On that same blog, Massimo Pigliucci wrote a reply. A recent bibliography of the literature on intuitions in philosophy is available here. To me, most of this type of argumentation is simply deficient in cognitive science, which is probably why Eliezer mostly ignores mainstream philosophy.
On that same blog, Massimo Pigliucci wrote a reply.
Pigliucci’s reply is good, but the discussion in response to Pigliucci’s piece is uncommonly good and wide-ranging. Definitely worth a look. Besides the use and misuse of intuition in philosophy, subjects covered include Searle’s “Chinese Room” and how not to use Google to collect evidence.
On that same blog, Massimo Pigliucci wrote a reply. A recent bibliography of the literature on intuitions in philosophy is available here. To me, most of this type of argumentation is simply deficient in cognitive science, which is probably why Eliezer mostly ignores mainstream philosophy.
Pigliucci’s reply is good, but the discussion in response to Pigliucci’s piece is uncommonly good and wide-ranging. Definitely worth a look. Besides the use and misuse of intuition in philosophy, subjects covered include Searle’s “Chinese Room” and how not to use Google to collect evidence.
People here may remember Pigliucci from this Blogging Heads debate against Eliezer.