There's an empirical claim that could be tested well i mean it's hard. There's a kind of sort of core set of examples which people will tend to find plausible and then it's just how far can you expand that rather than whether or not there are any people don't usually expand it all the way to like the fundamental forces of the physical or the cosmos or something like that. Usually if you look out this is the thing for all of the kind of cultural controversy around it often not always but often if you look at the kind of claims standpoint of his mind which is interested in it's usually sort of independently plausible.
Everybody talks about the truth, but nobody does anything about it. And to be honest, how we talk about truth — what it is, and how to get there — can be a little sloppy at times. Philosophy to the rescue! I had a very ambitious conversation with Liam Kofi Bright, starting with what we mean by “truth” (correspondence, coherence, pragmatist, and deflationary approaches), and then getting into the nitty-gritty of how we actually discover it. There’s a lot to think about once we take a hard look at how science gets done, how discoveries are communicated, and what different kinds of participants can bring to the table.
Support Mindscape on Patreon.
Liam Kofi Bright received his Ph.D. in Logic, Computation and Methodology from Carnegie Mellon University. He is currently on the faculty of the London School of Economics in the Department of Philosophy, Logic, and the Scientific Method. He has worked on questions concerning peer review and fraud in scientific communities, intersectionality, logical empiricism, and Africana philosophy. He is well-known on Twitter as the Last Positivist.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.