(March 29, 2014 at 2:32 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(March 29, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Because there is a huge gulf between not impossible and reasonable.
Lets say the police turn up at my house. I'm dead on the floor with a caved in skull and my wife is standing with a blood splattered frying pan shouting "i'm glad I killed the bastard".
But later she says that someone came into our house, and clubbed me with the pan. She wrested it off him and hit him with it (quite gently). He ran off but she was sure he would die within moments. The police arrived and she thinks they are here because she hit the intruder. Thus she said "i'm glad I killed the bastard" in relation to HIM and was innocent of my murder.
You can't say for CERTAIN that she didn't kill me.
But you'd surely dispute anyone who believed that she was innocent!
That's a good start, but to truly reflect Huggy's argument here, we wouldn't just be disputing someone who believed your wife was innocent, but who believed that pirate gremlins came and caved in your skull. Because apparently, not knowing the answer to a question means that we can't identify blatantly impossible answers, or answers for which there is no evidence that agents within that argument even exist.
If you don't know the answer to a thing, you simply can't dispute the existence of pirate gremlins!
Not accurate. It would actually be a choice between pirate gremlins (religious version), or the skull spontaneously caving in by itself (scientific version).
