RE: "Doing" Epistemology?

[djf500@york.ac.uk]

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


If you look back at the posts you will see that Craig himself admits that 
his original question was misleading.

That he maintained this (at least for a while) is shown by him saying that 
he wasn't 'looking for anything in depth' - surely metaphilosophy has 
considerable depth!

That the discussion has moved from a question requiring little depth to a 
range of answers of considerable depth suggests, at least to me, that the 
discussion has altered and not just developed (i assume that the charmingly 
named 'none of your business' (NOYB for short) means 'developed 
organically' or something such). As for my apparent rudeness, it was not 
intended and I do not think I was rude. Saying that somebody has mistaken a 
point in a debate is fairly crucial to philosophy. Not only that but NYOB 
then goes on to do the same thing to me - I don't it as rude, but obviously 
he does, so he seems to intend to be rude to me!

Further rudeness on his part comes with note of attempted condecension I 
detect in him lauding me with the compliment '[w]ell done'. This has no 
place on this list or in good philosophy anywhere.

NOYB addresses two points of mine - i will address his response to the 
second. The strangest thing he says is that what i say might be 
'unintelligible (as formulated)' - perhaps he could say why.

As for it being (seemingly obviously) false that there are in fact 
distinctive metaphilosopical questions raised by epistemology, i'm not sure 
that the discussion so far has brought that ought that out. NYOB says:

"Epistemological meta philosophical question do exist, they
are not psudoe questions, and they should be raised because answering them
might serve to substantiate or undermine epistemological practice. It may be
that the meta philosophical questions raised are just a breed of
epistemological questions." 

None of this addresses the point about distinctiveness. All of this could 
be true if we were just taking epistemology as an example of an area 
effected by metaphilosophical questions. Of course, the effect of those 
questions (*if* they are neutral in original formulation) on each area of 
philosophy effected will be manifestly different - but that doesn't make 
the questions distinctively connected with epistemology. For example, just 
because epistemology might be effected by which background logic is 
employed, formulating the axioms of that logic is a problem in logic and 
not in epistemology - but the solution will effect epistemology. (Please 
take this as an illustrative example not a theory or meta-theory or any 
other kind of assertion that anyone knows about.)

Does anyone find this to be 'rude'!?   




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