Attacking hereditarianism on grounds of... not accepting abduction is certainly a bold move. But not one that would convince anyone not already in agreement. Everybody uses abduction in real life, and it fits well with a coherentist view of justification IMO.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Philosophers are not going to change their minds no matter what I do. Their beliefs stem mostly from politics, not science. However, empirical evidence can convince scientists and if clean enough, normal people. I think that's the more likely pathway to acceptance.
No one else reads these philosophy debates, so they are basically irrelevant except for philosophers themselves and a small minority of philosophy interested people and critics. Hence, instrumentally speaking, there is little reason to engage with them.
