3 ms·

>>> So the three reasons readers might not already know what you tell them are (a) that it's not important, (b) that they're obtuse, or (c) that they're inexper

>>> So the three reasons readers might not already know what you tell them are (a) that it's not important, (b) that they're obtuse, or (c) that they're inexperienced. (d) because it's false. I'm not saying PG's essay is false, but my scientific upbringing, and rare moments of humility, compel me to include this option.

westcoast49 1y ago
Or: (e) because it’s subjective.
adtac 1y ago
1. PG is implicitly talking about good essays. And it's very hard to write a good essay if you don't believe it's true. 2. Whether something is true has nothing to do with whether the reader knows it. I know many false things and ideas.
- neuroticnews25 1y ago
  Ad 2, this is not how knowledge is understood in mainstream epistemology and in common language. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
  - jonasenordin 1y ago
    The simple English article seems to imply the True Justified Belief 'definition'. I don't think the TJB really gets us anything. For instance: why is 'true' included in the TJB triad? 'Justified' should cover it, no? This gap seems to be the cause of the Gettier silliness. To expand on each part: 'believe' is a rather tricky Theory-of-Mind concept in itself. Eg: how familiar with a scientific model like AGW do you need to be to be allowed to 'believe' it? 'True' is similarly difficult. 'Justified' is the most sensible part, but that is still very difficult. I think science is what it boils down to. I think philosophers really badly want a concept of Knowledge that is a meaningful and 'hard'. For their own title to make sense, actually. They love it; shame if it was all sloppy thinking.
muzani 1y ago
But why would someone write a false essay? Could they be more obtuse or inexperienced than the reader?
- analog31 1y ago
  They could be misinformed themselves, or concocting an argument that doesn't really make sense. Even a lot of seemingly "logical" arguments are really just chains of weak but plausible-sounding inferences.

westcoast49 1y ago

Or: (e) because it’s subjective.

adtac 1y ago

1. PG is implicitly talking about good essays. And it's very hard to write a good essay if you don't believe it's true. 2. Whether something is true has nothing to do with whether the reader knows it. I know many false things and ideas.

neuroticnews25 1y ago
Ad 2, this is not how knowledge is understood in mainstream epistemology and in common language. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
- jonasenordin 1y ago
  The simple English article seems to imply the True Justified Belief 'definition'. I don't think the TJB really gets us anything. For instance: why is 'true' included in the TJB triad? 'Justified' should cover it, no? This gap seems to be the cause of the Gettier silliness. To expand on each part: 'believe' is a rather tricky Theory-of-Mind concept in itself. Eg: how familiar with a scientific model like AGW do you need to be to be allowed to 'believe' it? 'True' is similarly difficult. 'Justified' is the most sensible part, but that is still very difficult. I think science is what it boils down to. I think philosophers really badly want a concept of Knowledge that is a meaningful and 'hard'. For their own title to make sense, actually. They love it; shame if it was all sloppy thinking.

muzani 1y ago

But why would someone write a false essay? Could they be more obtuse or inexperienced than the reader?

analog31 1y ago
They could be misinformed themselves, or concocting an argument that doesn't really make sense. Even a lot of seemingly "logical" arguments are really just chains of weak but plausible-sounding inferences.