RE: "Doing" Epistemology?

[djf500@york.ac.uk]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


When I said that the discussion is not interesting, I didn't mean that I am 
not enthralled by the content. What I meant was that I couldn't see the 
point in the sort of discussion that was taking place. Since then people 
have altered the discussion to include some interesting questions about the 
status of epistemology in relation to other areas, and have begun to look 
at epistemological questions from a metaphilosophical point of view. 
Whether I agree with what has been said or not, the discussion is now 
'interesting' in that a substantial aim is beginning to emerge.

Just because this is a free list for all questions DOES NOT mean that one 
shouldn't answer those questions by saying that they are bad questions. If 
Craig accepts that a question he asks might seem obvious or trivial, he 
needs to explain why it in fact isn't. The original question WAS trivial 
(save taking it as a request to explain to non-philosophers what 
epistemology is, perhaps) - but due to an act of charity the discussion has 
become substantial (at least on first look).

With regard to the metaphilosophical discussion, I think that we need to 
try harder to say if (and if so, why) there are distinctive 
metaphilosophical questions raised by epistemology. If there aren't any 
distinctive questions, then I take it that epistemology becomes a case 
study rather than a specific object of enquiry, as it were (at least to 
begin with) - that's not necessarily a problem but it needs to be stated 
explicitly. Bits of the discussion seem to be heading this way.

Given the charity with which others have read his contributions, I hope 
that in the future Craig manages to understand that what I say will NEVER 
consist in just saying 'ugh, that's boring'!

Hereby - I hope - ends the meta-debate;)




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml