A long time ago, I read a book titled The Man Who Thought He Was God. It was, in essence, about a trial of a man whose logic construct sat oddly with the rest of society. The tension in the book arose because the man's viewpoint was internally consistent and, to put it in the way you have above, made predictions which were consistent with his own 'theory' of the world. My recollection is that society (represented by the court) and the man had two equally valid theories within their own construct.
I guess this leads me to wonder whether there is another test that can be applied - a mutual incompatibility test. This test is not about creating epistemic certainty. The other is possible more complex: can society operate well without choosing between the two theories. For many competing theories, the answer will be yes. But for some - those that affect the operation of society - the answer may be no.
I accept that a reasonable response to the above is that the looseness of the phrasing 'operate well' provides an out as this creates the opportunity for different interpreted fact bases for different theories. But it also raises an issue about how, in accepting the need for epistemic humility, we encompass all of these theories into a functioning society.
A long time ago, I read a book titled The Man Who Thought He Was God. It was, in essence, about a trial of a man whose logic construct sat oddly with the rest of society. The tension in the book arose because the man's viewpoint was internally consistent and, to put it in the way you have above, made predictions which were consistent with his own 'theory' of the world. My recollection is that society (represented by the court) and the man had two equally valid theories within their own construct.
I guess this leads me to wonder whether there is another test that can be applied - a mutual incompatibility test. This test is not about creating epistemic certainty. The other is possible more complex: can society operate well without choosing between the two theories. For many competing theories, the answer will be yes. But for some - those that affect the operation of society - the answer may be no.
I accept that a reasonable response to the above is that the looseness of the phrasing 'operate well' provides an out as this creates the opportunity for different interpreted fact bases for different theories. But it also raises an issue about how, in accepting the need for epistemic humility, we encompass all of these theories into a functioning society.