I would like to improve my argument against the aforementioned conclusion.
An unrelated musing: Improving arguments for a particular side is dangerous, but I think a safe alternative is improving gears for a particular theory. The difference is that refinement of a theory is capable of changing its predictions in unanticipated ways. This can well rob it of credence as it’s balanced against other theories through prediction of known facts.
In another way, gears more directly influence understanding of what a theory says and predicts, the internal hypothetical picture, not its credence, the relation of the theory to reality. So they can be a safe enough distance above the bottom line not to be mangled by it, and have the potential to force it to change, even if it’s essentially written down in advance.
I should have worded that last sentence differently. I agree with you that the way I phrased it sounds like I have written at the bottom of my sheet of paper ¬Conclusion.
I am interested in a solution to the problem. There exist several theories of epistemology and decision theory and we do now know which is “right.” Would a parliamentary approach solve this problem?
An unrelated musing: Improving arguments for a particular side is dangerous, but I think a safe alternative is improving gears for a particular theory. The difference is that refinement of a theory is capable of changing its predictions in unanticipated ways. This can well rob it of credence as it’s balanced against other theories through prediction of known facts.
In another way, gears more directly influence understanding of what a theory says and predicts, the internal hypothetical picture, not its credence, the relation of the theory to reality. So they can be a safe enough distance above the bottom line not to be mangled by it, and have the potential to force it to change, even if it’s essentially written down in advance.
Thank you for the thoughtful response Vladimir.
I should have worded that last sentence differently. I agree with you that the way I phrased it sounds like I have written at the bottom of my sheet of paper ¬Conclusion.
I am interested in a solution to the problem. There exist several theories of epistemology and decision theory and we do now know which is “right.” Would a parliamentary approach solve this problem?