4 ms·
> There are examples of words that have times embedded in them that are actually reflective of natural phenomena and hence constitute valid theories, like "main
by JadeNB 9y ago
> There are examples of words that have times embedded in them that are actually reflective of natural phenomena and hence constitute valid theories, like "main-sequence" (with regard to stars).
Of course one shouldn't expect the philosophy of science to hold to the same rigour as science itself, but this seems just to be shifting the goalposts. Of course, you and I know that the definition of 'grue' is arbitrary and unmotivated, because it is made to be so; but how can one define when a hypothesis in a seriously propounded scientific hypothesis is arbitrary and unmotivated? If the test for whether a theory is a good description of natural phenomena is whether it is a good description of natural phenomena (to take your exact words, whether it is "actually reflective of natural phenomena"), then it seems that we have substituted a tautology for a paradox to no particular gain in understanding.
- lisper 9y agoNo, because language itself can be empirically and even mathematically grounded. The fact that I can say to a shop-keeper, "Please give me an apple" and with odds much greater than chance end up in a particular state that I call "having an apple" is evidence that the word "apple" really does correspond to something meaningful in the physical world. Here's a more detailed explanation: http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/03/why-some-assumptions-are-better-than.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/03/why-some-assumptions-are-...
- mannykannot 9y agoOccam's razor addresses that question, I believe - if there is a time-independent alternative that just as good an explanation and is simpler overall, it is taken to indicate that the posited time-dependence is spurious.