But you can absolutely gather tons and tons of relevant and reliable evidence that allows you to have high confidence.
So when you say “you definitely can”..?
I would be interested in your explanation of how you can have any idea what you would have thought of otherwise. As far as I’m aware it’s a pretty basic and obvious truth of empirical inquiry that you really can’t make almost any reliable causal/counterfactual observations about yourself at all, for self evident methodological reasons. Why do you think this is an exception? And why is your confidence so high that you describe it as “definite”?
Why do you think that “it’s a pretty basic and obvious truth of empirical inquiry that you really can’t make almost any reliable causal/counterfactual observations about yourself at all, for self evident methodological reasons”?
EDIT: this was more dickish on reread than I intended; sorry. Here, at least, is a gesture in the right direction, but I don’t have time to lay out a full proof:
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type A
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type A
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type A
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type A
[LEARNS NEW SKILL OR TECHNIQUE]
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type B
Conclusion: “It’s reasonable to believe that without this skill, I would have had another thought of type A.”
Especially if one observes this exact same pattern in multiple people across multiple contexts.
So you mean that you have a different thought in a given context than you have previously?
But of course, much else will have necessarily changed from previously. There are so many variables, and so much reason to suspect bias/placebo/any number of other self-deceptive influences. I just don’t think you can identify the cause as confidently as you claim (although I’ll concede some to your last sentence- that the more often this happens, the more justifiably you can attribute it to the intervention in question).
And as for the burden of proof- you not only made a claim, you used the word ‘definitely’. Why wouldn’t you have to support that claim? I feel like the whole concept of ‘burden of proof’ has become very counter-productive in internet discourse. Time spent arguing about who has the burden of proof would be much better spent on making arguments for our respective positions.
But what I’m saying is that the fact isn’t observable. You can’t know what you would have thought of otherwise.
You definitely can.
Or rather, to be more precise, rounding off a question like that to “yes” or “no” is itself the mistake, fallacy-of-the-gray style.
Sure, you can’t know for sure what you definitely would have thought of otherwise.
But you can absolutely gather tons and tons of relevant and reliable evidence that allows you to have high confidence.
So when you say “you definitely can”..?
I would be interested in your explanation of how you can have any idea what you would have thought of otherwise. As far as I’m aware it’s a pretty basic and obvious truth of empirical inquiry that you really can’t make almost any reliable causal/counterfactual observations about yourself at all, for self evident methodological reasons. Why do you think this is an exception? And why is your confidence so high that you describe it as “definite”?
I’m not accepting the burden of proof here.
Why do you think that “it’s a pretty basic and obvious truth of empirical inquiry that you really can’t make almost any reliable causal/counterfactual observations about yourself at all, for self evident methodological reasons”?
EDIT: this was more dickish on reread than I intended; sorry. Here, at least, is a gesture in the right direction, but I don’t have time to lay out a full proof:
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type A
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type A
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type A
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type A
[LEARNS NEW SKILL OR TECHNIQUE]
[STIMULUS]
Response: has thought of type B
Conclusion: “It’s reasonable to believe that without this skill, I would have had another thought of type A.”
Especially if one observes this exact same pattern in multiple people across multiple contexts.
So you mean that you have a different thought in a given context than you have previously?
But of course, much else will have necessarily changed from previously. There are so many variables, and so much reason to suspect bias/placebo/any number of other self-deceptive influences. I just don’t think you can identify the cause as confidently as you claim (although I’ll concede some to your last sentence- that the more often this happens, the more justifiably you can attribute it to the intervention in question).
And as for the burden of proof- you not only made a claim, you used the word ‘definitely’. Why wouldn’t you have to support that claim? I feel like the whole concept of ‘burden of proof’ has become very counter-productive in internet discourse. Time spent arguing about who has the burden of proof would be much better spent on making arguments for our respective positions.