I’d say the Anti-Naturalism and Anti-Realism clusters are obviously wrong.
I wonder what your definition of obviously wrong is. Is it instrumental, like two-boxing on Newcomb? Bayesian, like theism failing the Occam’s razor? Or something else? Or a combination?
Generally it’s Bayesian. If at this point in the history of civilization statements like ‘there are chairs’ don’t get to count as obviously right, or ‘physics be damned, I don’t need on stinkin’ causes for my volition!′ as obviously wrong, then I confess I no longer find it obvious what ‘obvious’ is even supposed to mean.
I’m not saying Anti-Naturalists and Anti-Realists aren’t extremely sophisticated, or in a number of cases well worth reading; sophistication is compatible with obvious wrongness.
I wonder what your definition of obviously wrong is. Is it instrumental, like two-boxing on Newcomb? Bayesian, like theism failing the Occam’s razor? Or something else? Or a combination?
Generally it’s Bayesian. If at this point in the history of civilization statements like ‘there are chairs’ don’t get to count as obviously right, or ‘physics be damned, I don’t need on stinkin’ causes for my volition!′ as obviously wrong, then I confess I no longer find it obvious what ‘obvious’ is even supposed to mean.
I’m not saying Anti-Naturalists and Anti-Realists aren’t extremely sophisticated, or in a number of cases well worth reading; sophistication is compatible with obvious wrongness.