Since I wasn’t aware of any warning of the closing of the topic I am posting this as my conclusion to that thread.
Agreed.
I think here the main problem is attempts to import from physics its meanings of words, which are arguably incoherently redefined, as well as scientific methodology into what essentially amounts to a discussion that is mainly metaphysical in nature where non-deductive inferences from relevant evidence are employed. So neither scientific methodology nor the redefined terms of physics are relevant, but rather philosophical rules of inference are.
I never accused anyone of secretly being a logical positivists. I’m only suggesting that there are subtle lingering aspects of logical positivism that others are unknowingly being influenced by. But otherwise, though up to this point in the discussion I’m inclined to disagree, I am open to the possibility that what you’re suggesting may be the case.
That may be the case. But I suspect it is not. I’ve tried several time to express what I’m saying in different ways without much success. I suspect that it has to do with a lack of being able to distinguish between the scientific and the philosophical aspects of my position on the part of those who still don’t get what I’ve expressed in several different ways now.
I don’t profess to be an expert in any way, but I do sense that what might be a more productive suggestion is if those who can’t seem to follow what I’m saying take some time to brush up on their philosophy and review things like what the rules of inference are especially for nondeductive arguments, and work on being able to recognize where the limits of science are, and particularly when things have moved outside of the realm of physics into the realm of metaphysics.
What do you mean by supported scientific conclusions? The question presently under discussion is what is causing clock rates to change. As far as I can tell there is no unquestionably conclusive scientific explanation.
The only explanation that I know of on offer by science is that time itself is slowing down which cannot be correlated to any empirical evidence and is supported by only one piece of evidence to speak of. To say I’m in denial because I don’t agree with that explanation is just to say that it’s not OK to challenge a scientific claim because it is a scientific claim, which is just circular.
The discussion is about explanations of things which cannot be empirically verified. The only way to reach a conclusion in such matters is by nondeductive reasoning, i.e., following the evidence where it leads. And I have given an evidential case for my position already more than once.
Obviously I think the evidence leads in a different direction than you do. But you seem to be saying I have no warrant for challenging empirically unverifiable scientific claims. How do you justify that position other than be in denial about the fact that the claims in question cannot be empirically verified?
Observation is conventionally associated with sight. The other senses would conventionally be associated with detection. Detection doesn’t involve sight. But it’s kind of hard to observe something without sight, at least in the conventional sense of the word.