So, is he defending one of these positions, or arguing against them all. Or saying the whole debate is pointless?
From what I read he seems to be suggesting that truth is independent of what we believe, but I'm not sure what else he is saying, or what his argument is.
By the way,
I still haven't heard an explanation of what "The Simple Truth" is about. Maybe that requires a whole separate post.
That helps explain a bit more why they are the way they are. But it suggests to me that they shouldn't play such a prominent role on the site, because they haven't been designed for the purpose they are now being used for.
Thanks, this is a great suggestion, I think this would be more helpful.
"The normativity of logic is: “If you want to be speaking the same language as everyone else, don’t say things like ‘The ball is all green and all blue at the same time in the same way.’”"
You surely don't mean this: everyone one else is logical, why not me?
For a start, is everyone else logical? And even if they are, is that the best justification we have for logic?
"But philosophers still argue about ... theism ... as if these weren’t settled questions."
If this is really what you think, then why do you continue with your blog?
You only have no time to think if your main priority is winning the prize. If you are interested in holding true beliefs then you can take longer. However, our current system tends to reward those that get there first, not those who maximize their chances of being correct.
Ok. Clearly you only read the title, and not my actual post. I didn't say no biases matter, just that they might not always be a bad thing.
Of course. Most of it will be in the wrong direction, that's the point. It might not be best for you, but maybe it will be the best thing for the group.
Thanks, that helps a lot.