Why people feel entitled to bad philosophy

Writing my last post has got me wondering about something that Sanchez gets at - why should it be that people are so ready to feel complacent about their inadequate philosophical views in a way they are not complacent about their inadequate scientific or economic views? Even if I explained to the drivers of cars with bumper stickers such as "My body, my choice" or "It's a child, not a choice" that their bumper stickers beg the question (and, in the latter case, is also an equivocation) my guess is that the owners will not be tempted to peel off their bumper stickers. We don't usually see cars driving around with bumper stickers that say, "Heavier objects accelerate faster while falling!"

On the moral questions, it's clear people are afraid of undermining a strongly held view. But I notice this propensity even when the philosophical view doesn't have immediate moral implications, such as external world skepticism.

Part of it must be lack of exposure to philosophers and philosophy. Most people have taken science in school, at however elementary a level, and almost everyone has gone to a doctor. In such cases, you are occasionally disabused of a preconceived notion in the face of someone more educated than you are. (I hear from Dan that this is not always the case in medicine - but my guess is the majority of his patients' parents realize that Dan has a welcome experitse to contribute to the discussion of their child's health). But philosophy is not taught in elementary or high schools, and many of the people who do go to college manage to skate through without philosophy. Of those who take any philosophy, the vast majority will take a very simple intro class (Intro, Intro to moral issues, or basic logic). So most people go through life without being disabused of any philosophical notions.

Philosophical insights also feel good, whether they are true or useful or not. It makes people feel as if they have done something profound and meaningful when they come up with a philosophical view, and they don't want to be told that their emotion is not worthwhile. It's really awful when a student comes in super eager and excited, telling you he stayed up all night with his friends talking about proving the existence of God and has come up with view X, and you are faced with telling him why view X is not viable. It can be rather crushing, and they are likely to attribute to you a sourness or lack of openness rather than attribute to themselves a problematic view.

The last reason I can think of is actually a result of bad philosophy. It's the same line of thinking that engenders the casual moral relativism that most people (or students in intro classes) claim to hold (they aren't usually really moral relativists - almost all will agree a society without slavery is better than one with). It goes something like: 1) We don't know for sure the answer to most philosophical questions (we actually often do know why some proposed responses won't work, but most lay people don't know this). Even philosophers disagree. 2) Therefore, no one is right or wrong when it comes to a philosophical view. 3) Therefore, I am entitled to my own philosophical view, and anyone who tells me it is wrong is being close-minded. Of course, (2) confuses metaphysics and epistemology, and (3) does not follow. If they took philosophy, they'd know that!