rangrz
Bluelighter
^
I almost stray into the same issue as your dad, applecore. Except I flip on little thing and it gives me tonnes of strong and unpopular opinions.
I decide to stick to the most parsimonious explanation that works based on the best available empirical knowledge. Any inferences I draw are held up rigorous formal methods and logic. Abstract philosophy with some tangible consequences (ethics? epistemology? etc) I work from the same angles. Any claims for which there is no empirical evidence, can not be falsified/verified, are contrary to logic/analytically false, or similar wanks I just immediately dismiss as nonsense.
But I have few opinions... mostly I just heuristics and inductive conclusions based on observation "Well, it happened the previous 999,999,999 times and has never been reported to happen differently, so this is probably always what happens. But if I see it go different, I'll revisit it."
I almost stray into the same issue as your dad, applecore. Except I flip on little thing and it gives me tonnes of strong and unpopular opinions.
I decide to stick to the most parsimonious explanation that works based on the best available empirical knowledge. Any inferences I draw are held up rigorous formal methods and logic. Abstract philosophy with some tangible consequences (ethics? epistemology? etc) I work from the same angles. Any claims for which there is no empirical evidence, can not be falsified/verified, are contrary to logic/analytically false, or similar wanks I just immediately dismiss as nonsense.
But I have few opinions... mostly I just heuristics and inductive conclusions based on observation "Well, it happened the previous 999,999,999 times and has never been reported to happen differently, so this is probably always what happens. But if I see it go different, I'll revisit it."