= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MBlume comments on "Put It To The Test" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (19)
Hmm
I'm worried this might devolve into semantics: is the string of words under discussion on Our Side or not -- we must know!
Still, my intuitive interpretation would be to say that while we can 'check' each of those pieces of evidence, we still cannot 'check' whether there's chocolate cake, which seems to me to be what's meant by "unless it can be checked"
No worries, we agree. If by 'check' they meant 'check directly', then I agree the statement isn't right.
Another alternative reading is "can theoretically be checked". Obviously, this is strictly weaker, but still covers a large number of logical failures (e.g. creationism).
Belief in things that cannot be theoretically checked are fantasies. Do you think such beliefs are 'logical failures'?