Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Ok, if you weren’t talking about our discussion, but generally about others, I’m sorry. But why make such accusations? I’m not guilty of that, so why bring up your low views about someone else, justified or not? You’re dealing with me, not others, here. Let’s just stick to facts

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Not only can we not test ATM, we can’t test it *ever*—at least not by observation. How could one ever have any observation that would falsify, say, that 2+2=4? Or non-contradiction? Or that causation is real? Or that there are other minds?

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea No. The dozen or so interpretations of QM are indeed empirically equivalent. No observations can adjudicate between them even in principle. They’re adjudicated solely on apriori considerations.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea While there is debate about whether we can know this, I’m using it as example of empirically equivalent apriori claim. Science itself depends on apriori, non-empirically justified, philosophical commitments.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Still another: the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is the right one.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea I’m not sure what you mean by this.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Another: that one’s sense experiences are veridical.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea You got it. Here’s a famous one: the results of scientific experiments should be reported honestly.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Do you not think there is apriori knowledge? In any case, we don’t test the truth of apriori beliefs in the sense of subjecting them to observation, if that’s what you mean by “test.” In principle, you can’t because they are empirically equivalent.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea No, but the point is that they’re justified indepdently of observation. They justified non-empirically.

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless

4 years ago

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Mathematical, logical, and certain other propositions are known apriori. We don’t justify them aposteriori—by observation. How could we? Any observation and theory development we could do would rely on those very things we are trying to prove. It’d be circular or self-dfting.