Thought experiments and empiricism

[ADG]

The debate between Norton and Brown regarding whether thought experiments transcend empiricism is interesting with Norton suggesting that thought experiments do not transcend empiricism.

If one had to choose a thought experiment to defend Norton's view, would Galileo's thought experiment that two falling bodies fall with the same acceleration be a suitable thought experiment since it can be empirically tested and it also can be written in a premise and conclusion argument form. I am not sure whether this would be a deductive argument though.

Also, wouldn't the assumption that connecting the heavier (H) and lighter (L) body makes one body of weight (H+L) mean that one of the premises of the argument would be false.

Thank you for your help!

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, ADG said:

The debate between Norton and Brown

Do you have a link or reference to this debate?

42 minutes ago, ADG said:

Norton suggesting that thought experiments do not transcend empiricism

What does "transcend empiricism" mean?

Any thought experiment needs to compared to observation to test whether it is an accurate model the world or not. So in that sense empiricism is more important than any thought experiment (only evidence can falsify a theory, a thought experiment can't).

45 minutes ago, ADG said:

Also, wouldn't the assumption that connecting the heavier (H) and lighter (L) body makes one body of weight (H+L) mean that one of the premises of the argument would be false.

What premise would be made false by that?