(August 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: We assume that what we can detect is real, and the fact that everything holds together tends to support that assumption.
Wouldn't the same result obtain if this world was a Matrix-like simulation whose programming was thorough and consistent? Someone who held this view certainly would not "step out in front of a fast moving vehicle"—not because they're being inconsistent but, rather, because they're being consistent. Even in the Matrix, the vehicle would critically injure them. In other words, I believe dagda's point would be, "Given that two competing conclusions are empirically equivalent (i.e., rely on the exact same empirical data), by what means can you test them for truth?" Occam's razor will not help here; given a Matrix scenario, the only thing Occam's razor would do is keep you locked in to the simulation—i.e., it would not test for truth.
(August 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: A scientific theory is the highest form of explanation known to science ...
Umm... I should hope so. But that does nothing to undermine dagda's argument, given the point about empirical equivalence.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
