By meta-epistemy do you mean something that can explain how the current rationalist epistemology came about or do you want something that can explain how one should make it better in the future?
Understanding intelligence would give you the first. Or at least it would at least give you an explanation of the development of epistemes of the sort evolution gives you for the development of creatures. Intelligence might be contingent on history in the same way evolutionary fitness is.
I’m not sure if the second is at all tractable.
Can you clarify what sub-epistemies are in this framework?
I don’t know LW editing. (First post.) How do internal links work ? Edit : Simple HTML internal links, I had to add “#”.
By meta-epistemy do you mean something that can explain how the current rationalist epistemology came about or do you want something that can explain how one should make it better in the future?
By meta-epistemy, I meant an epistemy that we should follow to define and evaluate new sub-epistemies.
Can you clarify what sub-epistemies are in this framework?
Basically, instead of coming with a new thought. Trying to see to which more general field that thought belong too, and if there are basic associated rules that could help checking the validity of the thought.
It’d be easier with some examples, but that could be taken negatively by the source material’s author. It’s late where I am. If you want an example, I can produce an artificial one tomorrow.
I agree has a broken link.
By meta-epistemy do you mean something that can explain how the current rationalist epistemology came about or do you want something that can explain how one should make it better in the future?
Understanding intelligence would give you the first. Or at least it would at least give you an explanation of the development of epistemes of the sort evolution gives you for the development of creatures. Intelligence might be contingent on history in the same way evolutionary fitness is.
I’m not sure if the second is at all tractable.
Can you clarify what sub-epistemies are in this framework?
I don’t know LW editing. (First post.) How do internal links work ? Edit : Simple HTML internal links, I had to add “#”.
By meta-epistemy, I meant an epistemy that we should follow to define and evaluate new sub-epistemies.
Basically, instead of coming with a new thought. Trying to see to which more general field that thought belong too, and if there are basic associated rules that could help checking the validity of the thought. It’d be easier with some examples, but that could be taken negatively by the source material’s author. It’s late where I am. If you want an example, I can produce an artificial one tomorrow.
You need an epistemology to decide an epistemology, , and when you really understand that, you stop being a rationalist in the local sense.