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

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

Daniel Dennett, disqualifying qualia, softening up the hard problem, fullness of vacuity, dysfunctional functionalism

Around track 2 of disc 9 of Intuition Pumps , Dennett offers what I would call an argument from vacuity.  He argues that David Chalmers unwittingly plays a magic trick on himself and others by placing a set of issues under the one umbrella called the "hard problem of consciousness." None of these issues is really , in Dennett's opinion, a hard problem.  But in naming them thus, Chalmers (says Dennett) is like a magician who seems to be playing the same card trick over and over again, but is really playing several different ones.  In this analogy, expert magicians watch what they think is the same trick played over and over again.  They find it unusually difficult to determine which trick he is playing because they take these performances as iterations of the same trick when each is  in fact different from the one that came before.  Furthermore, each of the tricks that he plays is actually an easy one, so it is precisely because they are looki...
Post a Comment
Read more