|
|
|
|
#1
12-16-2005, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evidence and all that
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to clear up some of the recuring issues about evidence. Propositon E. Suppose two theories T1 and T2 do not make different predictions about the world. Then deciding whether to believe T1 or T2 is nothing to do with evidence. [/ QUOTE ] Consider T1: It has never been possible to get to Narnia thorough my bedroom wardrobe. T2: It was possible to get to Nrania through my wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005. By proposition E, deciding between T1 and T2 is not a matter of evidence. Therefore anyone who believes that there has never been a link between my bedroom wardrobe and Narnia doesn't believe this because of the evidence. Note I am fairly sure no one inspected my bedroom wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005. 
|
|
#2
12-16-2005, 07:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evidence and all that
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm trying to clear up some of the recuring issues about evidence. Propositon E. Suppose two theories T1 and T2 do not make different predictions about the world. Then deciding whether to believe T1 or T2 is nothing to do with evidence. [/ QUOTE ] Consider T1: It has never been possible to get to Narnia thorough my bedroom wardrobe. T2: It was possible to get to Nrania through my wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005. By proposition E, deciding between T1 and T2 is not a matter of evidence. Therefore anyone who believes that there has never been a link between my bedroom wardrobe and Narnia doesn't believe this because of the evidence. Note I am fairly sure no one inspected my bedroom wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005. [/ QUOTE ] Precisely. (assuming no possibility of evidence of the past in this case). chez
|
|
#4
12-16-2005, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evidence and all that
[ QUOTE ]
I think people tend to use some sort of indution/deduction combination to handle these sorts of situations. [/ QUOTE ] and I'm showing that either they don't, or its not on the basis of evidence. chez
|
|
#6
12-16-2005, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evidence and all that
[ QUOTE ]
You really like multiple neagtives don't you. I think I remeber a post of yours with a hextruple negative in it [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] This is me trying to be clear [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Anyone you said 'people tend to use ....' I responded with 'either people dont use .... or .... is not on the basis of evidence' I don't think there's a double negative there or I think its not the case that there wasn't no double negative. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] chez
|
|
#7
12-16-2005, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evidence and all that
I think there is a trick you can use
Not A !or Not B = A !or B So how about: People either use some sort of induction deduction combination or they use evidence. Or maybe even If people use some sort of induction deduction combination, then they are not using evidence. (Well clearly they are using evidence, but the evidence is indirect. The evidence they used as a basis for their induction, or the evidence they used as a parameter in their deduction.)
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
