A thing that feels slightly off to me here is the conflation of “debate skill” and “epistemic skill.” I think being able to win a debate is related but distinct from being able to form correct opinions, which is what I associate “epistemic” with.
That’s a very good point. I suppose I could have tightened my terminology in that regard, but ultimately it’s a (perhaps misguided) base assumption of mine that “Success in debate is primarily determined by the strength of one’s evidence”, so I’m not sure I would have anticipated that argument even given more time. I frequently forget that “debate” constitutes a skillset all its own.
(Have read about half the post so far)
A thing that feels slightly off to me here is the conflation of “debate skill” and “epistemic skill.” I think being able to win a debate is related but distinct from being able to form correct opinions, which is what I associate “epistemic” with.
That’s a very good point. I suppose I could have tightened my terminology in that regard, but ultimately it’s a (perhaps misguided) base assumption of mine that “Success in debate is primarily determined by the strength of one’s evidence”, so I’m not sure I would have anticipated that argument even given more time. I frequently forget that “debate” constitutes a skillset all its own.