〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

You can unironically hold this view pretty rigorously

But the fact that most of it is consistent with one big thing off is perhaps more unsettling

Is most of it consistent though

I would say that x and ~x is false is a universal truth at first order

Dialetheism would like to have a word with you Yeah I guess I have two things in mind: (1) the possibility that the world is “dappled” (i.e., there’s no unified picture to be had) (2) many cases of inconsistency in science that aren’t obviously resolvable

Sure but I feel that the fact there exists consistency in nature should load your prior, since that’s al we have to go off

I definitely think there’s room for a good induction there, which is why I’d retreat to a similar appeal to the lack of unity between the sciences and between the subfields within each science (which gets you a more modest result)

I can see how that could be made consistent, but I’m not sure I see how it could be made probable