Do you think that the best way achieve solutions to meta-philosophy is to actually do philosophy?
I don’t know, but I think it’s at least plausible that the answer is yes. This is one of those situations where we should probably take multiple approaches simultaneously.
The issue I see is that to giving a satisfactory answer to a question like “what is the nature of philosophy, and how do we use it?” likely involves a whole hell of a lot of neuroscience, psychology, linguistics, etc. research [...]
Maybe, but before von Neumann and Morganstern invented expected utility maximization, it might have seemed like we’d need a whole lot of neuroscience, psychology, linguistics, etc., to figure out decision theory, but that would have turned out to be wrong.
I don’t know, but I think it’s at least plausible that the answer is yes. This is one of those situations where we should probably take multiple approaches simultaneously.
Maybe, but before von Neumann and Morganstern invented expected utility maximization, it might have seemed like we’d need a whole lot of neuroscience, psychology, linguistics, etc., to figure out decision theory, but that would have turned out to be wrong.
This is reasonable, and I agree.