’t** _ merely exist within your mind? No. The aspect of the moon that turns to cheese whenever you are not looking at it is subjective. It has no basis in objective reality. The moon itself has basis in objective reality because we can “see” (ie measure) it. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/86 "2011-01-03T07:06:35Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I thought it would simplify the explanation. Apparently I was mistaken. My problem with it is that “disproving a line of reasoning that has requisite bearing (as you define it) upon a theorem” is equivalent to “proving the theorem false”. Your “simplification” requires 9 words, when only 4 words are necessary (and sufficient). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/87 "2011-01-03T07:11:02Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > There is no dictionary definition for strings of words. What we are discussing requires strings of words, for example: (your definition) _of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality._ > > So what do you want? The string of words _material object_ presupposes _existence_ of said material object. My dictionary defines _existence_ in terms of the word _objective,_ which is tautological. I’m with you so far… > [@](#): > > But stepping back, it is an obvious presupposition that _existence_ or _material object_ are things that are _measured_. …and you’ve lost me. I don’t see why that’s an obvious presupposition, sure as I don’t see the need for a string of words when one will do; in discussing existence they touch on materiality, and actuality, and reality – but never perceivability or measuarability or knowability or whatever. I see that _ **you’re** _ presupposing it, but I don’t see anyone _ **else** _ doing it. > [@](#): > > The aspect of the moon that turns to cheese whenever you are not looking at it is subjective. It has no basis in objective reality. The moon itself has basis in objective reality because we can “see” (ie measure) it. So the moon we see has a basis in objective reality _ **because** _ we can subjectively perceive it when using our brains to make judgments? But as soon as we ponder a moon we _ **don’t** _ subjectively perceive, its objective existence is impossible because the postulated mind-independent existence is mind-dependent by dint of being postulated? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/88 "2011-01-03T07:12:55Z")
Armed with this definition, and going back to your first use of the phrase “requisite bearing”, I fail to understand your point: > [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > if the reasoning did have the requisite bearing on the proposition, then attacking the reasoning would attack the proposition You are saying that “if you can prove the proposition true or false, then you can falsify the proposition”. Which is vacuous. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/89 "2011-01-03T07:17:21Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Armed with this definition, and going back to your first use of the phrase “requisite bearing”, I fail to understand your point: > > > [@](#): > > > > if the reasoning did have the requisite bearing on the proposition, then attacking the reasoning would attack the proposition > > You are saying that “if you can prove the proposition true or false, then you can falsify the proposition”. Which is vacuous. I am saying that “you can prove the proposition false by disproving the reasoning if and only if that reasoning has the requisite bearing on the proposition.” Obviously the part about proving the proposition false by proving the proposition false is vacuous; a proposition that truly rests on the reasoning leading up to it would be a rather different sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/90 "2011-01-03T07:19:55Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > …and you’ve lost me. Perhaps you are lost because you keep sniping out the parts of my quotes that are most important to my argument. Do you disagree that “the magical pink elephant beside me is not a material object because it cannot be measured outside my mind”? Do you think it has objective existence? If so, may I forward you the name of a good psychiatrist? (I joke) > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So the moon we see has a basis in objective reality _ **because** _ we can subjectively perceive it when using our brains to make judgments? Yep. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But as soon as we ponder a moon we _ **don’t** _ subjectively perceive, its objective existence is impossible because the postulated mind-independent existence is mind-dependent by dint of being postulated? Nope. Granted, we have to use logical induction. But once we have established through repeated observation that the moon has lasting mind-independent material existence, then it by induction it can be proposed with reasonable confidence that the moon continues to have objective existence. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/91 "2011-01-03T07:21:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I am saying that “you can prove the proposition false by disproving the reasoning if and only if that reasoning has the requisite bearing on the proposition.” Obviously the part about proving the proposition false by proving the proposition false is vacuous; a proposition that truly rests on the reasoning leading up to it would be a rather different sort of thing. You are not progressing this discussion by continuing to use your obfuscatory phrase. As I [pointed out](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13311097&postcount=86), it only increases the number of words required. Please rephrase without “requisite bearing”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/92 "2011-01-03T07:29:19Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Perhaps you are lost because you keep sniping out the parts of my quotes that are most important to my argument. > > Do you disagree that “the magical pink elephant beside me is not a material object because it cannot be measured outside my mind”? I’m certainly not going to disagree with you on this; I eagerly grant that it’s not a material object, because you flatly stated that “it’s subjective. It’s not part of physical reality. It exists inside my mind.” I concurred so vigorously that I didn’t realize I needed to copy-and-paste it to indicate my agreement. The moon, when unperceived, is _ **not** _ likewise subjective; it _ **is** _ part of physical reality; it does _ **not** _ exist solely inside your mind. > [@](#): > > Nope. Granted, we have to use logical induction. But once we have established through repeated observation that the moon has lasting mind-independent material existence Hold on – are you saying that, through repeated observation, we can establish that it has observation-independent material existence? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I am saying that “you can prove the proposition false by disproving the reasoning if and only if that reasoning has the requisite bearing on the proposition.” Obviously the part about proving the proposition false by proving the proposition false is vacuous; a proposition that truly rests on the reasoning leading up to it would be a rather different sort of thing. > > You are not progressing this discussion by continuing to use your obfuscatory phrase. As I pointed out, it only increases the number of words required. Please rephrase without “requisite bearing”. I’m not sure I follow you; the only way I can see to rephrase it would be to increase rather than decrease the number of words required. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/93 "2011-01-03T07:48:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m certainly not going to disagree with you on this; I eagerly grant that it’s not a material object, because you flatly stated that “it’s subjective. It’s not part of physical reality. It exists inside my mind.” I concurred so vigorously that I didn’t realize I needed to copy-and-paste it to indicate my agreement. …and yet you still do not address the point as it was clearly intended. I will elaborate on the point and send it back to you: do you deny the objective existence of a pink elephant on the dark side of the moon that controls earth-weather? This time I do not flatly state “it’s subjective.” You are on your own. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The moon, when unperceived, is _ **not** _ likewise subjective; it _ **is** _ part of physical reality; it does _ **not** _ exist solely inside your mind. I agree about the honest-to-goodness-moon. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I have been explicitly referring to a _cheese-moon_ as subjective? > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Hold on – are you saying that, through repeated observation, we can establish that it has observation-independent material existence? Yes. This is the basic problem of induction. Do we _know_ that the sun will rise tomorrow? No, but by induction it is very likely. Do we _know_ that the moon (the normal one, this time) exists when we are not looking at it? No, but by induction it is very likely. Do we _know_ that the moon is made of cheese whenever we are not looking at it? No, and this time there is no evidence whatsoever for its existence. It is an unfalsifiable proposition, invented completely inside my mind; it has no objective reality. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m not sure I follow you; the only way I can see to rephrase it would be to increase rather than decrease the number of words required. Try. I’m trying to get you to clearly and precisely state whatever you are trying to express. You can adopt my 9 words –\> 4 words example, and go from there. My prediction is that once you do so, whatever point you were trying to make will dissolve. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/94 "2011-01-03T08:11:23Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > …and yet you still do not address the point as it was clearly intended. I will elaborate on the point and send it back to you: do you deny the objective existence of a pink elephant on the dark side of the moon that controls earth-weather? This time I do not flatly state “it’s subjective.” You are on your own. Well, it either objectively exists or objectively doesn’t, that’s for sure – and anyone who claims that such an elephant exists would be talking about objective facts rather than merely relaying a matter of subjective taste. I’m certainly not making that claim; if anyone is, I’d love to hear their evidence. > [@](#): > > I agree about the honest-to-goodness-moon. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I have been explicitly referring to a _cheese-moon_ as subjective? Because the cheese-moon is precisely the _ **opposite** _ of that: it’s the moon as unperceived by any subject, and either exists or doesn’t as a matter of objective fact independent of subjective perception. > [@](#): > > Yes. This is the basic problem of induction. Do we _know_ that the sun will rise tomorrow? No, but by induction it is very likely. Do we _know_ that the moon (the normal one, this time) exists when we are not looking at it? No, but by induction it is very likely. Do we _know_ that the moon is made of cheese whenever we are not looking at it? No, and this time there is no evidence whatsoever for its existence. It is an unfalsifiable proposition, invented completely inside my mind; it has no objective reality. Seems just as unfalsifiable as the moon continuing to exist when unperceived, actually. How could we falsify that? > [@](#): > > Try. I’m trying to get you to clearly and precisely state whatever you are trying to express. Some propositions are so dependent on the chain of reasoning that led up to them as to be disproven if we can disprove that chain of reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/95 "2011-01-03T08:41:21Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, it either objectively exists or objectively doesn’t, that’s for sure – and anyone who claims that such an elephant exists would be talking about objective facts rather than merely relaying a matter of subjective taste. I’m certainly not making that claim; if anyone is, I’d love to hear their evidence. There is no evidence. _Even in theory_. It is precisely the same as someone saying “I like cheese”. In both cases a proposition is born out entirely from one’s mind with no outside support. According to Wikipedia’s definition of objectivity (which you never addressed), the proposition cannot be objective. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Because the cheese-moon is precisely the _ **opposite** _ of that: it’s the moon as unperceived by any subject, and either exists or doesn’t as a matter of objective fact independent of subjective perception. It is not _the moon as unperceived by any subject_, it is _the **cheese** -moon as unperceived by any subject_. If something can never _in principle_ be shown to exist as a matter of objective fact independent of subjective perception, then there is no _meaning_ to assigning the possibility of objective existence to it. There _ **is** _ meaning to assigning subjective claim to it, however, since despite the meaninglessness of assigning possible objective existence, there is always the possibility of subjective claim, just as one cannot deny one’s subjective claim to the taste of cheese, or the hallucination of a ghost, or of a cheese-moon. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Seems just as unfalsifiable as the moon continuing to exist when unperceived, actually. How could we falsify that? Many people believe that the moon doesn’t exist when unperceived. The fact is, there is no objective _meaning_ to the notion of the moon existing when unperceived. There is, however, meaning (and great utility) in the predictive capabilities of inductive logic, which allow us to send space men to the moon, knowing with great certainty that when they get there, there will be moon to land on, regardless of anyone’s subjective notions regarding the moon’s existence while no one is looking. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Some propositions are so dependent on the chain of reasoning that led up to them as to be disproven if we can disprove that chain of reasoning. Good, but still pretty vacuous. Even better would be: _some propositions can be disproven_. (By definition a (dis)-proof consists of a chain of reasoning upon which the (negation of) the proposition is dependent) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/96 "2011-01-03T09:03:31Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > There is no evidence. _Even in theory_. It is precisely the same as someone saying “I like cheese”. In both cases a proposition is born out entirely from one’s mind with no outside support. According to Wikipedia’s definition of objectivity (which you never addressed), the proposition cannot be objective. As far as I can tell, your quote from Wiki was just the “mind-independent” bit. I’ve repeatedly addressed the “mind-independent” bit to stress that, as far as I can tell, your perception of the moon _ **isn’t** _ mind-independent, but the moon when unperceived _ **is.** _ Which, as I’ve said, strikes me as pretty much the opposite of subjective. If you’re truly keen on the Wiki article, I’ll drop in a quote from it here: _“If it is true that reality is mind-independent, it is thus inclusive of objects that are unknown”_. What, in the article, establishes a need for such unknown objects to be perceived by a subject to objectively exist? > [@](#): > > It is not _the moon as unperceived by any subject_, it is _the **cheese** -moon as unperceived by any subject_. If something can never _in principle_ be shown to exist as a matter of objective fact independent of subjective perception, then there is no _meaning_ to assigning the possibility of objective existence to it. Sure there is. As per the Wiki article, we’re talking about assigning the possibility of objective existence to something mind-independent: it either exists, or doesn’t, out there in a mind-independent reality that _ **can** _ in fact be defined as inclusive of unknown objects. > [@](#): > > Many people believe that the moon doesn’t exist when unperceived. The fact is, there is no objective _meaning_ to the notion of the moon existing when unperceived. I’m sorry, but that belief strikes me as entirely meaningful; I can understand why you’d call such a belief unfalsifiable, or why you’d reject it altogether, but it certainly seems to convey a perfectly intelligible idea. > [@](#): > > Good, but still pretty vacuous. Even better would be: _some propositions can be disproven_. (By definition a (dis)-proof consists of a chain of reasoning upon which the (negation of) the proposition is dependent) The problem is, it’s also possible to disprove a proposition without reference to the chain of reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/97 "2011-01-03T09:10:30Z")
> [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > The problem is, it’s also possible to disprove a proposition without reference to the chain of reasoning. That’s called a ‘counterexample’. There are examples of ~X, and proofs of ~X. You are discussing proofs of ~X. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/98 "2011-01-03T09:39:33Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > As far as I can tell, your quote from Wiki was just the “mind-independent” bit. I’ve repeatedly addressed the “mind-independent” bit to stress that, as far as I can tell, your perception of the moon _ **isn’t** _ mind-independent, but the moon when unperceived _ **is.** _ Which, as I’ve said, strikes me as pretty much the opposite of subjective. The bit I think I quoted was: _a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject_ How is _that which cannot be tested outside of one’s own mind_ (the unfalsifiable cheese-moon for example) in agreement with the above definition of an objective proposition? > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > If you’re truly keen on the Wiki article, I’ll drop in a quote from it here: _“If it is true that reality is mind-independent, it is thus inclusive of objects that are unknown”_. What, in the article, establishes a need for such unknown objects to be perceived by a subject to objectively exist? First of all, it is not clear that reality is mind-independent. A large portion of physicists believe that it is not. Second of all, “objects that are unknown” may indeed be _posited_ to objectively exist if their existence is falsifiable. But the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found. Let me repeat that because it is so important: \*the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found. \* > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Sure there is. As per the Wiki article, we’re talking about assigning the possibility of objective existence to something mind-independent: it either exists, or doesn’t, out there in a mind-independent reality that _ **can** _ in fact be defined as inclusive of unknown objects. It is not mind-independent if the only possible test or proof of its existence is within the mind. Just as a hallucination is not mind-independent, even though the hallucination projects the illusion of a mind-independent reality in the mind of the afflicted. It is facile to conclude that just because the proposition is in regards to mind-independent reality, that the proposition itself must be objective. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m sorry, but that belief strikes me as entirely meaningful; I can understand why you’d call such a belief unfalsifiable, or why you’d reject it altogether, but it certainly seems to convey a perfectly intelligible idea. It conveys an intelligible idea, but it is not _meaningful_. It has not function, use, or purpose. A further example: _all horses are really little oranges. Except in every measurable sense they are indistinguishable from horses. But otherwise they are really little oranges._ Now whether or not this is _true_ has no meaning. The idea is intelligible, but irrelevant to objective reality. _There is no objective reality_ that can be assigned to that which cannot be measured, as per your definition (remember: material, etc, is a _thing_, with _properties_, and _properties_ are that which have been observed, also by definition). ---
**Author:** ![ecco477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b2d939/32.png) [@ecco477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ecco477)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/99 "2011-01-03T10:31:49Z")
> [@Palooka](#): > > **Why isn’t it just the simple case that something isn’t true unless it is proven? So if the reasoning for something is faulty, so is that conclusion (lacking an alternative proof.) It doesn’t make sense you can have a conclusion without a reasoning**. 🙂 I’m with you completely…your above quote is more philosophical than any other post…simple…nice…ahhhh…(when you start bringing math into philosophy, I think you have lost the point, jmho) ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/100 "2011-01-03T10:46:28Z")
… and in the real world, things that sound nice and simple are not necessarily correct. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579.md?page=6)