2/22/2024 0 Comments Flat earth society stupid![]() ![]() But confronting such arguments from the controlled and comfortable environment of the university auditorium-and in the presence of bona fide experts poised to critique them-can also make one better equipped to spot the errors in similar arguments confronted out there on the mean streets of the internet. Socratic dialogue and debate, even over propositions we already rightly accept, puts us a position “to attain a stable belief resting on a clear apprehension both of the meaning of the doctrines and their evidence.” 16 No platformers worry that engaging with flat Earth arguments will undermine knowledge and encourage an irrational form of skepticism (more on that later). Engagement with contrary opinions can make our beliefs more stable in that sense. ![]() 15 But even if it is not a requirement on knowledge or the primary source of the value of knowledge, it is uncontroversial that the kind of stability a true belief enjoys when backed by an understanding of the supporting reasons is epistemically valuable. There is a debate about whether a belief’s being tied down in this sense is a requirement on knowledge and whether the value of knowledge over mere true belief is best explained in those terms. The Clearer Perception and Livelier Impression Each of the epistemic justifications for no platforming discussed here highlight a different way in which that is supposed to happen. To say that there are good epistemic reasons for no platforming on a university campus then is to say that allowing certain propositions to be publicly defended on campus somehow undermines our epistemic goals, regardless of the argument employed and the person employing it. Those who attempted to no platform him did not-and presumably would not-object to holding an event where his views are publicly critiqued. The same is true in the case of Steve Bannon. If someone had been invited to campus to defend the opposite proposition, there would have been no petition (or, if there were, it would have been signed by a different set of people). ![]() The petition was grounded in the fact that she endorses a specific conclusion. The complaint against Greer, for instance, was not that she speaks about transgender issues or even that she endorses some particular argument on such issues. Given that the focus here is epistemological, it helps to think of no platforming as conclusion-based. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |