Timothy Bayless

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@FrancisBeckwith I hear you and that is a wise move. I do the same for the same reason.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@FrancisBeckwith Have you tried installing the Teams app on your smartphone? It should cover you in those instances.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Ok, if you weren’t talking about our discussion, but generally about others, I’m sorry. But why make such accusations? I’m not guilty of that, so why bring up your low views about someone else, justified or not? You’re dealing with me, not others, here. Let’s just stick to facts

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Not only can we not test ATM, we can’t test it *ever*—at least not by observation. How could one ever have any observation that would falsify, say, that 2+2=4? Or non-contradiction? Or that causation is real? Or that there are other minds?

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea No. The dozen or so interpretations of QM are indeed empirically equivalent. No observations can adjudicate between them even in principle. They’re adjudicated solely on apriori considerations.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea While there is debate about whether we can know this, I’m using it as example of empirically equivalent apriori claim. Science itself depends on apriori, non-empirically justified, philosophical commitments.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Still another: the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is the right one.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea I’m not sure what you mean by this.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Another: that one’s sense experiences are veridical.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea You got it. Here’s a famous one: the results of scientific experiments should be reported honestly.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Do you not think there is apriori knowledge? In any case, we don’t test the truth of apriori beliefs in the sense of subjecting them to observation, if that’s what you mean by “test.” In principle, you can’t because they are empirically equivalent.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea No, but the point is that they’re justified indepdently of observation. They justified non-empirically.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Mathematical, logical, and certain other propositions are known apriori. We don’t justify them aposteriori—by observation. How could we? Any observation and theory development we could do would rely on those very things we are trying to prove. It’d be circular or self-dfting.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea 1/2 No, I was making sure I didn’t misrepresent you. I have no interest in that. It’s why I took the time to ask.

[Timothy Bayless @TimothyBayless]

@DruidWork @Filoremy @will_gildea Humans created the descriptions. No one denies that. But our descriptions refer to ways the world actually is, objectively, in itself.