Technically, we cannot prove anything about the physical universe, if only because we do not have its theory -- to prove it from.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 10:48 am I was always intrigued by the famous discussion in Russell's study concerning whether there was a rhinoceros (or something like that) in the room. Wittgenstein tried to convince Russell that he could not know for sure that there wasn't one Russell insisted that he could be sure, and it has been alleged that the two of them looked around the study for one just to prove their respective positions on the matter.
Furthermore, Russell was confusing possibility with probability.
No matter how improbable, there was nothing that allowed Russell to completely exclude the possibility.
Moreover, even if they found one in the room, there is no failsafe method to prove that to a third party. An image, a video, a witness deposition, they could all be fabrications.
What we know about the physical universe is at best probabilistically true. So, technically, I feel compelled to side with Wittgenstein.
Generally spoken, Russell was too sure of himself.
His grand masterwork, Principia, was bombastic and overly confident.
Russell lacked humility.
Russell was admired mostly by people who had never read what he had written because they did not understand it to begin with.
A great scientist does not believe in scientism -- unlike Russell.
Russell's naive activism was plain stupid.