Michael Coppedge Studies: A LESSON LEARNED

Here are the cases of over-logicafying that I know about, as far as establishing knowledge:

• The essentialist fallacy: if 'coherence’ or ‘rationality’ is the only substance, this doesn't necessarily say anything, because when determining what something is, the first thing rationalists and coherentists do is apply rationality or coherence. In other words, truth must be conditional, and even universal conditions can be conditional.
• Saying nothing is true because everything is difficult does not refute difficulty, or whatever else you are assuming, within assumptions.
• Exaggerating how problematic things are using vocabulary like paradox and conundrum does not solve the problem, and can be a fallacy of technicalism.
• Contrast does not necessarily help an argument. Some arguments can make sense for reasons that aren't recognized.
• Very technical people may over-commit to their own arguments, or may not recognize the power of the status quo. This can result in a lack of perspective related to the type of argument being made.
• Neutrality. We should continue to respect a neutral position if it is possible the neutral position may eventually make a wiser choice, spend less money, not carry burden of proof, etc. We cannot always assume it is better to make an asymmetric argument.
• Informalism. It is important to keep in mind some rather insignificant-looking tools which are actually better at their job than highly advanced tools. Trusting the real experts no matter who they really are seems to be the lesson.

In conclusion, rationality faces the same logical problems as irrationality, it is just perhaps more likely to believe its own argument, and less likely to think breaking rules is permitted.

So, the lesson is:

• Know which rules are sacred.
• Don't believe your argument.
• Trust the experts.

And, sometimes, as my Dad the Yale PhD learned, don't trust the experts when you have experience. They are not infinite.