I don’t understand. The blog author’s epistemological standard is set at the balance of evidence that we have available to us. I don’t think you can do better than that, else you’re left with sophistry, convenient falsehoods, and zealotry.
Who cares which “camp” you reason yourself into if you actually reasoned yourself into it using real arguments and scrutinized syllogisms?
Most people don’t do anything like that. We usually just defend our creature comforts or we, for example, decide what we want to eat and then work backwards to cling on to anything that seems like it might validate us.
Meanwhile, Have you read Ray Peat? He’s the opposite of someone reasoning about the balance of evidence which is why he spends most of his time talking about the bottom of the hierarchy of evidence; anecdotes and rat studies.
Who cares which “camp” you reason yourself into if you actually reasoned yourself into it using real arguments and scrutinized syllogisms?
Most people don’t do anything like that. We usually just defend our creature comforts or we, for example, decide what we want to eat and then work backwards to cling on to anything that seems like it might validate us.
Meanwhile, Have you read Ray Peat? He’s the opposite of someone reasoning about the balance of evidence which is why he spends most of his time talking about the bottom of the hierarchy of evidence; anecdotes and rat studies.