Meta-theoretical relationships: Logic > Epistemology > Knowledge

4 thoughts on “Meta-theoretical relationships: Logic > Epistemology > Knowledge”

  1. This is unfair; I saw how you acted in the group and this sounds like some kind of rationalization. The use of “plebians” is pompous and arrogant, like the rest of the posts that you quoted.

    “somehow under the illusion that they have the right to mock my perspective (meta-theory) on epistemology simply because my epistemology differs from their own epistemology.”

    Another example of pomposity and arrogance.

    No one is mocking your theory, because you did not come on talking about your theory but about critical rationalism and how it was a special case of Bayesian theory. You came into the group and tried to criticise CP, which the group then entertained and gave you much criticism and feedback, many people got frustrated, because it seemed, that, instead of engaging with the criticism, you either ignored it or changed the subject, and repeated things that had already been criticised.

    “This is an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, because they seem happy to mock my perspective while under the illusion that they are somehow more informed / intelligent than I am.”

    No, some of them believed they were more infomed about critical rationalism, which most of them were. So, no example of D-K is apparent.

    “Somehow”

    So it is impossible to be more informed that you are? that is what this quote sounds like; if so, have you tried considering whether it is you with the D-K?

    Like

    1. Thanks for stopping by. I agree that the beginning portion of this post is sardonic. But I think it’s a good description of reality. This is my personal blog, so I see no reason not to express my honest opinion here, especially when it’s accompanied by a detailed analysis of their mistakes in reasoning.

      Like

  2. “Different perspectives cannot falsify each other. People here don’t seem to understand that.”

    You don’t seem to understand the difference between falsification and criticism. Of course perspective cannot falsify eachother, only evidence can falsify anything, and what it falsifies is not perspectives, but theories that have empirical content. People can critically engage in which perspective solves the problems that it purports to solve and therefore criticise it in relation to those problems. You in coming to the facebook forum implicity accept this, because if you did not, you think that no discussion is worth having about your perspective. You can entrench your perspective as much as you want, but you should not hold a claim that cannot be criticised. Critical rationalism can be criticised, and the perspectives of it can, also.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s