By: Aaron
I neglected to include the reference to William James in my reference list: James, W. (1907), ‘‘A Word More About Truth,’’ in W. James, The Meaning of Truth, Longmans, Green: 136–161. Apologies.
View ArticleBy: Andrew Brenner
For what it’s worth, I *will* read this when I get a chance, but it’s rather long, and I haven’t had an opportunity. (Just in case you were afraid this post was going to be ignored.)
View ArticleBy: Aaron
Andrew, I anticipated little to no response to this post, primarily because of its dry nature, so if no one comments, I am fine with that. But! I welcome your critique (there is much to criticize) and...
View ArticleBy: Amy Wuest
Great post, Aaron. I just read you’re draft rather quickly, but I have two comments, neither is substantial. But perhaps they might be helpful. 1.) You might want to read Frank’s “Modern Science and...
View ArticleBy: Aaron
Amy, Thank you for your response. On your recommendation, I obtained a copy of Frank’s ‘Modern Science and Its Philosophy’ today and will give the relevant papers a read. I agree that there is much to...
View ArticleBy: Andrew Brenner
Hey Aaron, I just have one remark. At the end of your introductory paragraphs you write ” In the end, the success of the CI may be seen as a practical justification of a general and broad...
View ArticleBy: Aaron
Yes, are certainly correct that I must provide much more detail here. I wonder, though, what, in your view, might be problematic about drawing the credential connection between CI and verificationism...
View ArticleBy: John
Please find some references which give a unique Understanding of Quantum Reality. Reality & The Middle via http://www.dabase.org/s-atruth.htm Einstein Meets Jesus...
View ArticleBy: Aaron
Thank you, John. It really was only a matter of time before someone introduced quantum woo into the post.
View ArticleBy: Andrew Brenner
As you know, I’ve made some remarks on a very similar subject in a post on this blog. However, I’m open to the possibility of a “credential connection between CI and verificationism and...
View ArticleBy: Andrew Brenner
Hmm, I should really proof read these comments before I post them. I *meant* to write “… if only because verificationism is manifestly false anyway and I’m not strongly wedded to realism.”
View ArticleBy: Aaron
Re: ‘… verificationism is manifestly false,” Yes, right, so this is the standard spiel we hear after Passmore and Plantinga, but that this spiel holds for the rather more sophisticated versions of...
View ArticleBy: Amy Wuest
Aaron, Sorry for the late reply. Well, in fact this is no reply at all. Rather, I just checked the blog and must now formulate a reply. Anyway, expect something in the coming days. Amy
View ArticleBy: Thomas
I’m going to take issue with your statement that the Copenhagen Interpretation is “the most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics among physics today”. Some physicists may even think this, but...
View ArticleBy: Thomas
An edit to the above: my statement that the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics “is about as far away from the Copenhagen Interpretation as one can imagine” is clearly overstating the case....
View Article
