Discussion about this post

User's avatar
PhilobolobsTime's avatar

Thank you, I enjoyed reading this. I don't know if you intentionally left out debates that have been ongoing in feminist epistemology/standpoint theory from Elisabeth Anderson (1995), Harding (1992), Intemann (2010), and especially Longino (1990) on social objectivity. If you did that is completely fine, there are many roads to the same argument (and blogs have a limited space), if you did not this is an amazing array of easy accessible literature to dive into that develops the Quinean epistemological tradition into a more modern era of social knowledge. I will not write any question here as I would rather discuss it in person :)

Another thought I had was that if you are looking for more convincing examples than the one with Catholic men, there is some very interesting literature from John G. Bullock on voter rationalism. He has made some experimental tests to see what political facts people from different political extremes believe in under different scenarios. When people are offered money for getting objective answers about political economy and political consequences right people from the far right and far left mostly agree on the facts. When no money is on the line they are very partisan in their beliefs about the same set of objective facts. There is something interesting here about what the right beliefs are, or whether beliefs are wholly dispositional and so just change under circumstances (this would have the consequence that beliefs are highly contextual and flexible). This is also just something that I would like to discuss with you in the future if you want to.

Best,

Rasmus

Expand full comment
Morgan Hart's avatar

I suppose my true objection to 'people should act by the majority, and advocate the minority' is that sometimes the majority is very wrong. I'm sure plenty of priests that preach sermons about how masturbation is a mortal sin don't really believe it (I consider preaching more of an action than advocacy) and are instead taking the outside view because they don't want to risk it. I'm also sure that those beliefs cause a lot of harm that can be avoided by sincerely preaching their individual beliefs. The thing is, individual beliefs aren't controlled the same way as societal beliefs—there are always more factors to societal ones, like power or special interests or plain inertia—so I think individual rationality is often the way to go.

Plus, I think there's something damaging to the acting individual when they don't act on their true beliefs. When someone's in a constant state of hypocrisy, it tends to make people crazy and guilty. I suppose it would be better to act on your beliefs and face the consequences rather than live in a constant state of double-think.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts