DarkSkyKnight
DarkSkyKnight t1_j0v4ul9 wrote
Reply to comment by FindorKotor93 in How to Assess Your Own Beliefs: Take Ideas Seriously by DirtyOldPanties
Narcissism is really being overused these days 🙄
DarkSkyKnight t1_j045ku7 wrote
Reply to comment by ChrisTR15 in I too made a factory gif recently by Owolfs
Shouldn't bother debating vegans.
DarkSkyKnight t1_j02dyqc wrote
Reply to comment by Omnibeneviolent in I too made a factory gif recently by Owolfs
This is one of the most ethical ways of killing male chicks as the grinders are fast enough they would only be conscious of their deaths for a very short time.
DarkSkyKnight t1_iyz6pft wrote
Reply to comment by ward8620 in Causal Explanations Considered Harmful: On the logical fallacy of causal projection by owlthatissuperb
Put more simply certain mathematical assumptions required for causality cannot be justified from the data alone; it has to be argued.
DarkSkyKnight t1_itxjy3h wrote
Reply to comment by zhoushmoe in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
I really don't know if you're genuinely asking, but linking a possible chain of inspirations through wiki pages is not a rigorous demonstration of their claim.
DarkSkyKnight t1_itwf17l wrote
Reply to comment by ridgecoyote in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
His (implied) claim that set theories start from empirical observations.
DarkSkyKnight t1_itvwpse wrote
Reply to comment by Kyocus in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
This is suggestive evidence, but you would have to do better than that to demonstrate your claim.
DarkSkyKnight t1_irkncx6 wrote
Reply to comment by JoTheRenunciant in Quantum philosophy: 4 ways physics will challenge your reality by ADefiniteDescription
I think true incommensurability is in practice a milder factor (not that it isn't important) than what may be implied by the examples in Kuhn or found in other examples like Boyle and Hobbes. IMO it isn't simply a difference in world view. Often there are real economic concerns that lead to disagreements or outright hostility. A massive scientific revolution doesn't just demand a change in worldview but also has the potential of sinking your years of training and requiring you to train for years to get up to speed once again. It might even cost you your career. There's also the sheer laziness factor in that it's convenient to stick to the paradigm that everyone is familiar with.
I have found that many scientists actually understand different worldviews and see where others are coming from. But it's usually more convenient to stick to the paradigm. Also this sub isn't indicative of what scientists think.
DarkSkyKnight t1_jc68m1d wrote
Reply to comment by Seek_Equilibrium in A philosophical dive into “Everything Everywhere All at Once” by Azmisov
Could just limit ourselves to the space of measurable sets. Seems like the natural approach since we're dealing with notions like "most" (almost), "frequent" (probability) here. And it doesn't seem immediately clear why we would need unmeasurable sets for the multiverse.