“Philosophers are more susceptible to this failure mode because on many important philosophical questions, a standard if not unanimous approach is argue that the question cannot be answered by evidence.”
No, philosophers are more susceptible because most of them can’t recognize that “cannot be answered by evidence” means an answer can’t be obtained at all.
To such individuals, reason is merely a passing fad coequal with every other way of asserting something, a fleeting hiccup that they’re far too fashionable to consider important.
No, philosophers are more susceptible because most of them can’t recognize that “cannot be answered by evidence” means an answer can’t be obtained at all.
I would say both. Some things that philosophers think can’t be answered by evidence are in fact answered by evidence, such as whether 2 + 2 = 4.
“Philosophers are more susceptible to this failure mode because on many important philosophical questions, a standard if not unanimous approach is argue that the question cannot be answered by evidence.”
No, philosophers are more susceptible because most of them can’t recognize that “cannot be answered by evidence” means an answer can’t be obtained at all.
To such individuals, reason is merely a passing fad coequal with every other way of asserting something, a fleeting hiccup that they’re far too fashionable to consider important.
I would say both. Some things that philosophers think can’t be answered by evidence are in fact answered by evidence, such as whether 2 + 2 = 4.