Are you saying that global scepticism is wrong or indefensible? Or just that it is presupposition of the street Epistemologist’s, and so that the problem is done kind of bias.
The second is closer to what I’m saying. SE makes a whole bunch of loaded assumptions about knowledge and method which are baked into the structure of the conversation but which the conversation is designed to avoid discussing. Hence what I say in the last two paragraphs.
In my experience, when laypeople use special pleading
I’m using “special pleading” to summarise the opposite of rule based epistemology, the thing you think is excluded. (I’m not actually all that the clear what it is. Some examples would be useful).
The second is closer to what I’m saying. SE makes a whole bunch of loaded assumptions about knowledge and method which are baked into the structure of the conversation but which the conversation is designed to avoid discussing. Hence what I say in the last two paragraphs.
To repeat: some assumptions have to be made, and the ones that SE makes are fairly standard.
The second is closer to what I’m saying. SE makes a whole bunch of loaded assumptions about knowledge and method which are baked into the structure of the conversation but which the conversation is designed to avoid discussing. Hence what I say in the last two paragraphs.
What does this have to do with special pleading?
I’m using “special pleading” to summarise the opposite of rule based epistemology, the thing you think is excluded. (I’m not actually all that the clear what it is. Some examples would be useful).
To repeat: some assumptions have to be made, and the ones that SE makes are fairly standard.