(June 26, 2016 at 12:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: ...I presume that you would take the position that meaning has no naturalistic explanation...That we do not currently have a naturalistic account of meaning is not evidence that no such account exists. That would be an argument from ignorance.
From a purely scientific (in the most expansive sense of the word) point of view, it seems more rational to at least tentatively accept the theory that at appears to work rather than the one that doesn’t even exist. Naturalism has only a promissory note and no clue how to fulfill it. It seems to me that the only reason not accept the standing theory is a bias against it.
