I Changed My Mind about Error-Correcting Debate, Misogyny and More

[Max]

On the note of that quote and CF, here was my reply to it. I tried not to be like pushy and just to explain (very briefly) how CF approaches things. Posting here for criticism. Maybe the debate stuff was a bit of a side track but it does relate to claiming no unanswered criticisms though I wasn’t explicit about how. I also tried not to put words in @Elliot’s mouth but also not say like “I think ET thinks X” or other awkward phrasing. I also think “So maybe CF isn’t as good as it could be if there was more debate” was good to add. It’s not really a concession of anything but it feels like the right kind of humility to have around one’s own school, and it runs counter to a ‘here is the one true epistemology’ vibe. I don’t think I was giving off that vibe, but my impression is that kind of attitude is often common with online philosophy discussions.

Does critical fallibilism have anything to say about itself? If it gives itself a full bill of health, that’s no more useful than the statement “This sentence is true”, which can consistently be assigned any truth value.

Yeah it does, though a ‘full bill of health’ might mean something different. CF says that we should use the best ideas we have access to. “Best” means that it works to achieve a goal and is unrefuted (no unanswered decisive criticisms). CF claims it has no decisive criticisms (at least insofar as the epistemology is concerned), but does not claim such criticisms are impossible (it’s fallibilist after all). CF is Elliot Temple’s school and he is very willing to debate (which means a forum discussion).

From Debate Policies Introduction, he says:

Debate is important because it enables errors to be corrected. If an intellectual is wrong, and a critic has an important correction, then refusing to debate is one of the common ways the intellectual can stay wrong.

One of goals of CF-ists is to find and debate people who disagree with you because that’s the best way to get criticisms, which are an integral part of error correction and improvement.

But also the world isn’t very good for debate, at least not at a high level. It’s hard to find people and forums who will continue a discussion to it’s conclusion. So maybe CF isn’t as good as it could be if there was more debate.

If someone knew of a criticism of CF, then Elliot would want to know. If he disagreed, he’d want a public discussion about it.

I can expand on anything if you have questions.