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. — Need Logic Help

I think we may be stuck, I am not addressing rationality. The word 'rational' is as loaded as atheism. Be careful not to worship it. Remember many philosophers argue that theism is rational too. Rational is not a synonym for true. Sound logic doesn't make something true either.

I think we're talking past each other here. I'm trying to be serious.

I want to know if philsci-experts would say that anything in what I linked in my post is misinformed, or uninformed, or incorrect. It's called "bad philosophy". There's a subreddit dedicated to talking about how "bad philosophy" is promulgated: https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/.

It could be logical errors, or any kind of error you can imagine. I want an assessment from serious people of what they think about stuff.

The pope is not a serious scholar of epistemology, and I don't have time to waste on silly jokes, so I can only respond to serious philosophy-related stuff. I won't respond to silly stuff. It's a funny joke, and I don't mind humor, but I want to keep this thread on topic. I do appreciate the humor, though, so I'm not trying to be rude. :)

I don't care about "philosophers".

I've never once in this thread asked about "philosophers".

For example, this person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) is presumably a "philosopher", but I have zero interest in his take because he's not a leading/serious scholar that publishes well-regarded peer-reviewed papers or influential peer-reviewed papers.

I don't take religious apologists seriously. I'm asking about serious philsci-experts, serious logicians, etc.

The pope is not a serious scholar of epistemology — Need Logic Help

This was not a silly joke. If you can't consider the pope to be serious, then you are not serious. He is one of the most serious experts in epistemology. If you deny that, then it is you who can be found as "not knowing what he is talking about".

Plus, I simply answered your question. "Can you name one... etc" and that's precisely what I did.

Then you dissed my answer and got angry at me.

I don't care about "philosophers".

I've never once in this thread asked about "philosophers". — Need Logic Help

WTF? This is a philosophy forum.

I don't take religious apologists seriously. I'm asking about serious philsci-experts, serious logicians, etc. — Need Logic Help

I never once in this thread mentioned apologists.

If you cherry pick who you will accept as authoritative you are committing bad philosophy.

I apologize. I wasn't angry, and I put a happy-face emoji in order to try to indicate my emotions; I apologize if it came across as angry nonetheless. I wasn't angry. :)

To give an example of the kind of world that I'm interested in, this is the type/kind/sort of expert who is the type of person whose opinion I would be interested in:

https://philosophy.wisc.edu/staff/bengson-john/

Professor Bengson’s research interests span practical and theoretical philosophy. He has written on a variety of topics, including intuition, perceptual experience, understanding, know-how, skill, intelligence and intelligent action, moral knowledge, constitution and constitutive explanation, and philosophical progress.

He is is co-editor of Knowing How: Essays on Knowledge, Mind, and Action (OUP, 2011/2014) and is currently completing three co-authored books, one on methodology (Philosophical Methodology: From Data to Theory, exp. fall 2020) and two in metaethics (The Moral Universe exp. 2022; Grasping Morality, exp. 2022).

Recent journal articles include “Trusting Moral Intuitions” (Noûs, 2020), “Method in the Service of Progress” (Analytic Philosophy, 2018), “The Unity of Understanding” (in Making Sense of the World, OUP, 2017), and “Practical Perception and Intelligent Action” (Philosophical Issues, 2016).

"Philosopher" is way too broad. That's why I've always specified that I'm talking about serious/leading/influential philosophers in particular fields of philosophy.

People who publish peer-reviewed papers. People whose papers get cited. People who are well-regarded in their field.

Here's an example of the type of world that I'm interested in:

https://philpapers.org/rec/BENTIG

Intuition is sometimes derided as an abstruse or esoteric phenomenon akin to crystal-ball gazing. Such derision appears to be fuelled primarily by the suggestion, evidently endorsed by traditional rationalists such as Plato and Descartes, that intuition is a kind of direct, immediate apprehension akin to perception. This paper suggests that although the perceptual analogy has often been dismissed as encouraging a theoretically useless metaphor, a quasi-perceptualist view of intuition may enable rationalists to begin to meet the challenge of supplying a theoretically satisfying treatment of their favoured epistemic source. It is argued, first, that intuitions and perceptual experiences are at a certain level of abstraction the same type of mental state, presentations, which are distinct from beliefs, hunches, inclinations, attractions, and seemings. The notion of a presentation is given a positive explication, which identifies its characteristic features, accounts for several of its substantive psychological roles, and systematically locates it in a threefold division among types of contentful states. Subsequently, it is argued that presentations, intuitive no less than sensory, are by their nature poised to play a distinctive epistemic role. Specifically, in the case of intuition, we encounter an intellectual state that is so structured as to provide justification without requiring justification in turn—something which may, thus, be thought of as ‘given’

I've never once in this thread asked about "philosophers". — Need Logic Help

I just mean philosophy of science. — Need Logic Help

Professor Bengson’s research interests span practical and theoretical philosophy. — Need Logic Help

o-authored books, one on methodology (Philosophical Methodology: From Data to Theory, exp. fall 2020) and two in metaethics (The Moral Universe exp. 2022; Grasping Morality, exp. 2022). — Need Logic Help

People who publish peer-reviewed papers. People whose papers get cited. People who are well-regarded in their field. — Need Logic Help

I ain't no people such as that.

You have found your way to this website here, where, to my knowledge, nobody is such that you describe. There may be some, but they haven't revealed their involvement.

So I must apologize for my snide remarks. As far as I am concerned, we are not qualified to the degree of expectations you had for us.

Not your fault, I don't blame you. You simply went by the name of the website, and that is fine, it could be misleading. But the simple fact is, that we can't help you. Sorry.

"Philosopher" is ridiculously broad. William Lane Craig is a philosopher. But he's not a leading/serious/influential scholar in epistemology.

I would imagine that there are 1000s of religious apologists who would count as "philosophers", including Craig and 1000s of others.

If I ask about what "philosophers" think, then it's going to include a truckload of opinions that are totally worthless to me: people who have contributed nothing to any field, people who are religious apologists, and so on.

I'm talking about a specific subset of philosophers.

I apologize for the confusion. I want opinions from serious people.

Do you know people on this website who might be really expert on philsci (or logic, ethics, epistemology) who might be able to help me out with this thread?

Do trained expert philosophers (or people who know the views of trained expert philosophers) hang out on this website?

Professor Bengson — Need Logic Help

Have you tried reaching Professor Bengson? He may be able to help you.

I'm in the process of trying to reach various experts, but I wonder if there's at least one person on this website who might fit the bill.

They don't have to be a leading scholar themselves, but they need to know what the opinions of leading scholars are.

Do you know people on this website who might be really expert on philsci (or logic, ethics, epistemology) who might be able to help me out with this thread?

Do trained expert philosophers (or people who know the views of trained expert philosophers) hang out on this website? — Need Logic Help

We don't know anything about each other, as any information is forbidden to mention that may lead to revealing the personal identity of users on the site. Nobody knows anyone else's email, either.

So I would be lying if I said there are / there are no such people on the site. All I can say with certainty is that I don't know, and nobody else knows either, other than about their own selves, which they are forbidden to reveal (according to site rules).

To be fair, some of this stuff might be well within the reach of a university-student who knows philsci.

If falsifiability really went out of relevance decades ago in philsci, then you don't need to be plugged-in to the cutting-edge philsci-research to be able to talk about that error.

To be fair, some of this stuff might be well within the reach of a university-student who knows philsci. — Need Logic Help

Yes, you're right. Why don't you write to a university and ask them for help. There may be some available, but be aware that you may need to pay some honorarium for the work performed.

Thanks. Would I better off to try /r/askphilosophy? There seem to be some fairly expert people on there.

Thanks. Would I better off to try /r/askphilosophy? There seem to be some fairly expert people on there. — Need Logic Help

There is no harm in trying. You tried here, you may try there. Who knows?

Thanks. Just a final clarification: Would you guess that most people on this forum happen to have a degree in philosophy? Not that that matters in itself, but it may correlate with knowing a lot.

Would you guess that most people on this forum happen to have a degree in philosophy? — Need Logic Help

I would not guess either way.

Quite right, this is a philosophy forum. Better to discuss ideas rather than whether an individual can be taken down somehow by a non-philosopher.

In any case, no the bullet points are not serious. The first one, for instance, is ridiculous. Maybe just try working through them and thinking about them for a bit. Does it make sense for a scientific theory to be both predictive and untestable? Can you have a theory that's both unfalsifiable and scientific? That sort of thing.

Are you familiar with the philsci literature on these issues? I agree that it sounds weird. I would've thought otherwise. But I'm not a philsci scholar, so my intuitions aren't worth anything. Certainly not unless I at the very least know what the literature in that field has to say about that field.

But I'm not a philsci scholar, so my intuitions aren't worth anything. Certainly not unless I at the very least know what the literature in that field has to say about that field. — Need Logic Help

Your intuitions can be worth as much as Socrates' or Aristotle's, as long as you can defend them. It is not the support of the establishment anymore that decides what is correct and what is not -- that is so Autodafe. These days the victory goes to that who can defeat the other's opinion and defend his own. If you wish to develop your support via reading expert's statements, that will take much longer, and you still need to exercise your own better judgment to decide between two experts' opposing opinions which is the right one, if either.

My point is simply that I'm not going to express a view on philsci stuff (e.g., whether it's weird that science doesn't depend on falsifiability or whatever), until I know what scholars are putting forward on the topic.

Actually, this applies to free will. Compatibilism sounds like a weird thing to me; if libertarian free will is out the window, then why use the term "free will" to refer to some non-libertarian conception? Seems weird. But I'm not going to run my mouth on that till I've seen the compatibilist literature and until I at least know what they're arguing; they may have great points.

Before I give up on this particular forum and try /r/askphilosophy, can you suggest the best user on this forum for philsci issues, just in case I find some good help on here? I would hugely appreciate it, and I apologize for bringing up stuff that's so particular to philsci and that requires some expertise in that domain.

I've got expertise in ethics and free will. None in philosophy of science and none in logic (I know a valid argument when I see one, but I don't have expertise in that area)

However, you may not like to use me as I am a theist, not an atheist (though I am a theist for philosophical reasons and couldn't care less about religions or supporting religious dogmas). That said, I think most debates between theists and atheists on the internet are terrible as they're almost invariably conducted by people who don't really know their stuff (but are alarmingly confident).

I should also point out that William Lane Craig is a highly respected philosopher. He has published extensively in most of the best journals. He's well known (outside of religious philosophy he's well known as a defender of the A-theory of time - that's where I first encountered his work). And he edits collections for Oxford University press, is on editorial boards and so on. He's the real deal and those - such as Dawkins (who said in his book that he asked a philosopher colleague if he'd ever heard of him...and the colleague said 'no'....which is laughably implausible as he's very well known indeed) - who say otherwise really don't know what they're talking about.