So, we've dispensed with the question of whether he ate eggs on a particular day. But how about something more general like the likelihood he ate eggs on a regular basis? Hypotheses surrounding such a question might include whether domestic chickens (or other egg-laying animals) were common there and then, whether it was in the diet of particular castes, samples from the stomachs or homes of archeological digs only indirectly related to his actual plates, etc. The (approximate) truth of the particular is then metascientifically inferred, right? If so, the question becomes one of bounding scientific results, perhaps of an _order_ (0th, 1st, ..., higher order science).
On 02/23/2016 04:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
I would say that there is no fact of the matter, unless it be the case that you can imagine a series of experiments that would resolve it. The word "experiment", here, is used in the Peircean sense to refer to a planned, logical series of arranged experiences. Digging for Charlemagne's breakfast plates would perhaps be an example of such an "experiment".
You guys just refuse to clip your posts. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
