From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 27 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> D  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> No, my statement does not say I have to refuse anything. Yes, I cannot   
   >>>> see x-rays, so for me, day to day, they do not exist. However... and   
   >>>> this is an important however... the empirical, measurable effects of   
   >>>> x-rays, is something I can see or notice, and that is why they are   
   >>>> "A-OK" in my book! =)   
   >>>   
   >>> Oh and I forgot to mention, this is begging the question. If they don't   
   >>> exist, how can they have measurable effects? You don't know what causes   
   >>> the effects. You decided to believe what you read in a book.   
   >>   
   >> Nope... I can be very empirical about the effects, while being   
   >> agnostic about the underlying causes. Check out the empirical adequacy   
   >> concept by Bas van Frassen   
   >> (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/construc   
   ive-empiricism/#EmpiAdeq).   
   >>   
   >> No question begging as far as I can see.   
   >   
   > See my later post. But there is an inconsistency, maybe accidental. You   
   > say x-rays don't exist, then you say you are agnostic about them. But   
   > really, for something to cause something else, it must exist. And if you   
   > don't know what causes the effect, then you don't know it is an   
   > x-ray. Nothing in the effect tells you about the cause, because you   
   > can't observe the cause. So it is not cause, it is prediction. It might   
   > as well be clockwork gear wheels.   
   >   
      
   I hope I made myself a bit more clear in the other post. I will not reply   
   here, but suggest we keep it to one thread.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)