If you think all of those views are wrong, then I don’t see why we would ever be able to evaluate an argument correctly, or produce any artifact that could do so.
We have some meta views about how we ought to evaluate arguments, and how to evaluate possible…
Paul Christiano

Consider an analogy where someone is tasked with creating a system using chess novices and algorithms as components, such that the system plays chess better than he can (ignoring speed). He may well have totally inadequate knowledge for doing this, and still be able to personally play chess very well. And the fact that he doesn’t have such knowledge now doesn’t imply he won’t eventually obtain it, by self-reflection or deriving from first principles.

So I think my position is at least logically consistent. From your other reply you seem to think that in actuality we do have already enough knowledge to build a system like this for evaluating philosophical arguments. That seems like an important advance in itself (at least I’m not aware of any existing literature on the topic). How would you demonstrate it to a skeptic though?

Like what you read? Give Wei Dai a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.