Subject: Two Thought Experiments Defended

From: [email-masked] (ASP-Disc)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 19:08:43 -0500

From: Bryan Douglas Caplan <[email-masked]>

Ben has given a rather uncharitable interpretation of two thought
experiments that I think are very good indeed.  The first one is
the thought experiment of a color-blind neurologist who acquires
knowledge of color later in life.  And the result is supposed to be
that there is something that she didn't know about color.

Is this just an argument in which the argument consists in denying
the premise?  Not unless it was told poorly.  The argument is supposed
to be that Sally knows everything _physical_ about sight; but there
is (thought experiment time) something she didn't know; therefore there
are non-physical facts.  QED.

Similarly, my argument is not (unless I told is in a sloppy fashion,
which is possible) just a stupid case of contradicting the premise.
Again, let's say that the scientists have equations for the behavior
of fundamental particles.  And yet even if they have that equation,
I can contradict their predictions.  Therefore my behavior is not
determined by the laws governing my constituent, physical particles.
Again, QED.

Why should "thought experiment" be an oxymoron?  Only if you think that
experience is the only source of knowledge of the real world.  Some of
us, however, believe that pure thought is a second and powerful
conduit to insight into the real world.  Even if you disagree, where
is the oxymoron in that?
     --Bryan