You need to clarify your intentions/success criteria. :) Here’s my What Actually Happened technique to the rescue:
(a) You argued with some (they seem) conventional philosophers on various matters of epistemology. (b) You asked LessWrong-type philosophers (presumably having little overlap with the aforementioned conventional philosophers) how to do epistemology. (c) You outlined some of the conventional philosophy arguments on the aforementioned epistemological matters. (d) You asked for neuroscience pointers to be able to contribute intelligently. (e) Most of the responses here used LessWrong philosophy counterarguments against arguments you outlined. (f) You gave possible conventional philosophy countercounterarguments.
This is largely a failure of communication because the counterarguers here are playing the game of LessWrong philosophy, while you’ve played, in response, the game of conventional philosophy, and the games have very different win conditions that lead you to play past each other. From skimming over the thread, I am as usual most inclined to agree with Eliezer: Epistemology is a domain of philosophy, but conventional philosophers are mostly not the best at—or necessarily the people to go to in order to apprehend—epistemology. However, I realise this is partly a cached response in myself: Wanting to befriend your coursemates and curry favour from teachers isn’t an invalid goal, and I’d suspect that in that case you wouldn’t be best be served by ditching them. Not entirely, anyway...
Based on your post and its language, I identify at least the three following subqueries that inform your query:
(i) How can I win at conventional philosophy? (ii) How can I win by my own argumentative criteria? (iii) How can I convince the conventional philosophers?
Varying the balance of these subqueries greatly affects the best course of action.
If (i) dominates, you need to get good at playing the (language?) game of the other conventional philosophers. If their rules are anything like in my past fights with conventional philosophers, this largely means becoming a beast of the ‘relevant literature’ so that you can straightblast your opponents with rhetoric, jargon, namedropping, and citations until they’re unable to fight back (if you get good enough, you will be able to consistently score first-round knockouts), or so that your depth in the chain of counter^n-arguments bottoms them out and you win by sheer attrition in argumentdropping, even if you take a lot of hits.
If (ii) dominates, you need to identify what will make you feel like you’ve won. If this is anything like me in my past fights with conventional philosophers, this largely means convincing yourself that while what they say is correct, their skepticism is overwrought and serves little purpose, and that you are superior for being ‘useful’.
If (iii) dominates, the approach depends upon of what you’re trying to convince them. For example, whether the position of which you’re trying to convince them is mainstream or contrarian completely changes your argumentative approach.
In the case of (d), the nature of the requested information is actually relatively clear, but the question arises of what you intend to do with it. Is it to guide your own thinking, or mostly to score points from the other philosophers for your knowledge, or...? If it’s for anything other than improving your own arguments by your own standards, I would suggest (though of course you have more information about the philosophers in question) that you reconsider how much of a difference it will make; a lot of philosophers at best ignore and at worst disdain relevant information when it is raised against their positions, so the intuition that relevant information is useful for scoring points might be misguided.
Where you speak of seeing yourself shifting/having shifted and moving away from an old position (foundationalism) or towards a new one (coherentism) and describing your preference for foundationalism as irrational, it seems like you probably should just go ahead and disavow foundationalism. Or at least, it would if I were confident such affiliations were useful; I’m not. See conservation of expected evidence.
Actually, although I do care about status I am trying to actually consider the truth of the issue primarily. I don’t seek truth in this area for any practical purpose, but because I want to know.
You need to clarify your intentions/success criteria. :) Here’s my What Actually Happened technique to the rescue:
(a) You argued with some (they seem) conventional philosophers on various matters of epistemology.
(b) You asked LessWrong-type philosophers (presumably having little overlap with the aforementioned conventional philosophers) how to do epistemology.
(c) You outlined some of the conventional philosophy arguments on the aforementioned epistemological matters.
(d) You asked for neuroscience pointers to be able to contribute intelligently.
(e) Most of the responses here used LessWrong philosophy counterarguments against arguments you outlined.
(f) You gave possible conventional philosophy countercounterarguments.
This is largely a failure of communication because the counterarguers here are playing the game of LessWrong philosophy, while you’ve played, in response, the game of conventional philosophy, and the games have very different win conditions that lead you to play past each other. From skimming over the thread, I am as usual most inclined to agree with Eliezer: Epistemology is a domain of philosophy, but conventional philosophers are mostly not the best at—or necessarily the people to go to in order to apprehend—epistemology. However, I realise this is partly a cached response in myself: Wanting to befriend your coursemates and curry favour from teachers isn’t an invalid goal, and I’d suspect that in that case you wouldn’t be best be served by ditching them. Not entirely, anyway...
Based on your post and its language, I identify at least the three following subqueries that inform your query:
(i) How can I win at conventional philosophy?
(ii) How can I win by my own argumentative criteria?
(iii) How can I convince the conventional philosophers?
Varying the balance of these subqueries greatly affects the best course of action.
If (i) dominates, you need to get good at playing the (language?) game of the other conventional philosophers. If their rules are anything like in my past fights with conventional philosophers, this largely means becoming a beast of the ‘relevant literature’ so that you can straightblast your opponents with rhetoric, jargon, namedropping, and citations until they’re unable to fight back (if you get good enough, you will be able to consistently score first-round knockouts), or so that your depth in the chain of counter^n-arguments bottoms them out and you win by sheer attrition in argumentdropping, even if you take a lot of hits.
If (ii) dominates, you need to identify what will make you feel like you’ve won. If this is anything like me in my past fights with conventional philosophers, this largely means convincing yourself that while what they say is correct, their skepticism is overwrought and serves little purpose, and that you are superior for being ‘useful’.
If (iii) dominates, the approach depends upon of what you’re trying to convince them. For example, whether the position of which you’re trying to convince them is mainstream or contrarian completely changes your argumentative approach.
In the case of (d), the nature of the requested information is actually relatively clear, but the question arises of what you intend to do with it. Is it to guide your own thinking, or mostly to score points from the other philosophers for your knowledge, or...? If it’s for anything other than improving your own arguments by your own standards, I would suggest (though of course you have more information about the philosophers in question) that you reconsider how much of a difference it will make; a lot of philosophers at best ignore and at worst disdain relevant information when it is raised against their positions, so the intuition that relevant information is useful for scoring points might be misguided.
Where you speak of seeing yourself shifting/having shifted and moving away from an old position (foundationalism) or towards a new one (coherentism) and describing your preference for foundationalism as irrational, it seems like you probably should just go ahead and disavow foundationalism. Or at least, it would if I were confident such affiliations were useful; I’m not. See conservation of expected evidence.
This is an excellent post.
Actually, although I do care about status I am trying to actually consider the truth of the issue primarily. I don’t seek truth in this area for any practical purpose, but because I want to know.