= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on [SEQ RERUN] Is Morality Preference? - 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 (66)
If you accept as "true" some statements that are not testable, and other statements that are testable, than perhaps we just have a labeling problem? We would have "true-and-I-can-prove-it" and "true-and-I-can't-prove-it." I'd be surprised if given those two categories there would be many people who wouldn't elevate the testable statements above the untestable one in "truthiness."
The definition of proof is the issue. An instrumentalist requires falsifiable predictions, a realist settles for acceptable logic when no predictions are available.
A rationalist (in the original sense of the word) would go even further requiring a logical proof, and not accepting a mere prediction as a substitute.