= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChrisHallquist comments on Open Thread, November 8 - 14, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (141)
Would there be interest in me writing a post, or a series of posts, summarizing Richard Feldman's Epistemology textbook? Feldman's textbook is widely used in philosophy classes, and contains some surprisingly reasonable views (given what you may have heard about mainstream philosophy).
I'm partly considering it because it might be a useful way to counteract some common myths about what all philosophers supposedly know about evidence, the problem of induction, and so on. But I seem to have given away my copy, and a replacement would be $40 for a volume that's under 200 pages. So I want to gauge interest first.
I would read it. I'm interested in there being more careful checking of LW-ideas against relevant mainstreams.
Another valuable service, if you (ChrisHallquist) decide to write the proposed article, is to provide a glossary translating between LW idiom and conventional terminology.
Honestly that might be difficult, the mapping would be far from perfect.
That said, I might be able to do something. Any terminology in particular you care about? Would it be better to focus on LW terms --> conventional terminology, or vice versa, or both?