I'm wondering if there is room in this picture for epistemic humility, where we think knowledge is sometimes possible, but it's difficult, and for many or even most important questions, we don't...
I'm wondering if there is room in this picture for epistemic humility, where we think knowledge is sometimes possible, but it's difficult, and for many or even most important questions, we don't actually know what's true?
What about a belief that, in a world where many things are uncertain, being comfortable with uncertainty is valuable, rather than making unnecessary conclusions that are likely false?
I also wonder if this article is being excessively binary about knowledge by saying it either has firm foundations or it doesn't? I'm thinking of the saying in economics that "all models are false, but some are useful."
(But maybe that's a more positive spin on "passive nihilism.")
I'm wondering if there is room in this picture for epistemic humility, where we think knowledge is sometimes possible, but it's difficult, and for many or even most important questions, we don't actually know what's true?
What about a belief that, in a world where many things are uncertain, being comfortable with uncertainty is valuable, rather than making unnecessary conclusions that are likely false?
I also wonder if this article is being excessively binary about knowledge by saying it either has firm foundations or it doesn't? I'm thinking of the saying in economics that "all models are false, but some are useful."
(But maybe that's a more positive spin on "passive nihilism.")