Call Me Dr….

Avatar

Murali

Murali did his undergraduate degree in molecular biology with a minor in biophysics from the National University of Singapore (NUS). He then changed direction and did his Masters in Philosophy also at NUS. Now, he is currently pursuing a PhD in Philosophy at the University of Warwick.

Related Post Roulette

25 Responses

  1. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations! Having a doc around will really add class to all those other palookas around here.Report

  2. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    Congrats buddy! I have no doubt it is well deserved! I hope you are justifiably proud of your huge accomplishment!Report

  3. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Congrats, Doc!

    Now to the meat: “Epistemic permissivism (related) is the claim that people can rationally disagree about a proposition even if they had the same total body of evidence regarding that proposition.”

    I dig this. But then I scrolled back up and saw this: “secondly, that epistemic permissivism is false.”

    And that’s completely wrong. It’s cool, though.

    Also: We are going to need “grad students aren’t as (good trait) as they were when I was a grad student” essay before the end of the year!Report

  4. Avatar Doctor Jay
    Ignored
    says:

    First and foremost, congratulations! As a very senior computer scientist told me when he signed off on my degree: “you are now qualified to offer your opinion on any subject”.

    I don’t understand enough to know which part I actually have a problem with, but I have a problem with this somehow.

    Because, it’s entirely possible that you can have set of premises S and a statement P such that neither P or not P are provable from S. This means that S is incomplete. It’s also possible that S can prove both P and not P. In this case S is inconsistent. Both of these things are possible.

    Is that epistemic permissivism? The belief that this is possible? To me it’s just basic graduate level logic. Maybe I just don’t know the correct definitions – which I find extremely likely.

    At another level, I don’t think liberalism, or politics in general is driven by rationalism. It’s far more about moral evaluations, value conflict, and emotional weight.

    And it’s entirely apparent that people can see the same movie and have very different reactions to it, for instance.

    None of this invalidates your thesis or your degree, however. I’m quite sure, once again, that this is merely my lack of understanding of the details that is speaking loudly.Report

    • Avatar Murali in reply to Doctor Jay
      Ignored
      says:

      t’s entirely possible that you can have set of premises S and a statement P such that neither P or not P are provable from S. This means that S is incomplete.

      Suspending judgment is also a doxastic attitude. And where the evidence is incomplete that is a possibility. Also, we might think that in cases where the evidence strongly supports, but does not guarantee a given proposition, we should have a correspondingly high degree of belief that nevertheless falls short of certainty.

      It’s also possible that S can prove both P and not P. In this case S is inconsistent. Both of these things are possible.

      If S is inconsistent, it cannot be evidence. Our evidence often counts as stuff that we know or stuff

      At another level, I don’t think liberalism, or politics in general is driven by rationalism.

      I’m sympathetic to this view, and my thesis is an attempt to tease out certain implausible implications of supposing that liberalism could be justified by straightforwardly appealing to the public justification requirement or some similar principle.Report

      • Avatar Murali in reply to Murali
        Ignored
        says:

        Shoot, I left the sentence hanging. On any plausible conception of evidence, evidence is either something you know, or something you justifiably believe or sense data or something. The latter, strictly speaking cannot be contradictory. Moreover, you couldn’t know contradictory things because there couldn’t possibly be true contradictions (if we wander into non-classical logics then contradictions do not entail everything else). Plausibly, also we cannot justifiably believe contradictory things. (preface paradoxes notwithstanding: If we are justified in believing each of 100 statements and believing that at least one of them is false then we cannot be justified in believing that all the 100 statements are true)Report

  5. Avatar Anne
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations! Well doneReport

  6. Avatar Andrew Donaldson
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations, very well done.Report

  7. fillyjonk fillyjonk
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations, doctor.

    It was probably the most satisfying thing I ever experienced, having my graduate advisor come out and shake my hand after the defense (US version of viva) was successfully done…Report

  8. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    Congrats!

    As far as epistemic permissiveness goes, it seems to me that if the data is sufficient to mathematically prove some proposition P, then it doesn’t make sense for there to be disagreement about the truth of P. But I’m n ot convinced that happens much in the real world.Report

  9. Avatar LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations.Report

  10. Avatar Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations Dr. Murali, that’s quite an achievement.

    How does your thesis relate to Rawls? It seems a significant demarcation from overlapping consensus?Report

  11. Avatar Aaron David
    Ignored
    says:

    Very nice!

    Now, since you are a doctor, I have this pain, in my knee…Report

  12. Avatar JoeSal
    Ignored
    says:

    Congrats! I couldn’t imagine a more difficult path to have taken. If you need some one to hold your beer, give me a call any day of the week.Report

  13. Avatar Slade the Leveller
    Ignored
    says:

    Well done! The question now, coming off the picture in #7, is did you attend evil philosopher school.Report

  14. Avatar gabriel conroy
    Ignored
    says:

    From one ex-graduate student to another: congratulations!

    The bureaucracy you had to go through seems (a little) more onerous and ponderous than the one I had to go through. But I suspect my university wasn’t quite at what I presume the higher level yours is. (It’s not false modesty on my part. Just a hunch.)Report

  15. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    Am I the only one who read the title and started singing, “Call me Doctor Love!”?

    Anyway, congrats!Report

  16. Avatar j r
    Ignored
    says:

    Big congrats!

    And best of luck with the job search.Report

  17. Avatar scott the mediocre
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations, felicitations, and expostulations, most esteemed Dr. Muralidharan.

    (can anyone reasonably doubt that you are the best of all possible Drs. Muralidharan? Surely not – get thee behind me, Liebniz!)

    I look forward to any and all posts before you take up your (hopefully tenure-track-equivalent; is there such a thing in Singapore?) academic post.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *