First, how does listening to your peers solve the problem of overconfidence? Surely all your peers are, on average, as overconfident as you? Not saying you need to have an answer, more thinking out loud.
Second, object-level reasons need to be in the story somewhere. What else are experts supposed to use to form their views—the opinions of existing experts? If experts can and must appeal to object-level reasons, it’s then unsettling to say non-experts can make no use of them.
Third, I agree those quotes are bananas. I’ve never really understood what continental philosophers take each other to be saying—it’s all gloriously unclear to me.
Three more quick thoughts.
First, how does listening to your peers solve the problem of overconfidence? Surely all your peers are, on average, as overconfident as you? Not saying you need to have an answer, more thinking out loud.
Second, object-level reasons need to be in the story somewhere. What else are experts supposed to use to form their views—the opinions of existing experts? If experts can and must appeal to object-level reasons, it’s then unsettling to say non-experts can make no use of them.
Third, I agree those quotes are bananas. I’ve never really understood what continental philosophers take each other to be saying—it’s all gloriously unclear to me.