Share this comment
Where are you getting "conclusive" from?
The evidence is not the links, but the arguments contained therein. If the arguments successfully establish what they claim, it is not arrogant to share this info. (Generally speaking, I think it is helpful to share information. I wish more academics would do likewise, hence my invitation at the en…
Where are you getting "conclusive" from?
The evidence is not the links, but the arguments contained therein. If the arguments successfully establish what they claim, it is not arrogant to share this info. (Generally speaking, I think it is helpful to share information. I wish more academics would do likewise, hence my invitation at the end of the post.) And I welcome reasoned counterarguments on any of these points.
If you are simply assuming, without argument, that our academic work could not possibly establish what it sets out to establish, then the staggering arrogance is all yours.
A final point: recall that this is my personal blog. No-one is forcing you to read it. If you don't find it valuable, do something else with your time. My general policy is to ban people who leave nasty, low-value comments after a single warning. This is yours.
“Myth-busting” implies conclusive evidence. I would even claim it implies wide agreement in the field, which doesn’t exist in philosophy.
So you are merely claiming positions you happen to hold are somehow “myth-busting” refutations. In other words, you are merely promoting your views to argue that there is progress in philosophy.
I would expect such arrogance from a freshman in philosophy, not a supposed academic.
Did you even read the post's introduction? It's very clear on this point:
> "[It's] interesting to consider what mistakes philosophers commonly make, perhaps based on an outdated sense of the philosophical literature. Vanishingly few papers have been read by most philosophers, and most papers are read by vanishingly few philosophers. So it’s hard for new insights to permeate the discipline’s “conventional wisdom”. In this post, I’ll flag some of the persisting “myths” of moral philosophy that tend to bother me the most. Feel free to dispute these or add your own suggestions in the comments!"
If you insist on reading "myth-busting" to mean something different from the explication that I provide, that's on you. I was very clear on what I meant.
And *of course* I think my papers constitute academic progress. I wouldn't bother writing them otherwise! I'm sure many other philosophers *also* have papers that similarly correct common misunderstandings, and I invite them to share theirs too. Your attitude here is utterly idiotic.
> "Calling something a mistake (“a myth”) assumes it’s settled and beyond doubt."
No it doesn't. You're foolishly assuming infallibilism about knowledge: I can know that P is mistaken, and correctly assert that P is mistaken, even if my justified true claim remains "open to doubt". This was the #1 "example of solved philosophy" mentioned in my decades-old post, and is universally recognized by philosophers today. Sounds like you could learn something from following those links!
[But banning you now, since you persist in being obnoxious while having nothing of value to add.]