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!
