Agreed that this topic warrants a wiki entry, so I proposed that yesterday just after making this post, and Pabloāour fast-moving wiki maestroāhas already made such an entry!
I almost like inside beliefs and outside beliefs, but:
I feel like āoutside beliefsā implies that itās only using info about other peopleās beliefs, or is in any case setting aside oneās independent impression.
Whereas I see independent impressions as a subset of what forms our all-things-considered beliefs.
Iād also worry that inside and outside beliefs sounds too close to inside and outside views, which could create confusion because independent impressions can be based on outside views, peer disagreement can be driven by other peopleās inside views, etc.
One final point: I think your last sentence could be read as implying that inside views are what we should report, in light of social-epistemological considerations. (Though Iām not sure if you actually meant that.) I think whether itās best to report an independent impression, an all-things-considered belief, or both will vary depending on the context. Iād mostly advocate for being willing to report either (rather than shying away from ever stating independent impressions) and being clear about which one is being reported.
On the social-epistemological point: Yes, it varies by context.
One thing Iād add is that I think itās hard to keep inside/āoutside (or independent and all-things-considered) beliefs separate for a long time. And your independent beliefs are almost certainly going to be influenced by peer evidence, and vice versa.
I think this means that if you are the kind of person whose main value to the community is sharing your opinions (rather than, say, being a fund manager), you should try to cultivate a habit of mostly attending to gears-level evidence and to some extent ignore testimonial evidence. This will make your own beliefs less personallyusefwl for making decisions, but will make the opinions you share more valuable to the community.
Agreed that this topic warrants a wiki entry, so I proposed that yesterday just after making this post, and Pabloāour fast-moving wiki maestroāhas already made such an entry!
I almost like inside beliefs and outside beliefs, but:
I feel like āoutside beliefsā implies that itās only using info about other peopleās beliefs, or is in any case setting aside oneās independent impression.
Whereas I see independent impressions as a subset of what forms our all-things-considered beliefs.
Iād also worry that inside and outside beliefs sounds too close to inside and outside views, which could create confusion because independent impressions can be based on outside views, peer disagreement can be driven by other peopleās inside views, etc.
One final point: I think your last sentence could be read as implying that inside views are what we should report, in light of social-epistemological considerations. (Though Iām not sure if you actually meant that.) I think whether itās best to report an independent impression, an all-things-considered belief, or both will vary depending on the context. Iād mostly advocate for being willing to report either (rather than shying away from ever stating independent impressions) and being clear about which one is being reported.
On the social-epistemological point: Yes, it varies by context.
One thing Iād add is that I think itās hard to keep inside/āoutside (or independent and all-things-considered) beliefs separate for a long time. And your independent beliefs are almost certainly going to be influenced by peer evidence, and vice versa.
I think this means that if you are the kind of person whose main value to the community is sharing your opinions (rather than, say, being a fund manager), you should try to cultivate a habit of mostly attending to gears-level evidence and to some extent ignore testimonial evidence. This will make your own beliefs less personally usefwl for making decisions, but will make the opinions you share more valuable to the community.