On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a theory on something > other than "it's own terms". I think Craig might accept Bruno's argument > as valid but regard it as a reductio against saying "yes" to the doctor. I > have criticized it for it's seeming lack of predictive power - a problem > with all theories of everythingism so far, and also string theory.
But surely a reductio entails accepting an argument in principle and then showing that it leads to a contradiction in its own terms? The MGA, or Maudlin's argument, are of such a form (whether or not you agree they succeed). Craig has already said that he accepts the form of Bruno's argument, but not its premise: i.e. what is entailed by the acceptance of a digital brain substitution. This is certainly saying no to the doctor, but it's more like the opposite of a reductio. It's just a bald assertion that any possible success of the argument isn't worth the cost of accepting the premise. That could indeed turn out to be the case, but it isn't in itself an argument. Your own criticism, by contrast, can only succeed by accepting the argument in its own terms and then showing that in this form it fails to satisfy certain desirable criteria, such as predictive power. That's not a reductio either, although of course it's a perfectly valid objection to raise. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
