This matter of prediction is the very key to scientific acceptance. To count prediction as part of philosophy is to discount the very critical element that distinguishes philosophy from science. Philosophy can explain, provide beautiful theories, frame theories in mathematics, etc, but what separates philosophy is that philosophers are not accustomed to having their work tested at Fermi or CERN. If a model is testable, it is a scientific model - not philosophy.

I get the impression that you are just trying to keep Dick's work as free from empirical verification. If that is so, then that is very lame on your part.

• Philosophy defines science - sfnative - September 30, 2003 - 23:00 UTC
  • It depends on what you mean - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:26 UTC
• prediction is a key element of - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 01:47 UTC
  • Free will is an empirical fact - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 12:18 UTC
    • those bounds though - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 14:46 UTC
      • No- finite bounds - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 15:30 UTC
        • again my bad - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 16:56 UTC
          • Apologies not needed - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 18:48 UTC
            • zeno's arrow wasn't - sagefr0g - October 2, 2003 - 00:05 UTC
              • Yes - yanniru - October 2, 2003 - 03:59 UTC
                • this scenerio - sagefr0g - October 2, 2003 - 21:25 UTC
  • re: prediction - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:10 UTC
    • clarification - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:11 UTC
    • point well taken with respect to - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 16:53 UTC