The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Chat]firmation Holism
Winky
rRegistered User regular
rRegistered User regular
Arguments involving underdetermination attempt to show that there is no reason to believe some conclusion because it is underdetermined by the evidence. Then, if the evidence available at a particular time can be equally well explained by at least one other hypothesis, there is no reason to believe it rather than the equally supported rival (although many other hypotheses may still be eliminated).
Because arguments involving underdetermination involve both a claim about what the evidence is and that such evidence underdetermines a conclusion, it is often useful to separate these two claims within the underdetermination argument as follows:
- All the available evidence of a certain type underdetermines which of several rival conclusions is correct.
- Only evidence of that type is relevant to believing one of these conclusions.
- Therefore, there is no evidence for believing one among the rival conclusions.
The first premise makes the claim that a theory is underdetermined. The second says that rational decision (i.e. using available evidence) depends upon insufficient evidence.
The problem of non-referring names is an old puzzle in philosophy, which Quine captured when he wrote,
"A curious thing about the ontological problem is its simplicity. It can be put into three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: 'What is there?' It can be answered, moreover, in a word—'Everything'—and everyone will accept this answer as true."[17]
More directly, the controversy goes,
"How can we talk about Pegasus? To what does the word 'Pegasus' refer? If our answer is, 'Something,' then we seem to believe in mystical entities; if our answer is, 'nothing', then we seem to talk about nothing and what sense can be made of this? Certainly when we said that Pegasus was a mythological winged horse we make sense, and moreover we speak the truth! If we speak the truth, this must be truth about something. So we cannot be speaking of nothing."
Quine resists the temptation to say that non-referring terms are meaningless for reasons made clear above. Instead he tells us that we must first determine whether our terms refer or not before we know the proper way to understand them.
Quine's ontological relativism (evident in the passage above) led him to agree with Pierre Duhem that for any collection of empirical evidence, there would always be many theories able to account for it. However, Duhem's holism is much more restricted and limited than Quine's. For Duhem, underdetermination applies only to physics or possibly to natural science, while for Quine it applies to all of human knowledge. Thus, while it is possible to verify or falsify whole theories, it is not possible to verify or falsify individual statements. Almost any particular statement can be saved, given sufficiently radical modifications of the containing theory. For Quine, scientific thought forms a coherent web in which any part could be altered in the light of empirical evidence, and in which no empirical evidence could force the revision of a given part.
+5
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Like go home.
Now let's look at the other areas of the internet
NNID: Hakkekage
Chat> going home
Vanguard have you listened to this lecture?
http://ludix.com/moriarty/psalm46.html
maybe Dionysus or something? I'd have to do research
what you sporting right now champ?
full chub? half chub? that kinda tweener where it's heavy enough to club someone but still too floppy for insertion?
Maybe they just think about him on Harry Potter's birthday
WHAT'S GOOD, MILEY
Fine Bros at 13,865,300 subscribers
Not a death blow but by all means a significant drop.
ugggghhhhhh
here's my branching day decision tree
The ending of that lecture reads exactly like the script to Dear Esther
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
what about days with only 28 or 30 days
*waggles feet*
For some reason I thought someone batsignaled you on that earlier brief Quine-related convo
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
It was Dr Shapiro over in Beverly Hills.
...
The more significant damage is going to happen when this lawyer destroys all of their existing trademarks and bleeds them for legal fees as they defend indefensible things
I like the article name "Attorneys React: The Fine Bros REACT Trademark"
you wrote a long dissertation about god and society moved on without you.
No I get it. This is brilliant.
A++ response.
There's a good chance those ~1.5 million subscribers are more meaningful than the other 13 though. The 13 could just be people that hit subscribe and never really meaningfully view their videos. The 1.5 million could be a bulk of their current subscribers that keep on the up and up of the media the view.
that's snow magic. A frostomancer can use it like mana
I guess this means god isn't real
oh cpt my cpt
NNID: Hakkekage
considering the number keeps dropping I think they have more active subscribers than that.
but this is a good point.
How do I acquire this skill
Oh I'm sure. A good way to measure that is check how many 'liked/disliked' a video a few weeks back. That might give you a good indication of their current subscriber count. Though it might be skewed now that this shit is hitting the fan and people are going through and disliking them (I don't know I haven't checked because I don't personally care that much).
They get their money not from views but from ad revenue
Advertisers hate this kind of controversy