tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2264125276161269122.post4566817352103384932..comments2023-04-21T20:55:22.881-04:00Comments on It's Only A Theory: Epistemic egalitarianism vs epistemic hierarchyGabriele Contessahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13607158011908969169noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2264125276161269122.post-57780942400588003082011-07-27T05:01:21.147-04:002011-07-27T05:01:21.147-04:00You are right about positions being as good as one...You are right about positions being as good as one's last argument, you are wrong that non-experts can evaluate arguments. \m/<br /><br /><a href="http://www.passagesmalibuholistic.com" rel="nofollow">Passages Malibu</a><a href="http://ourjewelryclub.com/google-htm.html" rel="nofollow">jewelry club</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2264125276161269122.post-27208964345012433842010-08-15T01:55:06.943-04:002010-08-15T01:55:06.943-04:00Anon, i spend some regular time with economists (o...Anon, i spend some regular time with economists (of à reflective sort). What you describe (about "certain social science fields") sounds like philosophy in Europe!<br /> Anyway, aren't you offering support for EE and just showing that it is hard for it to get à hearing? Note that above i am not basing my claims on 6. The true kuhnian observation that experts protect their paradigm from inconvenient facts.<br /> <br />goclenius, i stand corrected. (Nice point about Feynman & Roehmer in your blog!)Eric Schliesserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13840436384353801701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2264125276161269122.post-16054878672816729442010-08-14T18:40:54.190-04:002010-08-14T18:40:54.190-04:00I don’t think it’s true that in philosophy “you ar...I don’t think it’s true that in philosophy “you are as good as your last argument”. Or rather this is not well put as an expression of egalitarianism as it applies to philosophy. An established reputation can withstand a bad paper or two. If there is an egalitarianism in philosophy, it is one of arguments, not arguers. One ought, as a philosopher, to give a hearing to all arguments regardless of source.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2264125276161269122.post-82794662820760901132010-08-14T16:33:07.667-04:002010-08-14T16:33:07.667-04:00Hate to piss on your pickles, but what you are tal...Hate to piss on your pickles, but what you are talking about is not EE. It is experts in one field (or let us say near experts) criticizing experts in a related field. <br /><br />The experts are just experts in argument. <br /><br />You are right about positions being as good as one's last argument, you are wrong that non-experts can evaluate arguments.<br /><br />Something philosophers don't realize, because they do not spend a lot of time around other academics, is that argumentation in most fields is limited. Facts are presented, and the methods for developing these facts are often quite sophisticated, what often gets missed are those things philosophers take for granted, especially conceptual clarity.<br /><br />Often these things are not too important. But when they are whole subfields can be found to have been built on a house of cards.<br /><br />I know of certain social science fields where direct confrontation (of big names) is viewed as uncouth, where you just can't write, Bloggins is wrong about X because he confuses it with Y, for reasons W, R, and S. You have to talk about all the contributions of Bloggins, and how s/he redefined the field, and how your new model is a refinement to his/er theory of X for Y . <br /><br />As a philosopher I cry bullshit! but our colleagues in other disciplines care less about argument and truth preservation. They care about facts and methods.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com