Objections to Objections to Epistemology

“You have to study for years before the answers to your questions become clear.”

Okay, so how did people first develop the field enough to reach those answers? There must be other, closer answers they used – assuming there are any at all.

“You can’t understand because you’re not a professional philosopher.”

These are very basic issues that have to be resolved before this line of inquiry can be extended. Shouldn’t the explanations be equally elementary? You don’t need to understand advanced mathematics to grasp the rudiments of mechanics, even though it would take the specific educational level of physicists to grasp modern theoretical physics. Physics begins with simple things. Where are the simple things philosophy begins with? Why isn’t this one of them?

Remember, folks: if people reached their positions through rational means, they possess data and arguments that are sufficient to convince a neutral, rational person to adopt that position; if they didn’t reach their positions through rational means, there are no reasons to consider, much less adopt, them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: