And are those bullet-points (the ones that relates to philsci) all solid points to make? I realize that in order to know if those bullet-points contrast with anything that Dillahunty has ever said, one needs to be familiar with Dillahunty's commentary on science. — Need Logic Help

My understanding of DIllahunty is that he was a Southern Baptist who became an atheist after exposing himself to the arguments of skeptics and secular humanists, ostensibly in an attempt to improve his own arguments in defence of Christianity. He wanted to be a preacher.

He would be the first to tell you he is not a scientist or philosopher so he would likely ask you to go elsewhere for knowledge on these subjects. His primary work consists of examining the reasons people offer for believing in God and deconstructing these based on critical thinking and basic skepticism. A commonly cited text book is A Concise Introduction to Logic by Hurley and Watson.

Most of his work is debating literalist fundamentalists so not a lot of substantive philosophy taking place. He has cited Susan Haack as an influence on this thinking about science. He does not accept that science is in the business of making truth proclamations.

No doubt many would disparage his position based on the fact that Dillahunty is essentially a physicalist with all the potential baggage and limitations this approach may have.

Thanks for getting back to me! I appreciate the fantastic response!

I know that Dillahunty is not an academic or anything, but I'm curious about whether he pushes bad philosophy ever, and if so if it's irresponsible for him to do so.

The piece cited in my post draws an analogy to biology. If there was a biology show "Biology Explorations with Matt Dillahunty!" and then he never brought on biologists to check whether the stuff that he was putting out there was solid, then you might consider that sketchy. For some reason, I guess, philosophy isn't considered the same as biology, since Dillahunty has no problem talking about philosophy without having any philosophers check whether his philosophy commentaries are solid. I wonder what the difference between biology and philosophy are. Or maybe the piece isn't even correct; maybe it would be perfectly OK to have a biology show for the public that didn't ever bring biologists on to "vet" things. But if that wouldn't be OK for biology, then why is it OK for philosophy?

I guess I should've been more clear in my post. Because there are two questions. First is whether the bullet points that are related to philsci are good points (and what you guys make of those points). Second is whether those points undermine any of the philsci-related stuff that Dillahunty talks about (this requires you to know what Dillahunty says about philsci). So there are two separate questions here. Not sure if my post was sufficiently clear about that.

I also linked to two videos. And I get that citing videos is brutal because they take a while to watch. But I wonder if just dipping into those videos you guys would find that those videos are solid, or whether there's any bad philosophy ("bad philsci") being pushed in those videos.

When you mention the "commonly cited" textbook, is that something that Dillahunty cites? Or is it just commonly cited in general by...by whom? Thanks!

Dillahunty has no problem talking about philosophy without having any philosophers check whether his philosophy commentaries are solid — Need Logic Help

Cool.

The issue is you can find philosophers to support whatever belief you have. Whose assessment of Dillahunty would be useful? He does liaise with academics and sometimes interviews them.

Dillahunty presents basic forms of fallibilism and skepticism which does not seem irresponsible unless you have already decided that God exists and empiricism is not a sound epistemological approach. There are many who would argue this.

There seems to be a potential major error here. If not, I apologize. But why assume that the options are (1) "Dillahunty is solid in the stuff that he says about phil and philsci and logic and epistemology" or (2) "God is true and empiricism is not a sound epistemological approach"?

I'm skeptical about both (1) and (2). My third option would be: (3) "the religious people are way off-base and Dillahunty also commits major errors when he wades into the pools of phil and philsci and logic and epistemology".

Ethics is another area Dillahunty talks about, and on that topic he cites Sam Harris, who is arguably one of the most pilloried pop-philosophers in the entire world, as you can find out by searching his name on philosophy-forums.

You raise a good point: "Whose assessment of Dillahunty would be useful?"

The first step would be to have some critical academics vet the stuff, whoever they are.

Another key point is that we all have some sense of which academics in a given field (a) publish peer-reviewed articles and (b) are highly regarded by their peers and (c) are having an influence in their field by being cited a lot by their peers. True, there's no objective way to know whose assessment is useful, but we all have a sense for who the first-rate scholars in a field are. The fact that they're first-rate doesn't make them correct, but it makes it interesting to see what they have to say about the philosophy that you're putting out to the world.

There seems to be a potential major error here. If not, I apologize. — Need Logic Help

I'm not making a logical argument, I am simply making the observation that physicalism is contested in philosophical circles and by some on this site. There are people who would dub his ideas as irresponsible or inadequate because they ignore alternative traditions and 'evidence' and centuries of Western idealist traditions.

Thanks. I'm just pushing this idea as a potential fact: "the religious people are way off-base and Dillahunty also commits major errors when he wades into the pools of phil and philsci and logic and epistemology".

I just want to make that clear, since it's a false choice to say that either Matt is solid or his religious interlocutors are solid; they could both be wrong about various things in philosophy.

Thanks. I'm just pushing this idea as a potential fact: "the religious people are way off-base and Dillahunty also commits major errors when he wades into the pools of phil and philsci and logic and epistemology".

I just want to make that clear, since it's a false choice to say that either Matt is solid or his religious interlocutors are solid; they could both be wrong about various things in philosophy. — Need Logic Help

D may be crusty but never makes claims about truth and seems open to hearing where he might be wrong, so go to it.

Seems to me he never really goes beyond undergraduate levels of logic and epistemology, so I doubt there is anything especially 'wrong' with his substantive material. But it is likely to be seen as limited from a bigger picture academic perspective - theoretical physics, for one

The best way to view D (I think) is as a polemicist who uses critical thinking techniques to debunk supernatural belief systems. Perhaps best seen as a first step towards learning more and not an end in itself.

If there are no major errors in his substantive material, then that's fantastic. That's what's at issue here: Is his substantive material solid or not?

If it's solid, then that's a really good thing. The bad thing would be if there were bad philosophy being spread (and being spread with a polemical confidence, too, which would just add insult to injury, since he would not only be spreading bad philosophy but also doing so in an extremely obnoxious way).

Sounds like you don't like him and are looking for 'evidence' to have a go at his work. No?

I don't like him as a person, but that has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong about philosophy. He can be very obnoxious (just watch literally any of his YT videos and you'll see exactly what I mean; he hangs up on people and stuff), but that has zero to do with whether he's spreading bad philosophy or not.

Obnoxious people can be correct. And polite/nice/personable people can be wrong. So these are different questions.

I'd say seeking out philosophical projectiles for the express purpose of taking down someone who, as far as you know, hasn't committed any errors because you disagree with their religious position is far worse philosophy than anything you might succeed in debunking: it's intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, and reduces philosophical positions to a checklist of mindless soundbites.

If you or someone you have in mind cannot muster an argument based on their own position and learning, that's airtight enough for you/them but perhaps not for someone more sincere.

I'm just interested in the questions that I asked in the post about whether there's any bad philosophy being spread.

I think Matt is annoying. Some of the other "atheist" hosts are super-nice, actually. But all of this is extremely irrelevant, and I probably shouldn't have even answered the question because it's a distraction from the purpose of this thread.

So I'll just stay away from random gossip/distractions and stick to the topic from now on.

And just to be clear, a lot of the hosts are really nice, and they might well be spreading errors as well, so it's not all about Matt and it's not all about the one host who happens to be impolite.

I just want to clarify a couple points, since there seems to be some extreme confusion here.

First, I'm a nonbeliever. I don't accept any supernatural claims, and I don't believe in God, and I'm not religious, and I don't accept any religious claims.

Second, I'm suspicious that "atheist" content has philosophical errors in it, but you're right that I have no idea if there are errors.

Third, I started this thread in order to find out if there are errors, so the very purpose of this thread is to find out (from knowledgeable people) if there are any errors. It's an investigation.

Fourth, I need to stick to the topic of this thread: whether there is or isn't any bad philosophy being spread. I can't be distracted by irrelevant stuff like what I personally believe about religion (irrelevant) or whether I think Matt is rude (irrelevant). This is a philosophy-forum.

I'm just interested in the questions that I asked in the post about whether there's any bad philosophy being spread. — Need Logic Help

As I've already said, it could be considered 'bad' by those who thinks physicalism is wrong and limited. Most of the usual critiques made against atheism apply to D, except that his form of atheism is agnostic atheism which is not making any positive claims. There are many competent philosophers who would argue that atheism is bad philosophy period....

As you probably know, anything any atheist or believer says is able to be critiqued from some perspective or another. Whether one agrees often depends on one's bias rather than the merit of the argument. That much we can see from how people argue on this site.

When you mention the "commonly cited" textbook, is that something that Dillahunty cites? — Need Logic Help

Dillahunty.

Thanks for responding. I want to clarify something absolutely crucial.

I would imagine:

--nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is not remotely controversial among leading scholars of epistemology

--serious scholars will not challenge "atheist" commentators on the issue of whether nonbelief is rational

--nonbelief is fully rational based on the most rigorous thinking in epistemology

--"atheist" commentators probably make all sorts of philosophical mistakes, despite being correct in their conclusion that nonbelief is rational

By the way, I sincerely apologize for allowing myself to get knocked off course. I shouldn't have mentioned anything irrelevant to the issues raised in my post.

I came to this forum to stay on-topic about philosophy. It's my fault, though, for letting myself get distracted. I will try to be much more disciplined about the specific issues at hand.

--"atheist" commentators probably make all sorts of philosophical mistakes, despite being correct in their conclusion that nonbelief is rational — Need Logic Help

You talk about errors and mistakes and their propagation. Please explain what you mean.

I don't know what you mean by "philosophical mistakes". There are such things as errors in logic, and there are such things as fallacies. Philosophy, as a discipline, is not error-prone. Some things can be proven false, but very, very few. This is so mainly because philosophy deals almost exclusively with topics that can't be decided aye or nay for sure.

So what do you mean by "philosophical mistakes"? If you could please explain that.

Thanks for replying!

1: I apologize for any vagueness. It's annoying to simply ask philsci (and other) experts to weigh in on this material, since it takes hours to try to watch all of these videos. It would be great if (e.g.) Dillahunty (or other hosts) simply had a book/paper that could be sent to experts to review, but instead the content is spread across all of these lengthy videos, so it's a lot of work to find out what their views on philsci (or other topics) even are.

2: I did link to various things in my post, though, so those could be commented on. There are "ten bullet-points" and also two YouTube-videos. I would be curious to know what people think about those things.

3: Falsifiability is a big one. Dillahunty talks in the two videos that I linked about how science uses falsifiability, but one of the "ten bullet-points" that I linked to mentions that falsifiability is not actually relevant to philsci. And that's an interesting idea, since laypeople would imagine that falsifiability is crucial to science, so if it isn't then experts (on philsci) might clarify why it's not crucial and why science is able to function without it.

Your moniker says you need logic help.

Anything that is logically proven, can be show to be false if:
1. One or more of the assumptions are found to be wrong;
2. One or more of the logical steps are found to be wrong.

I shan't go into details of how one can make logical errors, this little post is too small for that. But if someone bases his logic on an assumption (called premise) in his thinking, and the logic is flawless, then the conclusion will be wrong.

Now take the case of the atheist versus the believer. The atheist's assumption is that the gospels are not factual, they are make-belief, they are not inspired by god. The believer's assumption, on the other hand, is that the Gospels are true in every word, and God inspired them via the life of Jesus.

Right away you have a contention that makes one's entire argument stand or fail. The atheist may make a beatuful logical deducing, but his assumption is false according to the Christian believer, so the atheist's conclusion is wrong. And similarly the other way.

philsci — Need Logic Help

I also don't know what you mean by this word, you keep using this abbreviation as if it were a c.h.w.

I just mean philosophy of science.

Thanks for responding. I want to clarify something absolutely crucial.

I would imagine:

--nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is not remotely controversial among leading scholars of epistemology

--serious scholars will not challenge "atheist" commentators on the issue of whether nonbelief is rational

--nonbelief is fully rational based on the most rigorous thinking in epistemology

--"atheist" commentators probably make all sorts of philosophical mistakes, despite being correct in their conclusion that nonbelief is rational — Need Logic Help

Read any critique about atheism and you will see what I mean. Things being rational or not are not always the main game.

Does any serious/leading scholar of epistemology challenge the notion that nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is rational? I would love to read their argument, if so. I don't imagine that that's controversial.

The word "atheism" is extremely loaded, so I avoid it. I only care about whether nonbelief is rational. "Atheism" is a nightmare of a term, since it might imply an assertion about God not existing or some such thing. I try to avoid that term at all costs, to avoid massive confusions.

Thanks for replying!

1: I apologize for any vagueness. It's annoying to simply ask philsci (and other) experts to weigh in on this material, since it takes hours to try to watch all of these videos. It would be great if (e.g.) Dillahunty (or other hosts) had a simply book/paper that could be sent to experts to review, but instead the content is spread across all of these lengthy videos, so it's a lot of work to find out what their views on philsci (or other topics) even are.

2: I did link to various things in my post, though, so those could be commented on. There are "ten bullet-points" and also two YouTube-videos. I would be curious to know what people think about those things.

3: Falsifiability is a big one. Dillahunty talks in the two videos that I linked about how philosophy uses falsifiability, but one of the "ten bullet-points" that I linked to mentions that falsifiability is not actually relevant to philsci. And that's an interesting idea, since laypeople would imagine that falsifiability is crucial to science, so if it isn't then experts (on philsci) might clarify why it's not crucial and why science is able to function without it. — Need Logic Help

You did speak a million words without answering my question. I can't answer YOUR question before you tell me the answer to my question.

Your question (for clarification, please correct me if I am wrong): "What philosophical errors does Dullahunty make?"

My question (has to be answered before I can answer yours): "How would you describe what a philosophical error is?"

Please don't mince words, and keep focussed on the question I asked of you. If you can't answer it, please note that I can't help you then.

By "error", I don't mean anything technical. I simply mean: "Not knowing what you're talking about."

Suppose someone says that science relies on falsifiability in order to operate and in order to make progress, and then a philsci expert says: "Actually, falsifiability has not been relevant in our field (philsci) for decades." That would be an error, since the person is saying something that scholars would consider incorrect and that scholars would say (in this case) represents old thinking that went out of date decades ago.

So it's really just: "Things that leading/prominent/serious scholars in the field would consider misinformed or uninformed or incorrect."

Does any serious/leading scholar of epistemology challenge the notion that nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is rational? — Need Logic Help

I thought that your question was if there were philosophical errors in the Dullahunty's videos.

So what IS your question?

Does any serious/leading scholar of epistemology challenge the notion that nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is rational? — Need Logic Help

This is easy to answer: Yes. The pope.

Try to give me a chance to fix typos, too, before you respond.

By "error", I don't mean anything technical. I simply mean: "Not knowing what you're talking about."

Suppose someone says that science relies on falsifiability in order to operate and in order to make progress, and then a philsci expert says: "Actually, falsifiability has not been relevant in our field (philsci) for decades." That would be an error, since the person is saying something that scholars would consider incorrect and that scholars would say (in this case) represents old thinking that went out of date decades ago.

So it's really just: "Things that leading/prominent/serious scholars in the field would consider misinformed or uninformed or incorrect." — Need Logic Help

This was a wonderful answer. Thank you very much, I really appreciate it.

In this case, I have to admit that I am too small to answer your original question in a definitive way. Sorry. Your question is too big for me.