Norton believes that all thought arguments can be reformulated (and function) as arguments based on empirical premises reach a conclusion.

How does Hume’s account of thought experiments differ from Norton’s. Are they similar?


closed as off-topic by Conifold, Frank Hubeny, Eliran, virmaior, Dcleve Jan 14 at 21:45

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question is missing context. Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Conifold, Frank Hubeny, Eliran, virmaior
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.