shminux comments on What do professional philosophers believe, and why? - Less Wrong

31 Post author: RobbBB 01 May 2013 02:40PM

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

Comments (249)

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

Comment author: shminux 01 May 2013 06:08:29PM 2 points [-]

I'd say the Anti-Naturalism and Anti-Realism clusters are obviously wrong.

I wonder what your definition of obviously wrong is. Is it instrumental, like two-boxing on Newcomb? Bayesian, like theism failing the Occam's razor? Or something else? Or a combination?

Comment author: RobbBB 01 May 2013 06:19:06PM *  7 points [-]

Generally it's Bayesian. If at this point in the history of civilization statements like 'there are chairs' don't get to count as obviously right, or 'physics be damned, I don't need on stinkin' causes for my volition!' as obviously wrong, then I confess I no longer find it obvious what 'obvious' is even supposed to mean.

I'm not saying Anti-Naturalists and Anti-Realists aren't extremely sophisticated, or in a number of cases well worth reading; sophistication is compatible with obvious wrongness.