How do I show a skeptic that atoms/molecules actually exist?

[russ_watters]

A [skeptic] friend just asked me too:
"Does my brain really exist?" (i.e. his brain)
Of course I knew how to answer with ease:
"I don't see it, ... so I guess not! ..."

(Perhaps that's the best [sarcastic] reply to "all our skeptics friends", or better yet, perhaps, to our "skeptic selves" ...)

Follow-up: And I know mine exists, because talking to you is making it hurt!

 

[laymanB]

A [skeptic] friend just asked me too:
"Does my brain really exist?" (i.e. his brain)
Of course I knew how to answer with ease:
"I don't see it, ... so I guess not! ..."

I'm sure this thread will soon be locked, but for what it's worth...

I think Descartes argument about, "I think therefore I am." is still a rock solid argument to justify existence. Although Augustine of Hippo said the same thing back in the early 5th century AD.

 

[hilbert2]

This thread is giving me a mental image of a situation where someone claims that Earth is actually a hollow shell that's 100 kilometers thick, and insists that we must drill a hole deep enough in the ground to show that he's wrong...

 

[jbriggs444]

This thread is giving me a mental image of a situation where someone claims that Earth is actually a hollow shell that's 100 kilometers thick, and insists that we must drill a hole deep enough in the ground to show that he's wrong...

And the proper response: hand him a shovel and tell him to get to work.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

But of course there is the scientific aspect of this thread, e.g. scientifically supporting and proving the existence of atoms, molecules etc. (with the scientific method). To me, today, these are secure scientific realities, and I think most rational scientists would have to agree ...

 

[EngWiPy]

I am late in this, and didn't go through all the replies, but your [the OP] friend's argument about Newton and Einstein is exactly why science is working. Because it changes to new discoveries if the existing models and theories fail to explain them. It doesn't tell the absolute truth, but from the available data it builds a model to explain existing phenomena, and make predictions about the past or the future. No one says these models are the absolute unchanging truth or the reality. After all, what is reality? Is what we see the reality? The visible light we see is a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum. Other animals see and hear things we don't see and hear. I remember Stephen Hawking addressed this in the beginning of his book A Brief History of Time.

 

[berkeman]

I'm sure this thread will soon be locked, but for what it's worth...

Yes, thread is closed for a bit for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

Thread will remain closed, unfortunately. There have been a number of very good replies in the thread, but unfortunately a discussion like this can attract incorrect things like this:

There are a number of physicists that are entertaining the idea that we are in a simulation. That is, there is a higher reality in which our simulation is running. This is perhaps due to VR which is getting good enough to make such an idea conceivable and that we may soon be able to build our own worlds with simulated intelligent entities that could be totally unaware that they are being simulated. So reality could be relative to what universe you live in and, in the end, doesn't make any difference.

Unfortunately, there are too many posts like this mixed into the quality discussion, and it makes it hard to clean up such a long thread to keep it open.

So, unfortunately this useful thread will need to remain closed. Thanks for all of the good-quality responses.