Just another Anderson update.

Anderson's latest reply includes the following.

In my own case I'm ok with some formulations of externalism. And some forms of fallibilism seem to be restatements of the doctrine of total depravity and thus potentially have Calvinist origins! One of the things my first book was about is precisely this point of how the fall affects us in our pursuit of knowledge.

None of this is meant to be a "cheap apologetic ploy" to label you as someone who "denies reason." It seems to be just the opposite given how you began the conversation quoting someone who regularly uses insults. The same points and questions can be made without sinking to that level. Using terms like cult, ilk, Gangadeaneans, lazy, sloppy, is public on that blog and something you can see for yourself. By associating with that and not asking him to make the same points without sinking so low you've shaped how your question is heard. It is too bad and maybe it can be reversed by you noting it as a problem now that it has been more specifically brought to your attention. But your affiliation with that behavior does shape how you and I interact until you distance yourself from it.

In the first part, he's speaking to the fact that he thinks Spencer misrepresented him as an infallibilist/internalist/foundationalist about knowledge/justification. And I gave reasons why he fits squarely in the infallibilist/internalist camp, last time. But here, he's saying that he finds fallibilism and externalism okay, in some forms. Interestingly, he hedges with "in my own case". So maybe he and Gangadean actually disagree about some basic things? I find that hard to accept since Gangadean is so much about how we must agree on the more basic things if we are to agree on the less basic. Hopefully, he explains in more detail what he means by "some formulations of externalism" as well as "some forms of fallibilism." My guess is that he's going to have to play fast and loose with the term to make it work. And again, I can't make sense of his various posts disparaging externalists views for core features which all externalist views share (that we can either be justified by facts that we aren't in a position to verify as true, or that we can know things for which we have no justification)! The ironic twist is that I do think, ultimately, at the most basic level, he's going to have to be an externalist (as I pointed out in this post) about some things and the problem for him and Gangadean will then be whether they have a principled way of distinguishing between what they deem "acceptable" forms of externalism vs. the "bad" forms.

I have some suspicions about what he might say about fallibilism based on my conversations with him in the past. Back in the day, he and I had chatted about a controversial theory called epistemic contextualism, which is the view that the word 'knowledge' might be ambiguous so that it in some way picks out various kinds of justificatory statuses (or more accurately: is associated with varying truth conditions, depending on the context of utterance). Anderson then suggested to me that at the basic level we need knowledge that entails certainty/clarity, but that perhaps, at less basic levels, maybe we don't. So that could be what he is up to when he says that he's okay with some forms of fallibilism. But I don't see the relevance here, which makes me think again this is all red-herring. The challenges that Spencer was bringing up and that I've been bringing up concern our epistemic situation in relation to propositions which Gangadean (and Anderson) take to be among the most basic. So, if this is all Anderson means by "being okay with some forms of fallibilism," it's of no help and he's needlessly muddying the pool. Does he or does he not accept that we can only know the most basic things if we form our beliefs about them in a manner which guarantees their truth? If he does, then he's an infallibilist in the relevant sense. In other words, all I mean in representing Anderson or Gangadean as infallilists about knowledge is that they are so about at least the most basic things---and that's really all I focus on in this blog (e.g., their arguments for God, the Good, the problem of evil, GR to SR, etc). When dealing with the Gangadeanians, you have to work hard at not getting distracted by such smoke screens, but it can get tiring.

Additionally, in the above quote, Anderson charges that I have insulted him and other Gangadeanians. Indeed, he even takes my coining of the term 'Gangadeanian' to be an insult. Originally he charged me with slander and now he's shifted to talking about insults. Many of the terms he cites are just not insults, but Anderson has a history of being overly sensitive. There used to be an online exchange between him and the reformed theologian, James Anderson that ended with Owen being offended by the tone of the conversation. James Anderson's last reply, as I recall, was one of disbelief--something like, "really?!?" Unfortunately, Owen has since deleted that exchange. And the facebook convo that Owen and I had also ended that way--where I was accused of being "antagonistic" for essentially pressing him on his "answers".

Some of the terms he finds insulting are just ridiculous. 'Gangadeanian' merely marks out people who follow the teachings of Gangadean. It isn't meant to be pejorative anymore than 'Aristotelian,' 'Cartesian,' 'Thomist,' 'Augustinean' and the like. Likewise, when I speak of Gangadean and his "ilk," that's just a VERY common way that philosophers speak of people who belong to position--also not pejorative.

Admittedly, a few of the things I've said can be taken as pejorative. I do sometimes refer to Anderson or Gangadean's thinking/arguments as unsophisticated, lazy, sloppy and the like.  Sometimes, calling a spade a spade amounts to saying negative things. I could replace these words with euphemisms, I guess. Maybe it would have been nicer to replace 'sloppy' with 'not-careful' or 'unsophisticated' with 'imprecise'--although, I doubt that these would have been more amenable to Anderson. (Interestingly, he doesn't find Spencer's accusation that he's using a "cheap apologetic ploy," likewise, insulting). But I also don't feel like I'm under any obligation to cater to the feelings of the Gangadeanians. In fact, I find it crazy that Anderson would have the audacity to demand this kind of niceness from me. After all, he's the guy that once falsely accused me of stalking him and even filed an official complaint with the police and university--I have yet to hear an apology from him regarding this. And yet here he is complaining about how I'm not being nice enough with my words--talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels!

In a similar vein, recently, I referred to Gangadean's church a fundamentalist religious cult. I stand by it. If you saw some of the emails I've received over the years from family members that have been hurt by the church, or if you know of the history that Gangadean's church has of hurting people, breaking up relationships, "the rule of silence" that it institutes over women in the congregation, the fact that there is no room to really question the few that are in a position of authority, then again you will see this as an instance of calling a spade a spade.

Finally, we can argue at length about what particular words I should have used to get across the idea that the philosophy done by Anderson and Gangadean is really bad, or we can argue about whether or not I have an obligation to be nicer in my writings. I'd be happy to talk about that. But let's not lose sight of the most important issues. It isn't about whether I've been mean. Maybe I'm a great big jerk of a person. It simply doesn't matter. It's about whether Gangadean's/Anderson's arguments ultimately, work. It's about whether Gangadean/Anderson can prove that God exists, and show that we must have clarity at the basic level, and also about whether they have impeccable arguments proving that we can be absolutely certain of basic things. So, if you're a Gangadeanian reading this, you can think whatever you want about my moral character, but that's not the right sort of reason to avoid dealing with my objections, insofar as you're after the truth.