(May 10, 2025 at 10:13 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(May 10, 2025 at 3:02 am)Belacqua Wrote: So what appears to be straightforward objective evidence (dry grass = no rain) in fact depends on a great deal of prior knowledge if we are to interpret it correctly.
Not really. It depends more on what other evidences we have aside from the state of the grass. Clouds? Humidity? Soil moisture? And so on.
There's no need to imply that a priori knowledge is needed for evidence to be evidence. What is needed is a hypothesis in order to frame this evidence and place it in a context that makes it meaningful.
Are philosophers too dumb to come in out of the rain? Discuss.
