Skip to main content

exotic vs plausible counterexamples

After I listened to a philosopher bring up a thought experiment involving the Star-Trek teleporter thought experiments, it occurred to me that less exotic thought experiments are preferable to those involving processes that only happen in science fiction.  In fact, I'll illustrate my point by using nothing other than a (rather mundane) thought experiment.

Suppose two philosophers are debating what is for philosophers a hot topic, be it personal identity, divine foreknowledge, the existence of moral absolutes or whatever.  Each tries to refute the other by coming up with a counterexample.  One of them uses a very exotic example of something that happens only in science fiction and whose possibility is doubtful; the other uses an example taken from every day life. Suppose also that each of these counterexamples seems to uncover a weakness in the other's point of view.

Other things being equal, the more mundane counterexample counts for more, because it is more consonant with Ockham's razor than the exotic one.  That is, the mundane one only asks us to consider a scenario that could easily have happened;  the exotic one requires that we believe in the possibility of what may well be impossible (as in teletransporters). Such thought experiments do not suffice to provide a basis for criticizing someone else's beliefs.

A counter-counterexample.  Suppose that teletransporters are impossible: how would you devise an experiment to determine whether or not that is so.  If you cannot devise such an experiment, then neither can you draw a definitive conclusions that presume such teletransporters are possible.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more