4 ms·
I take your point, and now I am trying to decide if the effectiveness of empirical verification, in developing a robust consensus for conclusions so verified, i
by mannykannot 4y ago
I take your point, and now I am trying to decide if the effectiveness of empirical verification, in developing a robust consensus for conclusions so verified, is itself empirical evidence for preferring such conclusions, in domains where such verification is possible?
- svnt 4y agoAll else being equal, isn’t a theory clearly more valuable if its empirical validation is more accessible? Stated inversely and ad absurdum, what use is a theory you can never prove?
- marginalia_nu 4y agoThis just moves the problem to empirically proving that that which is useful is preferable to that which is not. You might say, "Ah, but you can empirically prove that you can do more with that which is useful", which is again true, but then you need to empirically prove that being able to do more is preferable. After several more tedious steps, you end up at a position like "but I prefer this outcome over that", which may absolutely be true, but this is not something you've arrived at through experiments and observation, but is an experience in itself. In the end, the crux is that I can't construct an experiment that proves or disproves what it's like to be you (which is really a re-formulation of the hard problem of consciousness).
- mannykannot 4y agoThis line of argument also applies to any preference for an unverifiable theory, including unverifiable theories where a verifiable one exists. What you are saying here seems to be the hard problem of philosophy, or at least analytic philosophy: how do you determine your axioms?