While “good epistemology” is valid, its not complete. A human being—even an untheist—will be curious about things that science will never answer and must ever accept on faith things the important things that are independent of it.
Good epistemology is complete. Anti-epistemology would insist otherwise, to carve a cavity for itself.
Even with the gaps, you have a procedure for filling those gaps, or a procedure for constructing that procedure, with intuition at base level. Good epistemology doesn’t outsource the meaning of life to a third party.
I think the idea here is that good epistemology gives you betting odds on anything, since you have to bet at some odds. (I don’t necessarily claim to implement a good epistemology but an FAI would need one.)
Good epistemology is complete. Anti-epistemology would insist otherwise, to carve a cavity for itself.
On what basis do you say this?
Even with the gaps, you have a procedure for filling those gaps, or a procedure for constructing that procedure, with intuition at base level. Good epistemology doesn’t outsource the meaning of life to a third party.
I think the idea here is that good epistemology gives you betting odds on anything, since you have to bet at some odds. (I don’t necessarily claim to implement a good epistemology but an FAI would need one.)
On what basis do you say this?