[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Possibly . If you can give one (preferably many) examples of when one of two indestinguishable theories has been shown to be correct then you would have some evidence as to how to form beliefs about them.

I'm saying they're are no such examples (logically there never could be) and hence there is no meta-evidence analagous to things falling.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't show you any such examples without circularity, but I don't have to, and that was the point of my "things falling" example. One of the points of theory is to be able to generalize! In my analogy, the actual objects dropped match up with theories that we actually can independently distinguish. The theory this induces, All Things Drop, matches up with the No Supernatural Explanations theory. The new type of object that we have never observed before matches up with "indistinguishable" theories...

[/ QUOTE ]
Lets have a go at making this precise.

T1, T2 are distingusishable on the basis of evidence and we have found that the true one requires nothing supernatural

same goes for T3, T4 ...

generalisation

For all x,y: If Tx, Ty are distingusishable on the basis of evidence then the true one requires nothing supernatural.

I think that's analogous to your objects dropping but its not the result you need.

Somehow you have to make a leap to claims about which of two indistinguishable theories are true.

chez