Relativist

We can't "know" there's more (in the strict sense of "knowlwdge"). But we innately have a sense that there is a world beyond ourselves, and this const...

I believe you're referring to the PAP: Principle of Alternative Possibilities, which suggests a rewind could have produced a different choice. But LFW...

As far as I can tell, consciousness (=experiencing being conscious) entails the set of sensory sensations, thoughts and feelings one has in the presen...

If "free will" just means that we make some choices without being forced by something external to ourselves, then indeed we have free will. If "free w...

Why must there be a reason?

It's at least logically possible the universe is finite to the past, and therefore closed to the past. My personal opinion is that this is indeed the ...

Gödel proved that any mathematical system is necessarily incomplete, but this does not imply the "universe is open". Given the fact that there is a un...

In , you seem to be suggesting that saying "I think X" is equivalent to saying "I believe X". But then in , you seem to be implying the "I think X" an...

It's not weak at all. It's referred to as existing "immanently". In metaphysics, an immanent property is one that exists within an object itself, as o...

"All powerful"? Whatever gives you that idea? According to the theory, laws are relations between types of objects. These relations exist when and whe...

That is not the view of law realists. They suggests there to be an ontological basis for the observed regularities. Example: two objects with opposite...

That's pretty much correct.

No. The hypothesis I discussed is that laws of nature are ontological. I distinguish laws of nature from so-called "laws of physics". These are, at wo...

I'm trying to make sense of this in a 2 step process, because it avoids directly leaping from a set of evidence of past things to claims about the fut...

That doesn't falsify anything I said. My belief in laws of nature is justified by being the best explanation of observed regularities (if you disagree...

This objection falls away when we consider what a law is, and how we arrive at the hypothesis. What we observe directly (past and present) is causatio...

The concept of plenary powers isn't new. For example, a President has the plenary power to grant pardons over federal crimes. But you're right, that t...

I infer from the success of physics that there exist laws of nature in our world, many of which are (at least) approximated by physics; laws that nece...

So...she proves something I never disputed. Did you not read the last part of section 1? She says: "Suppose that claims about the past and the present...

:up: :up: :up: :up:

The “presumption of regularity” is long-standing judicial principle that presumes government officials have acted lawfully, properly, and in good fait...

He's an effective propagandist - effective at telling like-minded people what they want to here. It's especially appealing to those who are still in s...

Semantics is important, to ensure points are understood as intended. I notice that the Wikipedia article on justification mentions warrant as "proper"...

Some epistemologists use "warrant" to refer to a justification sufficient for knowledge. The conditions that make it so are open to debate. Neverthele...

Model theory omits a link to ontology. It defines what truth is semantically, but does not relate it to anything in the world. Truthmaker theory does ...

But they don't, really- unless you embrace a "relativist" theory of truth.

No, not to explain induction. Rather, I'm suggesting that the development of a model is rooted in induction. I see a 2 step process: 1) infer elements...

If conforming to a model solves the problem, then simply infer a model on the basis of the constant conjunction of the empirical evidence. Under the f...

Valid deductive arguments are contingent on their premises. The conclusion is only "objectively best" if the argument is sound. Except for arguments w...

Maybe I misunderstand, but you seem to be implying that humans have the magical power to select the objectively best explanation from the third realm ...

Here's your error. The "best" in an IBE is not necesarily warranted (rationally justified). It just means it was chosen as "best" because it was subje...

No. Being warranted means to be rationally justified. A subjective "best" inference may, or may not, be warranted.

"The best" is always the one we accept. But if the ensuing belief is warranted, that's all that matters. There's isn't a recipe for warrant.

Do you agree that inference to the best explanation can warrant a belief? This of course is only if it was done rationally. If so, then explain how th...

You just seem to be objecting to use of the term. Don't use it, if you don't want to. But when I refer to something as a "conspiracy theory", I have a...

I agree, but when that is the case - we aren't warranted in choosing only one of them. But we would be warranted in excluding those that don't fit the...

Absolutely, and I've acknowledged this in several posts. I agree, but it can still be debated as to whether or not one is warranted (rationally justif...

I do mean this broadly, and I don't claim that simply being an "IBE" makes it a justifiable belief. It's reported that Trump has declared Portland Ore...

It frames a discussion. Have you never encountered a guy who makes some assertion, then says, "prove me wrong"? This establishes an unreachable goalpo...

I agree. We're discussing IBEs, and doing them rationally. Two reasonable people could reach different conclusions on the same data, because subjectiv...

I haven't gotten something across to you guys some of my basic contentions: 1) Most of our beliefs are established as subjective inferences to best ex...

No, because we're employing reason to guide the choice, not just what feels "best". We're evaluating the evidence, considering plausibility, reflectin...

In answer to the question: we could dispense with using the term "conspiracy theory" entirely, and simply apply good epistemic judgement to any theory...

Then appreciate how this relates to what I'm saying about IBEs. My explanation is "better". I don't have an "anti-conspiratorial stance". Conspiracies...

What's your point? Are you just acknowledging what I said about background beliefs being involved in our epistemic judgements?

Suppose you can't find your car keys, one morning. What possibly happened to them? Did it fall into an interdimensional portal; did a poltergeist hide...

No. Rather, abduction would tend to rule out theories that are commonly called conspiracy theories, but it's irrelevant whether they've been labelled ...

My point is that: 1) we can draw some conclusions based on the information that IS available; 2) some conclusions are more reasonable than others; 3) ...

Shots were definitely fired, an audience member was killed, and so was the shooter. The shooter had the actual gun. Trump's injury was minor -evident ...

There are elementary errors being made. Two in particular: bias and too little evidence. A dearth of evidence implies a plethora of possibilities. Bia...