tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post91969961641716735..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Transcendent Angels Are Not Necessarily Epistemically Arrogant, and Jumped-Up Monkeys Are Not Necessarily Epistemically Modestgcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-5181488191120658852012-12-02T23:44:22.257-05:002012-12-02T23:44:22.257-05:00Right, Silas, because if you can build a good brid...Right, Silas, because if you can build a good bridge, that certainly also makes you an expert on virtue and metaphysics! And the best people to judge football coaches are no doubt doctors, and plumbing work is best judged by painters. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-38918084757932301122012-12-02T19:55:50.191-05:002012-12-02T19:55:50.191-05:00Ideally? Engineers. (Specifically, those speciali...Ideally? Engineers. (Specifically, those specializing it automating intelligent behavior.) They can't fake it when someone's ideas clash with reality.Silas Bartahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480427306873460464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-22000242306585604292012-11-30T21:33:02.957-05:002012-11-30T21:33:02.957-05:00"Replace "philosophy" with "as..."Replace "philosophy" with "astrology" and this metric becomes far less impressive."<br /><br />Yes, and if we replace "quantum physics" with "navel gazing" on a resume, that resume becomes far less impressive.<br /><br />Nagel's genius certainly does "resist mere parochial consensus" -- there were many, many materialist philosophers at NYU when I was around the philosophy department there, and they all respected Nagel as brilliant. They often disagreed with him, but not one of them ever regarded him as "dumb." And, besides the acknowledged most brilliant philosophers in the world, who, exactly, do you think should be judging philosophical arguments? Macroeconomists?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-46734429991357717082012-11-30T21:12:37.774-05:002012-11-30T21:12:37.774-05:00Let us look at the evidence, shall we? DeLong, who...<i><br />Let us look at the evidence, shall we? DeLong, who has no training as a philosopher and has never published as a philosopher, encounters the latest work of Thomas Nagel, who has spent fifty years at the very top of the field. Nagel is perhaps the leading figure in the number one philosophy department in the English-speaking world (as judged by other philosophy departments, not macroeconomists). The other philosophers in that department, themselves obviously among the best in the world, while often disagreeing with Nagel, treat all of his arguments with great respect: they know he is very smart. </i><br /><br />Replace "philosophy" with "astrology" and this metric becomes far less impressive.<br /><br />The best BS filters are the ones that can resist mere parochial consensus. (Though I perhaps shouldn't call such an achievement "mere", it's indicative, in isolation, of loosing one's mooring in reality.)Silas Bartahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480427306873460464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-32402413485765076642012-11-28T23:01:45.168-05:002012-11-28T23:01:45.168-05:00Yes, that is exactly why I mention my transcendent...Yes, that is exactly why I mention my transcendental access to the Platonic true form of English grammar!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-8609731465202105722012-11-28T20:03:54.981-05:002012-11-28T20:03:54.981-05:00It's ironic you say that, because I don't ...It's ironic you say that, because I don't think the matter is certain. I can't find anything more definitive <a href="http://www.englishforums.com/English/AnyIsAre/hxhhn/post.htm" rel="nofollow">than this</a>, but e.g. it is clearly correct to say, "None of the members of this discussion is humble."Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-57235281784302898062012-11-28T17:21:13.033-05:002012-11-28T17:21:13.033-05:00You should have used "are" in that sente...You should have used "are" in that sentence, which I know with certainty because my reason gives me transcendental access to the true, timeless grammar of English. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-30464982119859648162012-11-28T15:41:11.501-05:002012-11-28T15:41:11.501-05:00I don't think any of the belligerents in this ...I don't think any of the belligerents in this battle is particularly modest.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-79103257933632157092012-11-28T14:23:45.001-05:002012-11-28T14:23:45.001-05:00Gene,
Brad DeLong isn't exactly known for his...Gene,<br /><br />Brad DeLong isn't exactly known for his epistemic modesty in general. I think showing his lack of epistemic modesty on this topic says more about him than about his theory. Some others like Daniel Kuehn seem much more modest while holding the Jumped-Up Monkey hypothesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-29181366268409206842012-11-27T23:37:11.982-05:002012-11-27T23:37:11.982-05:00Lovely, Hume!Lovely, Hume!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-79919361818408176132012-11-27T23:24:16.510-05:002012-11-27T23:24:16.510-05:00Gene, Quine bothers me in a very similar way. Con...Gene, Quine bothers me in a very similar way. Consider two of his major claims. (I) Quine provides an account of what it is to have an ontology. On his account, to be committed to an entity is simply to be committed to placing truth values next to statements (“to be is to be in the range of reference of a pronoun”, to be the value of a (bound) variable). (II) Quine is committed to metaphysical nominalism. So all there is is concrete particulars that we can discover and place a truth value next to.<br /><br />Now, this is supposed to be in furtherance of his scientific/naturalistic world view, as well as his commitment to theoretical parsimony. But looks can be deceiving. Consider a Kantian reaction to this set of claims. The Kantian says that we can only have knowledge of Kantian “objects”, never of “things in themselves”. So there is a range of possible objects that are completely outside our sensibility and cognitive capacities. As a result, there is an objection to both (I) and (II), but it seems like the Kantian is motivated by a fundamental recognition of our cognitive and sensual limitations. Consider this interpretation.<br /><br />(1) we can only perceive those entities which we have the capacity to perceive.<br />(2) we can only understand whatever it is we have the capacity to understand. <br />(3) it is not unintelligible to think that there are entities that are beyond our capacity to grasp. <br />(4) but because we can understand only that which we have the capacity to understand, I do not legislate such entities, for there is nothing we can say about "their" existence, one way or the other. it is always an open question (i.e., is there anything beyond our capability to grasp? have we discovered everything? well, if we can only discover that which we have the capacity to discover, how can we know if there is anything beyond our capacity? I understand that these are now epistemic questions, but that's just the point) <br />(5) thus, there is no truth value for some entity "possible entity". it is more along the lines of (?) (possible entity).<br /> <br />First, Quine cannot come back and say "but these entities are within your ontological system". These “entities” are not within this system, but I also do not deny their existence. So Quine seems to be wrong about what having an ontology necessarily consists in. <br /><br />Second, notice that his desire for simplicity in ontology necessitates a more complex theory of evolution and human sensual/cognitive capacity. He needs to provide a story about the evolution of humans that also explains why this thing has the capacity in principle to detect through their physical properties every type of entity that exists in the universe. And it is precisely at this point that his immodesty is shown. He is atheistic vis-à-vis possible entities. They do not exist. Period. The Kantian, on my interpretation, is agnostic. We cannot say one way or the other. We simply do not and cannot know what is within our grasp/cognition and what is not.Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.com