thenousman OP t1_jcvco9a wrote

I agree with your first point. I do not claim to have made a comprehensive nor exhaustive defense. I’m a student and it’s just a blogpost, so take it for what it is. That said, I do plan to comeback to this and build upon it after I’m more familiar with the various positions and literature. And I will revise it to be more explicit and precise.

I dispute your second point, though, as it is a thought experiment and you should try and assume it to be the case, for the sake of argument. If it were the case, such that…then what are the moral implications of such and such…anyway, that’s the usefulness of thought experiments (though some people disagree and think thought experiments are useless; but I’m not one of those).

Third point, revisit my response to the second point above.


thenousman OP t1_j6p5h8g wrote

I second this though I think it’s important to highlight that the level of analysis of Huemer’s post is appropriate for a blogpost. He gets carried away but if his aim with his blogposts is to provoke philosophical reflection then I think he has succeeded. I rarely agree with him, but he makes me think a lot better which I why I continue to read his blog.


thenousman OP t1_j4lcqzd wrote

Yeah, I agree. That’s why I said non-verbal languages and didn’t specifically refer to Sign languages like ASL. I gave hand gestures as a kind of non-verbal language, which I think it is, and mostly for comedic effect with reference to G.E. Moore’s use of hand gestures in his argument against external world skepticism.


thenousman OP t1_j1bc63k wrote

Yep, epistemic humility is crucial for open and honest discussion. One bone I have to pick is the charge of sowing division. We need experts and knowledge is so specialized that whoever lacks it must depend on experts. I don’t think most experts intend on trespassing, or that they are bad people, but that it’s part of human nature. Nonetheless, some caution is advisable on their part and our own.


thenousman OP t1_j19lys3 wrote

I don’t know what specifically makes someone an expert in whatever particular field, but in the context of epistemic trespassing that person is considered by others in and outside of their field to be an “expert” in their field, and then that person passes judgment on some question outside whatever field that they are considered an expert in. That’s why it’s trespassing and if they abuse their expert authority, which most people might not know that they did that, is why it’s wrong.


thenousman OP t1_j19hm7v wrote

A random person on the street? We are talking about an expert, not a random person. General expert? What does that have to do with this, no one is claiming to hold any given expert as a general expert. It sure sounds like you’re missing the point. In order for it to count as epistemic trespassing, it must involve an expert who then passes judgment on a question in a field in which they have no expertise and it’s wrong because people, including the expert, may be ignorant that that is happening. Hopefully that helps clear up any confusion.


thenousman OP t1_j197l7t wrote

Yeah and I should just reiterate that epistemic trespassing can only be done by someone who is an expert and that it can be considered wrong when it constitutes an abuse of expert authority that neglects novice vulnerabilities.

Here and, in everyday, we aren’t normally going about our lives (and certainly not in all matters) as experts so I don’t think such concern is warranted.