Timeline for Is argument that two theories are equally valid because I am not an expert "argument ad ignoratum"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5, 2013 at 23:50 | comment | added | labreuer | @Nat: perhaps you would like looking at prior probability, which talks about what we should think before we have any evidence. I think one must choose a prior based on a purpose, for when we say that A is 'better than' B, we almost always measure by whether A accomplishes some purpose better than B. Hypothetical imperatives are made 'binding' by purpose. The attempt to find a categorical imperative of any sort has not met with what many consider 'success'. :-) | |
| Dec 5, 2013 at 23:16 | comment | added | Nat | Nice addition. My mate is not actually going for "equally valid", but more along the lines of "I have no facts to evaluate the arguments therefore both are equally unknowable". A subtle distinction, but he is trying to be annoying or "truthful" as he calls it, he holds no belief as such. I guess if we were arguing something such as global warming caused by nature vs man his position would be more understandable. | |
| Dec 5, 2013 at 21:17 | history | answered | labreuer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |