= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DeVliegendeHollander comments on Beyond Statistics 101 - 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 (129)
I'd like to congratulate you on developing your own "makes you sound insane to the man in the street" theory of metaphysics.
I just need to translate that for him to street lingo.
"There is shit we know, shit we could know, and shit could not know no matter how good tech we had, we could not even know the effects it has on other stuff. So why should we say this later stuff exists? Or why should we say this does not exist? We cannot prove either."
My serious point is that one cannot avoid metaphysics, and that way too many people start out from "all this metaphysics stuff is BS, I'll just use common sense" and end up with there own (bad) counter-intuitive metaphysical theory that they insist is "not metaphysics".
You could charitably understand everything that such people (who assert that metaphysics is BS) say with a silent "up to empirical equivalence". Doesn't the problem disappear then?
No because you need a theory of metaphysics to explain what "empirical equivalence" means.
To be honest, I don't see that at all.
So how would you define "empirical equivalence"?