Well, yes. That was basically pragmatist’s answer to my question which I have accepted.
It is a little bit disturbing since I am forced to give metaphysics more credit that I used to. The possible way out is to limit the testability criterion only to direct logical consequences of beliefs so that it doesn’t apply to “psychological” consequences of form “believing X increases likelihood of believing Y (even if there is no logical connection between X and Y)”. This might be a good idea but I am not sure where precisely to draw the line between direct and psychological consequences of beliefs.
To have an objective criterion for evaluating ideas in case my intuition is ifluenced by bias. To find out what exactly makes most metaphysics appear unsatisfactory and empty to me. Why are people concerned with formalising epistemology, after all?
By the way, you don’t need to link to the Sequences articles for me, I have read them all.
If I aim to apply the criterion “a theory is worthy only if it has direct logical testable consequences”, I better know what do I mean by “direct consequence”.
Well, yes. That was basically pragmatist’s answer to my question which I have accepted.
It is a little bit disturbing since I am forced to give metaphysics more credit that I used to. The possible way out is to limit the testability criterion only to direct logical consequences of beliefs so that it doesn’t apply to “psychological” consequences of form “believing X increases likelihood of believing Y (even if there is no logical connection between X and Y)”. This might be a good idea but I am not sure where precisely to draw the line between direct and psychological consequences of beliefs.
Why do you care?
To have an objective criterion for evaluating ideas in case my intuition is ifluenced by bias. To find out what exactly makes most metaphysics appear unsatisfactory and empty to me. Why are people concerned with formalising epistemology, after all?
By the way, you don’t need to link to the Sequences articles for me, I have read them all.
What do any of those have to do with where you “draw the line between direct and psychological consequences of beliefs”?
If I aim to apply the criterion “a theory is worthy only if it has direct logical testable consequences”, I better know what do I mean by “direct consequence”.