Yup. And it’s not clear professional philosophers are actually seeking disconfirmation of their theories. From outside, it seems a lot like they want to be mathematicians (seeking consistency and soundness, though in a domain that’s less concrete), rather than scientists or engineers (seeking reality or usage).
Very amusingly, philosophers who believe in moral realism should not CARE what most people think, right? It’s possible for every human and animal who’s ever lived to be factually incorrect about moral truths, right?
I certainly don’t think they’re seeking disconfirmation of their theories. Quite the contrary, much of analytic philosophy seems dedicated to starting with one’s conclusions, then coming up with justifications for why they are correct. That seems to be built into the very method. Have you read Bishop and Trout’s paper that makes this point?
Here it is: Bishop, M., & Trout, J. D. (2005). The pathologies of standard analytic epistemology. Nous, 39(4), 696-714.
And here’s a quote:
Now, back to the stasis requirement: If an epistemic theory forced us to radically alter our considered epistemic judgments (e.g., our epistemic judgments in reflective equilibrium), then ipso facto that theory is unacceptable. While perhaps not all proponents of SAE embrace the stasis requirement (e.g., see Unger 1984), we think that Kim is right in identifying it as a success condition that most proponents of SAE place on epistemological theories. But it is not a requirement that is often explicitly stated. So where do we find it? We suggest that the commitment to stasis is embodied in the method of SAE. Philosophers accept or reject an epistemological theory on the basis of whether it accords with their considered judgments. (p. 701)
Yup. And it’s not clear professional philosophers are actually seeking disconfirmation of their theories. From outside, it seems a lot like they want to be mathematicians (seeking consistency and soundness, though in a domain that’s less concrete), rather than scientists or engineers (seeking reality or usage).
Very amusingly, philosophers who believe in moral realism should not CARE what most people think, right? It’s possible for every human and animal who’s ever lived to be factually incorrect about moral truths, right?
I certainly don’t think they’re seeking disconfirmation of their theories. Quite the contrary, much of analytic philosophy seems dedicated to starting with one’s conclusions, then coming up with justifications for why they are correct. That seems to be built into the very method. Have you read Bishop and Trout’s paper that makes this point?
Here it is: Bishop, M., & Trout, J. D. (2005). The pathologies of standard analytic epistemology. Nous, 39(4), 696-714.
And here’s a quote: