fakenous.substack.com/p/debunking-skepticism-cf8/comment/103142851

Preview meta tags from the fakenous.substack.com website.

Linked Hostnames

2

Thumbnail

Search Engine Appearance

Google

https://fakenous.substack.com/p/debunking-skepticism-cf8/comment/103142851

Haydn on Fake Noûs

That doesn't seem like evidence that the issue is philosophers rather than philosophizing. I.e., to me it seems equally expected on both hypotheses. And if it's philosophizing (i.e., if thinking very hard about a "philosophical" topic is unusually likely to lead people to bizarre, revisionary conclusions), such that smart people in other fields would endorse weird views (at the same rate) if they philosophized more, that doesn't seem to count against skepticism. But of course, if philosophers or their methods are biased, that would. It definitely seems common for people to self-select out of the field because it seems like a waste of a time. EDIT: An example a "non-philosophers" endorsing skeptical views might be LessWrong, which is mainly STEM people with no formal training in philosophy. But moral anti realism and reductionism about consciousness are very popular/the dominant views.



Bing

Haydn on Fake Noûs

https://fakenous.substack.com/p/debunking-skepticism-cf8/comment/103142851

That doesn't seem like evidence that the issue is philosophers rather than philosophizing. I.e., to me it seems equally expected on both hypotheses. And if it's philosophizing (i.e., if thinking very hard about a "philosophical" topic is unusually likely to lead people to bizarre, revisionary conclusions), such that smart people in other fields would endorse weird views (at the same rate) if they philosophized more, that doesn't seem to count against skepticism. But of course, if philosophers or their methods are biased, that would. It definitely seems common for people to self-select out of the field because it seems like a waste of a time. EDIT: An example a "non-philosophers" endorsing skeptical views might be LessWrong, which is mainly STEM people with no formal training in philosophy. But moral anti realism and reductionism about consciousness are very popular/the dominant views.



DuckDuckGo

https://fakenous.substack.com/p/debunking-skepticism-cf8/comment/103142851

Haydn on Fake Noûs

That doesn't seem like evidence that the issue is philosophers rather than philosophizing. I.e., to me it seems equally expected on both hypotheses. And if it's philosophizing (i.e., if thinking very hard about a "philosophical" topic is unusually likely to lead people to bizarre, revisionary conclusions), such that smart people in other fields would endorse weird views (at the same rate) if they philosophized more, that doesn't seem to count against skepticism. But of course, if philosophers or their methods are biased, that would. It definitely seems common for people to self-select out of the field because it seems like a waste of a time. EDIT: An example a "non-philosophers" endorsing skeptical views might be LessWrong, which is mainly STEM people with no formal training in philosophy. But moral anti realism and reductionism about consciousness are very popular/the dominant views.

  • General Meta Tags

    17
    • title
      Comments - Debunking Skepticism - by Michael Huemer
    • title
    • title
    • title
    • title
  • Open Graph Meta Tags

    9
    • og:url
      https://fakenous.substack.com/p/debunking-skepticism-cf8/comment/103142851
    • og:type
      article
    • og:title
      Haydn on Fake Noûs
    • og:description
      That doesn't seem like evidence that the issue is philosophers rather than philosophizing. I.e., to me it seems equally expected on both hypotheses. And if it's philosophizing (i.e., if thinking very hard about a "philosophical" topic is unusually likely to lead people to bizarre, revisionary conclusions), such that smart people in other fields would endorse weird views (at the same rate) if they philosophized more, that doesn't seem to count against skepticism. But of course, if philosophers or their methods are biased, that would. It definitely seems common for people to self-select out of the field because it seems like a waste of a time. EDIT: An example a "non-philosophers" endorsing skeptical views might be LessWrong, which is mainly STEM people with no formal training in philosophy. But moral anti realism and reductionism about consciousness are very popular/the dominant views.
    • og:image
      https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_680,h_680,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.com%2Fnote%2Fc-103142851%2Fpreview.jpeg%3Fsize%3Dsm
  • Twitter Meta Tags

    8
    • twitter:label1
      Likes
    • twitter:data1
      4
    • twitter:label2
      Replies
    • twitter:data2
      0
    • twitter:title
      Haydn on Fake Noûs
  • Link Tags

    50
    • alternate
      /feed
    • apple-touch-icon
      https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5d3a59c9-b511-47f9-80c9-c6b93d0e4d58%2Fapple-touch-icon-57x57.png
    • apple-touch-icon
      https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5d3a59c9-b511-47f9-80c9-c6b93d0e4d58%2Fapple-touch-icon-60x60.png
    • apple-touch-icon
      https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5d3a59c9-b511-47f9-80c9-c6b93d0e4d58%2Fapple-touch-icon-72x72.png
    • apple-touch-icon
      https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5d3a59c9-b511-47f9-80c9-c6b93d0e4d58%2Fapple-touch-icon-76x76.png

Links

14