3 ms·

As someone who has spent the last 5 years doing a phd in metaphilosophy and metaphysics... please just trust me when I say: Don't read this article... don't t

As someone who has spent the last 5 years doing a phd in metaphilosophy and metaphysics... please just trust me when I say: Don't read this article... don't think about the question... Don't go near it! I can't remember exactly why though. However, I did see admiral ackbar around here somewhere - I think he knows.

Vargas 16y ago
It's a trap! (Sorry, couldn't resist)
pjscott 16y ago
This article kind of is a trap, actually. Check out the last paragraph: > It seems that one disguised empirical question scientists are asking, when they ask “Is X real, or just a handy predictive device?” is the question: “will I still get accurate predictions, when I use X in a less circumscribed or compartmentalized manner?” (E.g., “will I get accurate predictions, when I use atoms to predict quantized charge on tiny oil drops, instead of using atoms only to predict the ratios in which macroscopic quantities combine?". Rather than trying to answer the question, the author turns it into a slightly different one that's easier to answer, and potentially more useful.
- grovulent 16y ago
  Yeah theorists have been doing this since Plato. They can't understand the question they've asked so they try to re-parse it into one that they can. I'm not sure why - but it rarely occurs to them to just stop asking the first question, and stop asking whether the second actually has the same semantic content as the first. When I point this out to them they retort that I have no rational argument that could reasonably compel them to accept that these questions can't be answered. I accept the truth of this retort. However, I offer them the prediction that animals that tend toward behaviours such as theirs will get selected out of existence a whole lot sooner than those that don't. It's a purely empirical hypothesis so there is nothing more that can be said on the matter - and so it mercifully ends the conversation.

Vargas 16y ago

It's a trap! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

pjscott 16y ago

This article kind of is a trap, actually. Check out the last paragraph: > It seems that one disguised empirical question scientists are asking, when they ask “Is X real, or just a handy predictive device?” is the question: “will I still get accurate predictions, when I use X in a less circumscribed or compartmentalized manner?” (E.g., “will I get accurate predictions, when I use atoms to predict quantized charge on tiny oil drops, instead of using atoms only to predict the ratios in which macroscopic quantities combine?". Rather than trying to answer the question, the author turns it into a slightly different one that's easier to answer, and potentially more useful.

grovulent 16y ago
Yeah theorists have been doing this since Plato. They can't understand the question they've asked so they try to re-parse it into one that they can. I'm not sure why - but it rarely occurs to them to just stop asking the first question, and stop asking whether the second actually has the same semantic content as the first. When I point this out to them they retort that I have no rational argument that could reasonably compel them to accept that these questions can't be answered. I accept the truth of this retort. However, I offer them the prediction that animals that tend toward behaviours such as theirs will get selected out of existence a whole lot sooner than those that don't. It's a purely empirical hypothesis so there is nothing more that can be said on the matter - and so it mercifully ends the conversation.