« Columbia Business School professor Eric J. Johnson has commented in an overcomingbias thread on animal status contention | Main | Effing Fantastic: Coherence Theory as a subset of Social Epistemology »

March 14, 2009

Comments

TGGP

I like reading OrgTheory, but I don't what's so interesting about their first post.

Why do biomedical researchers studying consciousness seem more professionally responsible than social epistemologists?
What "social epistemologists" are you referring to? Also: from what I've heard there are a lot of creationist medical doctors. I've also heard that medicine is considered more "scientific" by the general public than physics.

Hopefully Anonymous

I mentioned Fuller right in that post.

I planned to do a larger bit on first blog posts, including overcoming bias, etc. but I ran out of steam quick on that one.

Douglas Knight

Studying social epistemology should reveal what a bad job society does at propagating information. This becomes a "fully general counterargument" not to believe anything in particular.

I don't know about people who use the phrase "social epistemology," but this is what I see elsewhere, that people find it easier to find problems the usual stories of how social epistemology works than to understand how it actually works; and that a common failure mode is excusing specific fringe beliefs, rather than becoming generally skeptical.

The comments to this entry are closed.