= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dxu comments on [LINK] The Wrong Objections to the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (101)
There's no "claim". If you take the advice of doctors, use modern technology, or pretty much anything that relies on a scientific understanding of the world around us, you are implicitly endorsing empiricism as the philosophy that made it all possible.
You have missed the point. For any kind of "woo" , there are people who claims it works..
I... really don't see how this has anything to do with the discussion, unless you're calling science woo.
...Are you calling science woo?
I am saying that to demarcate woo from non-woo using the criterion of "working" you need a criterion of working that isn'ta subjective gut feeling. You need to solve the problem of formalising the empirical justification of empiricism.
All right. How about this: something "works" if it is independently replicable and reliably results in statistically significant deviations from the null result.
Reliable results of what? Is there anything that reliably indicates realism? If someone says that your reliable resultsare just accurate predictions of subjective experience, how do you counter them? And does your method tell you what you should be doing , or just what experiences to passively expect?