Yes and the zombie leprechaun community, while not silenced, is still difficult to understand what they are saying--what with the supernatural Irish accent and the zombie "ggrrhh."
My concern is not the Humean definition, but those who use the smallest sliver of doubt as an excuse to ignore cold, hard facts — even when, as Scotty from Star Trek would put it, you "can't change the laws of physics." Look no further than America’s relative inaction on climate change. By accepting Hume’s premise, we give people permission to hide behind a 0.00001% margin of uncertainty, despite knowing beyond reasonable doubt that human activity drives global warming.
There are two schools of thought that philosophers could "choose" from, yes. But the use to which bad actors or the uneducated might put your theory is not one of the factors that we weigh when considering a theory's choice-worthiness. It is an interesting observation though. And if someone tried it then we would know what to say. They cannot hide in the .00001 margin of uncertainty for reasons laid out in the article. Similarly.... in my other article--the one on Descartes' alternative to Hume--I claim that conspiracy thinking utilizes Cartesian epistemology, which requires that something be impossible to doubt. Which lets conspiracy folks say, "You cannot prove beyond all doubt that Democrats are not eating babies." In that article I explain how "proof" is the Cartesian concept that should be excised. For independent philosophical reasons. It has the additional virtue of exposing the bad thinking of the conspiracy theorists. If climate change deniers use my Humean theory, they are actually misusing it and I can show as you did in your comment that if properly understood it does not let them hide there. In general I do not think it's a good idea to let anything be decided by how some people may willfully misunderstand it. Sam Harris has announced his worry in a recent podcast with Preet Brahaha that Trump--istan is breaking many laws presently; and Trump-istan has corrupted the independence of the attorney general's office; and when Democrats come to power there will be prosecutions; but the right wing will scream "lawfare" and "Democrats are corrupting the independence of the attorney general's office." I don't know what his thinking is behind this lament. I hope it would not be to not prosecute where prosecution is warranted. He may just be lamenting our post-truth age. He does not say. My answer to him would be: truth still matters. And if it doesn't, then we have to make it matter again. A prosecution by the right of the left could be corrupt while a prosecution by the left of the right might be just. Even if both sides scream "lawfare" when the other side is prosecuting their guys.
The vibrant zombie leprechaun community cannot be silenced.
Is the zombie leprechaun community more or less vibrant than the unicorn-riding vampire community?
The unicorn-riding vampire community, being undead, is also unvibrant, which indicates being full of dark energy rather than life.
Yes and...
Yes and the zombie leprechaun community, while not silenced, is still difficult to understand what they are saying--what with the supernatural Irish accent and the zombie "ggrrhh."
My concern is not the Humean definition, but those who use the smallest sliver of doubt as an excuse to ignore cold, hard facts — even when, as Scotty from Star Trek would put it, you "can't change the laws of physics." Look no further than America’s relative inaction on climate change. By accepting Hume’s premise, we give people permission to hide behind a 0.00001% margin of uncertainty, despite knowing beyond reasonable doubt that human activity drives global warming.
There are two schools of thought that philosophers could "choose" from, yes. But the use to which bad actors or the uneducated might put your theory is not one of the factors that we weigh when considering a theory's choice-worthiness. It is an interesting observation though. And if someone tried it then we would know what to say. They cannot hide in the .00001 margin of uncertainty for reasons laid out in the article. Similarly.... in my other article--the one on Descartes' alternative to Hume--I claim that conspiracy thinking utilizes Cartesian epistemology, which requires that something be impossible to doubt. Which lets conspiracy folks say, "You cannot prove beyond all doubt that Democrats are not eating babies." In that article I explain how "proof" is the Cartesian concept that should be excised. For independent philosophical reasons. It has the additional virtue of exposing the bad thinking of the conspiracy theorists. If climate change deniers use my Humean theory, they are actually misusing it and I can show as you did in your comment that if properly understood it does not let them hide there. In general I do not think it's a good idea to let anything be decided by how some people may willfully misunderstand it. Sam Harris has announced his worry in a recent podcast with Preet Brahaha that Trump--istan is breaking many laws presently; and Trump-istan has corrupted the independence of the attorney general's office; and when Democrats come to power there will be prosecutions; but the right wing will scream "lawfare" and "Democrats are corrupting the independence of the attorney general's office." I don't know what his thinking is behind this lament. I hope it would not be to not prosecute where prosecution is warranted. He may just be lamenting our post-truth age. He does not say. My answer to him would be: truth still matters. And if it doesn't, then we have to make it matter again. A prosecution by the right of the left could be corrupt while a prosecution by the left of the right might be just. Even if both sides scream "lawfare" when the other side is prosecuting their guys.