Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante
The bolded text above represent precisely the sort of a priori assertions this whole process is meant to avoid.
You aren't saying that you've never seen any evidence that Bob Hope could travel through time; you're saying that such evidence does not exist and therefore anyone who looks for it cannot possibly find it. You are effectively ending the process of a posteriori resolution with an a priori assertion as to what the final resolution will be.
|
I think that's what you would like to have read rather than what I actually said. If you read on you will notice that I said that in "who-knows-how-many-years that truth will perhaps be revised", meaning that such evidence can of course exist. If I wrote it badly (woudn't be the first time) then my bad but the comment about revisable truth should make up for any poor phrasings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante
The entire point of attempting an a posteriori resolution is that you don't already know what you will find. The Greek who goes searching for evidence of Zeus and his lightning bolts is pursuing an a posteriori resolution. The man who declares a priori that there is no such evidence to be found is not.
As it happens, I suspect you're right in that these searchers will not find evidence that you or I would find persuasive. The point is, even if the Greek finds no persuasive evidence for his claim Zeus' wrath, he can certainly go about looking for it in a manner just as logical as the as the one I would use in pursuing my more mundane Bob Hope question.
|
This is a non-starter, Dilettante. Every time you include Zeus you already base the quest on an a priori. I'm sure whatever claim anyone can come up with about Zeus and his divine powers can be persuasive and appealing - otherwise, religions would have gone away overnight - but that's not the issue. The issue is the truth of claims.