On 4/30/14, 5:52 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
Real difference requires two things: a conceivable test that could be run, and
an observable difference we would expect to see.
Real difference means there is a potential test which would show this
difference. If inquiry lasts long enough the test will become
conceivable then executable, but in the mean time any real difference is
having its so far unconfirmable effect.
With no positive test results there is no reason to believe there is a
difference except for the reason of pure hope, i.e., James's Will to
Believe. But what drives this will? Is it the same thing that makes
abductions correct more often than chance allows?
Saying "With no positive test results there is no reason to believe,"
appears, on its surface, very rough and shoddy to me. Well before a
concrete peer-reviewable test is run the inquirer runs many deductions
and inductions in his head. These proto-tests, filling up a whole
spectrum ranging from the obvious, those at the fore-front of the mind,
to the occult, those way at the back of the mind, are all assessed by
the person and guide his actions.
So, does this potential test need to be so obvious that it can
potentially be peer reviewable? Or, are its results sufficient even if
its greatest possibility is that it can only reside in the occult end of
our reasoning?
(I had the Peirce-Jastrow experiment in the back of my mind while
writing this. Maybe there's potential to use their conclusions to
support or detract from my point.)
--
Matt
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
