I don’t think that’s comparable at all. I don’t think Gordon is basing epistemology on circularity in the sense that “you can have circular reasoning, and it’s fine, and you can have high confidence in the results”, but in the sense that “circulatory is inevitable, and it isn’t fine, it has all the problems usually associated with it, and that scuppers immodest epistemology” .
Yudkowsky has a specific argument about the circular justification of induction , but is not clear how far that goes to solve epistemology. He explicitly favours immodest epistemology, but it is very unclear that he has solved the foundational problems sufficiently.
I don’t think that’s comparable at all. I don’t think Gordon is basing epistemology on circularity in the sense that “you can have circular reasoning, and it’s fine, and you can have high confidence in the results”, but in the sense that “circulatory is inevitable, and it isn’t fine, it has all the problems usually associated with it, and that scuppers immodest epistemology” .
Yudkowsky has a specific argument about the circular justification of induction , but is not clear how far that goes to solve epistemology. He explicitly favours immodest epistemology, but it is very unclear that he has solved the foundational problems sufficiently.