Sorry to bring up an old subject but i was following your discussion with DominionSereph in the earlier parts of this thread and noticed that the discussion was never really completed.
DS was making the point that if you can't be 100% sure that your own perceptions are accurate then you can't use your perceptions to validate themselves.
You replied.
quote:
What we see with a "science" approach is:
1. My sensory data may or may not be accurate.
2. My sensory data tells me that my sensory data may be accurate (ie does not invalidate it).
3. The same sensory data is experienced by all others who repeat the same {experiment\experience}.
4. Different sensory data is not experienced by all others who repeat the same {experiment\experience}.
5. The probability is that the sensory data is accurate.
Unfortunately I don't see what this is getting at since points 3 and 4 must be removed from the argument because they both rely on your own perceptions of these results of these
other people's experiments.
For all I know, I might be misreading the things they tell me because my own perceptions are too faulty to give me true readings and I am just making the assumption that they agree with me.
Heck! there might not even
BE any other people. I only have my own perceptions of them to go by and if those are wrong......
OK It may be Solipism (which I don't subscibe to incidentally) but the argument stands that there is absolutely no way that any person can ever validate their own perceptions.
Everything including any and all concievable experiments and validations, are equally suspect and could be nothing more than false readings of a suspect set of perceptions.
At the base level, you have to take it on faith that anything other than your own consciousness, exists at all.