I have a bit of a dilemma. What do you say to someone who says things like “I believe in ghosts because I see and have conversations with them”? (Not a hypothetical example!)
“Well, I’ve never seen one”.
There is still better and worse epistemology. I have been arguing that cautious epistemology is better than confident epistemology.
Even if there is a set of claims that are very silly, it doesn’t follow that Aumann-style agreement is possible.
Can you introduce me?
I have a bit of a dilemma. What do you say to someone who says things like “I believe in ghosts because I see and have conversations with them”? (Not a hypothetical example!)
“Well, I’ve never seen one”.
There is still better and worse epistemology. I have been arguing that cautious epistemology is better than confident epistemology.
Even if there is a set of claims that are very silly, it doesn’t follow that Aumann-style agreement is possible.
Can you introduce me?