[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Attempt 2 at a response:

For every theory, there exists another theory (an infinity of them, actually) that is indistinguishable based on the evidence. To accept any theory at all, one needs some sort of inductive bias (which means what it sounds like), the classic example being Occam's razor.

My point is that there may be ways of learning, based on evidence, good inductive biases. Obviously relying on evidence must end at some level, though, or there would be infinite regress.


[/ QUOTE ]
Its true that if you are to distinguish between the theories that you need some method of doing so but if the theories don't make different claims about the world then we it may be that they can't be distinguished between.

So we end up using something like Ockhams razor but there's plenty of problems in deciding which theory is simpler which is why we need evidence, except of course in the cases we are discussing when there isn't any [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

When it comes to god, the theists will always claim god is simpler and ant-theist will always claim no god is simpler. Hence athiesm (as in not believing in god rather than believing in no god).

Its been interesting, thanks.

chez