/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9926479
How is that arrogant science has to be devoid of direct ontology to be efficacious. The differences between appearances and reality, the "outside world" and the world of experience, or whether there is an "outside world" are questions of ontology. Science can't tell us the difference between something that doesn't exist and something that does... any thinkable object can be said to have an empirical basis on the grounds that it is thought, and what is thought, is. What differentiates one ontological entity from another? The "outside world" may not be outside at all... it may be that nonexistent objects and existent objects differ only in intentionality a la meinong, or it may be that nonexistent objects are constructed on the basis of linguistic terms or syntax that doesn't accurately represent the logical content of the statement, a la russel... show me a calculus with the power to solve these questions.