这个世界是假的？
这个世界是真实的吗？
既然所有的理论都是基于人类认知水平创造的，意思就是都是人造的，而人造的东西就恰好无法被证实真实性，毕竟是人是主观去定义它的，很难让人不产生怀疑，这个世界就没有完全真实的东西吗？
这就得从《怀疑论》开始讲起了：
简单来说，怀疑论是一种认识论立场，它拒绝对问题作出随意的、不够严格的定论，对事物的看法采取一种类似“中立”的立场，既怀疑“是”，也怀疑“不是”
日常使用的情况下，怀疑论可以指：
1、一种态度或倾向。普遍怀疑，或者对某些具体的对象进行怀疑。
2、一些声明，声称真知识或某些具体知识是不确定的。
3、一种方法，包括悬置判断，具体怀疑，或有怀疑特色地批判。
在哲学上，怀疑论可以指：
1、问询的方式，强调彻底而批判地审查，小心谨慎，以及智力上的严密。
2、一种方法，通过系统怀疑和持续测试来获取知识。
3、一些断言，关于人类知识的界限，以及对这些界限正确的回应。
确实，所有理论都是人类在其认知水平上构建的，这意味着它们是基于我们的感知、经验和逻辑推理。由于人类的认知是有限的，我们构建的理论可能无法完全捕捉或解释现实的全部复杂性。
这并不意味着所有理论都无法被证实。科学方法是一种试图通过观察、实验和重复验证来接近真理的方式。虽然没有理论是绝对的或完全无可置疑的，但一些理论因为它们强大的预测能力和广泛的实验验证而被广泛接受。
至于“完全真实的东西”，这取决于你如何定义“真实”。如果真实是指客观存在且不依赖于人类感知的事物，那么即使我们无法完全理解它，真实的东西仍然存在。如果真实是指我们对世界的完全理解，那么我们可能永远无法达到这个标准，因为我们的认知和理论总是在发展和改进中。
打个比方：你觉得天才的定义是什么呢，智商超过130？
大部分人应该是这么想的，因为大家都认为智商是评判天才的唯一标准
其实主要看你怎么去定义，也就是定义的标准是什么，我可以说智商超过100的就是天才吗？当然可以，在人类目前的认知水平中，可能智商这个东西，是相对权威的，但是你要知道，很多年前的“颅相学”，大家都相信脑袋上如果哪个位置更加凸起，哪方面的能力就更强，在1810~~1840年之间这个观点风靡全球，可是现代科学认为这是一种不靠谱的说法，是妥妥的“伪科学”，作者的意思是想告诉大家，一些理论只是在目前有效，也许过了很多年之后智商这个东西也会变成“伪科学”
Since all theories are created based on the level of human cognition, meaning they are man-made, and man-made things cannot be proven to be truly real, as they are subjectively defined by humans, it’s hard not to doubt them. Does this mean there is nothing truly real in this world?
This brings us to the beginning of “Skepticism”:
Simply put, skepticism is an epistemological stance that refuses to make arbitrary or insufficiently rigorous conclusions about issues, adopting a sort of “neutral” stance towards views of things, doubting both “yes” and “no.”
In everyday use, skepticism can refer to:
- An attitude or tendency. A general skepticism, or skepticism towards some specific objects.
- Some creeds, claiming that true knowledge or certain specific knowledge is uncertain.
- A method, including suspension of judgment, specific doubt, or a critical approach characterized by skepticism.
In philosophy, skepticism can refer to:
- A way of inquiry, emphasizing thorough and critical examination, caution, and intellectual rigor.
- A method of acquiring knowledge through systematic doubt and continuous testing.
- Some assertions about the limits of human knowledge, and the correct response to these limits.
Indeed, all theories are constructed by humans at their level of cognition, meaning they are based on our perceptions, experiences, and logical reasoning. Since human cognition is limited, the theories we construct may not fully capture or explain the full complexity of reality.
This does not mean that all theories cannot be proven. The scientific method is an approach that attempts to approach truth through observation, experimentation, and repeated verification. While no theory is absolute or completely unquestionable, some theories are widely accepted because of their strong predictive power and extensive experimental validation.
As for “something completely real,” it depends on how you define “real.” If real means something that objectively exists and does not depend on human perception, then real things exist even if we cannot fully understand them. If real means our complete understanding of the world, then we may never reach this standard, as our cognition and theories are always evolving and improving.
For example: What do you think defines a genius, an IQ over 130?
Most people would think so because everyone believes that IQ is the only standard for judging a genius.
Actually, it mainly depends on how you define it, that is, what the standard of definition is. Can I say that an IQ over 100 is a genius? Of course, I can. At the current level of human cognition, IQ might be relatively authoritative, but you should know that many years ago, “phrenology,” which believed that if a certain part of the head was more protruding, that area’s ability would be stronger, was popular around the world between 1810 and 1840. However, modern science considers this to be an unreliable statement, a proper “pseudo-science.” The author’s point is to tell everyone that some theories are only effective at present, and perhaps many years later, IQ will also become “pseudo-science.”