Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
1. One must have ontological commitments to all entities that are indispensable to the best scientific theories, and to those entities only (commonly referred to as "all and only").
2. Mathematical entities are indispensable to the best scientific theories. Therefore,
3. One must have ontological commitments to mathematical entities.
What is wrong with this argument?
>>
>>8394341
Does literally anybody give a fuck? I seriously doubt it
>>
>>8394355
the people who are interested in these kinds of problems, I imagine
>>
Where did you come up with 1? Why do I have an ontological commitment to science, which by the way, is an epistemological study?
>>
>>8394365
Because scientific theories are confirmed in a holistic fashion, there is no justification for excluding any entity referred to in a theory well-verified by experiment. Am we to deny the existence of particles or fields because we can't directly observe them?
>>
>>8394385
*are
>>
>>8394385
I challenge the ontological realness of anything produced by science. Science is concerned with knowing how things work, not what they are in a literal sense. People who don't understand empiricism irk me horribly.
>>
>>8394341
equivocation. what are the best scientific theories? are they all the scientific theories or only the ones included for the argument as the best? also, must? why must? seems the phrasing is off which leads to equivocation.
valid argument, if unsound.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1