Is that definitely right? I need to have an in-depth read of it, which I won’t have time for for a few days, but from a skim it sounds like they admit that FNC also leads to the same conclusions as SIA for the presumptuous philosopher, but then they also argue that isn’t as problematic as it seems?
I’ve skimmed the paper and read excerpts, but anyway: I’d describe what Neal does as deconstructing the paradox. So yes, in some sense he’s arguing it’s not as problematic. That’s why I suggested to say that FNC argues to solve the problem, instead of outright saying FNC solves the problem. Saying “We mention it here just as an example of how you might try to give a more solid foundation to the SSA+SIA approach” makes it look like FNC is just that, without further developments, and I was surprised when I gave a look to the paper, which is something I could well not have done if I had even less time.
Is that definitely right? I need to have an in-depth read of it, which I won’t have time for for a few days, but from a skim it sounds like they admit that FNC also leads to the same conclusions as SIA for the presumptuous philosopher, but then they also argue that isn’t as problematic as it seems?
I’ve skimmed the paper and read excerpts, but anyway: I’d describe what Neal does as deconstructing the paradox. So yes, in some sense he’s arguing it’s not as problematic. That’s why I suggested to say that FNC argues to solve the problem, instead of outright saying FNC solves the problem. Saying “We mention it here just as an example of how you might try to give a more solid foundation to the SSA+SIA approach” makes it look like FNC is just that, without further developments, and I was surprised when I gave a look to the paper, which is something I could well not have done if I had even less time.
That’s a fair point! I have probably undersold the idea here. I’ve edited the post to add a comment about this.