Re: PHIL: Re: low profile

Michael Butler (
Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:53:15 PST

What I meant to suggest with the 'Anvil of Stars' reference and
comments on 'What's natural life?' is that having superhuman
intelligences engaging in contests with active deception, means that
there's nothing much from a merely human, still 20th century, point of
view that could possibly falsify the core theory. Ditto for God TOE.
What could possibly be acccepted as conclusive evidence against it?

I have no bone to pick on that score.

But people bat Willam of Ockham's rule of thumb for *THEOLOGICAL*
arguments (check the source or a decent historical survey some time;
the guy was a churchmouse as most academics had to be at the time)
as if it were some sort of law of nature.

It's not. It's just a heuristic. And, as with many heuristics, it
has domains of applicability and domains of inapplicability.
And when it doesn't work, if you're staring at the ruler instead of
the thin being measured, you should be prepared for disappointment.

I like falsifiability just fine. It is a concept that is 'way 'way
newer than Occam's Razor.