Overcoming Bias

Share this post

Majoritarian Philosophy

www.overcomingbias.com

Discover more from Overcoming Bias

This is a blog on why we believe and do what we do, why we pretend otherwise, how we might do better, and what our descendants might do, if they don't all die.
Over 11,000 subscribers
Continue reading
Sign in

Majoritarian Philosophy

Robin Hanson
Dec 11, 2009
1
Share this post

Majoritarian Philosophy

www.overcomingbias.com
38
Share

Bryan points us to this survey on thirty key philosophy questions.   The survey offers four indicators to estimate philosophical truth:

  1. Most popular opinion of anyone who responded to the survey.

  2. Most popular of responding profs at “99 leading departments of philosophy.”

  3. Most surprisingly popular in #2, which is a Bayesian Truth Serum indicator.

  4. Most popular among responding profs specializing in the question’s topic area.

There’s lots of detail there I hope someone will analyze.  This seems a great chance to exercise majoritarian epistemic principles.

As a first pass, I compared my opinions to indicator #2 and found I can comfortably accept the modal professional opinion on 25 of the 30 topics!  For three of them I was moderately temped to disagree, choosing mental content: internalism, knowledge claims: invariantism, and epistemic justification: internalism.  But on reflection I think I just tend to use the words “think”, “know” and “justify” differently; I’m not sure I substantively disagree.

On only 2 of 30 topics was I strongly tempted to disagree with professionals.  Popular and specialist opinions agree with my choice aesthetic value: subjective, but professionals pick objective, and their opinion is surprisingly popular.  So while I might have an excuse to hold my ground, I guess I can live with the idea that there might be substantial elements in common among the concepts of beauty that would evolve among a wide variety of intelligent species and their descendants.  Could this be what objective beauty means?

Meta-ethics: moral anti-realism also tempted me strongly.  But here all four truth indicators point toward moral realism.  So I guess I should seriously consider changing my mind.  Is it plausible that there is something substantial in common among the moral intuitions that would evolve in a wide range of intelligent species and their descendants?  Am I agreeing if I accept that as moral reality, or does moral realism demand I believe something more?

Yes I’m still a contrarian in many ways, but I really do largely accept professional opinion in fields where I know and largely respect the professionals.  These include physics, analytic philosophy, computer science, and micro-economics.

1
Share this post

Majoritarian Philosophy

www.overcomingbias.com
38
Share
38 Comments
Share this discussion

Majoritarian Philosophy

www.overcomingbias.com
Overcoming Bias Commenter
May 15

Robert, see Wikipedia article on Object of the Mind for possible examples.

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
robertwiblin
May 15

In this case the reason we would evolve to project moral preferences is pretty obvious, but it's harder to see why we would evolve to project objects that don't exist or affect us.

I notice philosophers of biology are much more likely to be anti-realists.

Do you know of any good justifications for moral realism yourself?

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
36 more comments...
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 Robin Hanson
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing