Thursday, June 26, 2008

Continued from previou posts

As a reflective agent, to truly believe something you must consider it to be epistemically superior to its negation. You must therefore hold that anyone who believes otherwise is ipso facto your epistemic inferior in this respect.

I have issues with
1) 'must'
on threat of what?*


2) 'superior to its negation'
does that mean if there is no theory that covers more than 50% I can't believe anything? I am thinking here of fundamental theories that underly all other ideas - such that you would have to totally revamp your world view to switch from one to another. An example might be an ethical theory on which one (as a highly rational agent) might have built 'rules for living one's life'.

*I guess a certain sort of rationality is hidden in the term "reflective agent"?


Post a Comment

<< Home