3 ms·
Maybe it's a matter of epistemological taste. The thought of rubber-stamping mere authority is so distasteful that "being wrong" is actually preferable. I can
by swayvil 3y ago
Maybe it's a matter of epistemological taste. The thought of rubber-stamping mere authority is so distasteful that "being wrong" is actually preferable.
I can relate with that.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoFirst, "epistemological taste" is an oxymoron. Second, believing something with overwhelming evidence is not 'rubber stamping mere authority'. Third, if someone wanted to not 'rubber stamp authority' why would they start with the earth being round? That's almost like not believing in gravity. There are so many fights to pick where conventional wisdom might be wrong or actual authorities could be lying or omitting the truth, why pick something with no evidence?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- swayvil 3y ago"Epistemological taste" refers to what you consider to be "good knowledge".
- CyberDildonics 3y agoIt doesn't refer to anything because it contradicts itself and you made it up.
- jfengel 3y agoI would think they'd find it equally distasteful to rubber-stamp the opposite authorities. It would be justifiable to say "I don't know the shape of the world and it doesn't matter to me." It probably doesn't matter to them. If they fly in an airplane, the pilot will take care of it. If they don't understand why it's winter when they get to the other hemisphere, it doesn't matter if they can just pack right anyway. But instead they're picking a contrarian argument and not validating it themselves. That's just appealing to a different authority -- and an authority who is not only wrong, but readily disproven with only trivial effort. That seems like it's undercutting whatever epistemological taste they might claim.