If there existed a paradigm that is more truthful than ‘rationality’ as you have been taught it, how would you even know?
Easy. Predictive power.
If Bay Area rationality is basically correct, it can recognise improved versions of itself.
Corollary: If it isn’t basically correct, it can’t necessarily recognise some better epistemology.
Moral: It takes an epistemology to judge an epistemology.
These are tautologies. What is the point you’re getting at?
“Predictive power” isn’t the answer to everything . For tautologous reasons. (Whatever problem tautologies have, it isn’t lack of truth).
I didn’t say it was the answer to everything. The original phrasing was “more truthful.”
The implication was that you already have an epistemology capable of judging any other.
Is this an epistemology?
I have experiences, and some interpretations of those experiences allow me to predict future experiences.
If Bay Area rationality is basically correct, it can recognise improved versions of itself.
Corollary: If it isn’t basically correct, it can’t necessarily recognise some better epistemology.
Moral: It takes an epistemology to judge an epistemology.
These are tautologies. What is the point you’re getting at?
“Predictive power” isn’t the answer to everything . For tautologous reasons. (Whatever problem tautologies have, it isn’t lack of truth).
I didn’t say it was the answer to everything. The original phrasing was “more truthful.”
The implication was that you already have an epistemology capable of judging any other.
Is this an epistemology?