Last night, while watching my beloved Leafs lose to Chicago, I came across a classic philosophical question. Here's what happened: during the first period, a Toronto goal was disallowed because there wasn't any conclusive video proof that the puck passed the goal line. The commentators' banter stated that, from the angle they were viewing the play from, it followed LOGICALLY that the puck was in the net but there wasn't any EMPIRICAL evidence, and because evidence is the cornerstone of scientific discourse, there wasn't a goal. The Toronto Maple Leafs lost by one goal. I was a little upset. This non-goal, and the commentary, are examples of the debate between rationalists and empiricists.
One drink and this is what I'm thinking about for the rest of the night.
No comments:
Post a Comment