Jonathan Colvin writes: > This is, I think, the crux of the reference class issue with the DA. My (and > your) reference class can not be merely "conscious observers" or "all > humans", but must be something much closer to "someone (or thing) discussing > or aware of the DA). I note that this reference class is certainly > appropriate for you and me, and likely for anyone else reading this. This > reference class certainly also invalidates the DA (although immaterial souls > would rescue it).
But we don't use such a specific reference class in other areas of reasoning. We don't say, why do things fall to the ground, and answer it, because we are in a reference class of people who have observed things fall to the ground. If we "explain" an observed phenomenon merely by saying that we are in the reference class of people who have observed it, we haven't explained anything. We need to be a little more ambitious. Hal Finney
