I guess the main thing I want to suggest is that there is more than one fence that is hard/impossible to breach.
Furthermore that depending on how you define certain terms, some of the fences may or may not be breachable.
I’m also saying that non-natural “facts” are as easy to work with as natural facts. The issue that they’re not part of natural science doesn’t impact our ability to discuss them productively.
I’m also saying that non-natural “facts” are as easy to work with as natural facts. The issue that they’re not part of natural science doesn’t impact our ability to discuss them productively.
I agree entirely with this. This exercise isn’t meant in any way to be an attack on decision theory or the likes. The target is so-called naturalism—the view that all facts are natural facts.
I guess the main thing I want to suggest is that there is more than one fence that is hard/impossible to breach.
Furthermore that depending on how you define certain terms, some of the fences may or may not be breachable.
I’m also saying that non-natural “facts” are as easy to work with as natural facts. The issue that they’re not part of natural science doesn’t impact our ability to discuss them productively.
I agree entirely with this. This exercise isn’t meant in any way to be an attack on decision theory or the likes. The target is so-called naturalism—the view that all facts are natural facts.
I see. That makes sense.