fakenous.substack.com/p/debunking-skepticism-cf8/comment/103142851
Preview meta tags from the fakenous.substack.com website.
Linked Hostnames
2Thumbnail

Search Engine Appearance
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
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
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- titleComments - Debunking Skepticism - by Michael Huemer
- title
- title
- title
- title
Open Graph Meta Tags
9- og:urlhttps://fakenous.substack.com/p/debunking-skepticism-cf8/comment/103142851
- og:typearticle
- og:titleHaydn on Fake Noûs
- og:descriptionThat 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:imagehttps://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:label1Likes
- twitter:data14
- twitter:label2Replies
- twitter:data20
- twitter:titleHaydn on Fake Noûs
Link Tags
50- alternate/feed
- apple-touch-iconhttps://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-iconhttps://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-iconhttps://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-iconhttps://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- https://fakenous.substack.com
- https://fakenous.substack.com/p/debunking-skepticism-cf8/comment/103142851
- https://fakenous.substack.com/p/debunking-skepticism-cf8/comments#comment-103142851
- https://substack.com
- https://substack.com/@haydn692388/note/c-103142851