Mitchell_Porter comments on Epistemic Luck - Less Wrong

74 Post author: Alicorn 08 February 2010 12:02AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (132)
Tags: belief_in_belief epistemology bias disagreement rationalization

Comments (132)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 13 February 2010 08:20:56AM 1 point [-]

Let's try inverting your central deduction:

Given that there are many academic philosophers out there, if we assume that non-academic philosophers are disinterested truth-seekers who are not motivated by political and status concerns, then we should expect to see frequent collaborations between non-academics and academics, or at the very least we should expect non-academic philosophers to frequently cite the academics.

A very analogous argument to yours would allow us to conclude that non-academic philosophy is not about truth-seeking.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 13 February 2010 09:32:56AM *  2 points [-]

[. . .] or at the very least we should expect non-academic philosophers to frequently cite the academics.

A very analogous argument to yours would allow us to conclude that non-academic philosophy is not about truth-seeking.

But we do see non-academics citing academics. Non-academic amateurs will refer to the likes of Quine, Russell, or Searle.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 13 February 2010 10:15:24AM 3 points [-]

It goes the other way too; Taleb and Yudkowsky are not completely ignored by academia. Nonetheless, the insularity of academic intellectuals and the disdain for academia of non-academic intellectuals are real phenomena. There is a symmetry to the situation, but Dan wants to draw an asymmetric conclusion.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit