2 ms·

Well, first, there might be some things about human psychology that we can figure out a priori. Notice I said "might". I don't think it's obvious that we should

Well, first, there might be some things about human psychology that we can figure out a priori. Notice I said "might". I don't think it's obvious that we should rule out the possibility, at the very least. More generally, it's just not true that all scientific work (including physics) is done completely by means of empirical research. See Wikipedia's entry on "Thought experiment" for some good cases[1]. I'm not arguing for or against this particular bit of Nietzsche, but I think HN sometimes overvalues empirical or statistical study above all else. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

onemoreact 15y ago
That Wiki link needs to be editied. EX: consequences:In terms of their theoretical consequences, thought experiments generally: challenge (or even refute) a prevailing theory, often involving the device known as reductio ad absurdum, Hmm, you could replace device with logical falicy but then it does not say what they thought it did...
- BoppreH 15y ago
  Reductio ad absurdum is not necessarily a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum