[sweetbitter]

As opposed to what, science? That thing relying on the axiom that perception somehow lets us predict reality? No, science is nothing more than the arbitrary notion that a pattern perceived right 'now' will continue into the 'future', one after the other. This is not necessarily true, and hardly something to derive absolute truths from.

[deltaonefour]

See. This is another problem with philosophers. Did I say opposed to anything? You just pulled that notion out of your ass and assumed I don't understand science. You guys use big words but in actuality you make a lot of random irrational assumptions.

You cannot prove anything in science and therefore reality itself. This is a well known property of science and you can explain this property without utilizing pretentious vocabulary and concepts like "patterns." You already know what science is, so we won't get into it.

Even though science can't prove anything, it's still a valiant attempt at proof. Can't say the same for philosophy.