Your example would be pretty telling and damning if we assume that you’re correct, but my guess is that most readers here will assume you’re wrong about it. Someone in your position could still be right, of course; I’m just saying that this wouldn’t yet be apparent to readers.
Fair enough! :) The parallel I had in mind was “[almost] no object level pushback”, or at least almost no object level pushback that I can tell is based on an accurate understanding of my arguments.
Ah, right. It’s not been that long yet, IMO, but if this continues for (say) 2ys in that no one changes their mind but also ~no one engages with the arguments directly and substantively, that would be disappointing.
In your case, the arguments seem more radical, unlike with arguing for anti-realism where one commonly available reason for not engaging much would be people thinking “I probably have similar enough views already.”
For me, epistemology was never my special interest, so I’m not that well-positioned to dive into the topic and try writing a critique or commentary, but I hope that someone else ends up doing it.
Fair enough! :) The parallel I had in mind was “[almost] no object level pushback”, or at least almost no object level pushback that I can tell is based on an accurate understanding of my arguments.
Ah, right. It’s not been that long yet, IMO, but if this continues for (say) 2ys in that no one changes their mind but also ~no one engages with the arguments directly and substantively, that would be disappointing.
In your case, the arguments seem more radical, unlike with arguing for anti-realism where one commonly available reason for not engaging much would be people thinking “I probably have similar enough views already.”
For me, epistemology was never my special interest, so I’m not that well-positioned to dive into the topic and try writing a critique or commentary, but I hope that someone else ends up doing it.