Note that I explicitly removed the word “epiphenomenalism” from my quote, because I didn’t want to make claims about it. My point was that if you started with the assumption that X is unfalsifiable and derived that Y is true, then I don’t care about Y.
Where did your other comment go? I think it was a more accurate counter to my point.
Ah, ok. I changed it because I thought I misread you.
Anyway, yeah, if Bob has a valid argument against (2) - if he can prove that X is compatible with all evidence so far—that seems useful and non-vacuous to me. I’ve edited the post to make this clearer.
Note that I explicitly removed the word “epiphenomenalism” from my quote, because I didn’t want to make claims about it. My point was that if you started with the assumption that X is unfalsifiable and derived that Y is true, then I don’t care about Y.
Where did your other comment go? I think it was a more accurate counter to my point.
Ah, ok. I changed it because I thought I misread you.
Anyway, yeah, if Bob has a valid argument against (2) - if he can prove that X is compatible with all evidence so far—that seems useful and non-vacuous to me. I’ve edited the post to make this clearer.