A thought from dinner: you'll never hear a philosopher say "let's just agree to disagree," but perhaps "I guess it's an empirical matter" can serve a similar role? This suggestion has one minor flaw: the cause of one's disagreement is sometimes very clearly not an empirical matter. So one probably couldn't get away with saying so. Still, I'm tempted to try. Next time Jack and I argue for hours over the nature of identity and whether it has any metaphysical significance, I'll have to close with, "well, I guess it's an empirical question..." (Alas, I don't like my chances of keeping a straight face!)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
The problem with empirical eveidence is that the evidence is not limited to flaw's. Empirical evidence is derived from experience/observation, and dismisses theory as well as logic. Human experience/observation, which is imperfect by design. And how can you construct a sound argument without using logic? In terms of identity I would think that you would have to rely on both empirical evidence as well as proven theory's in order to establish a logical conclusion.
Instead of "let's just agree to disagree" someone once recommended to me the following - "let's just shut up".
Post a Comment