forum 3: week of 23 Jan - Lewis II

I thought of this in class today, but comically enough to me it almost seems like Lewis is half preaching a "ignorance is bliss," sort of attitude. The fewer alternatives you ascribe to the an agent the more likely it will be that that agent is correct. I have a strong feeling that that is not what Lewis is trying to argue but it seems to me that he is walking a very thin line of being misunderstood... Or maybe my philosophical grasp isn't as sophisticated as I presume.

If you don't think that Lewis is trying to preach a "ignorance is bliss" sort of attitude, then what do you precisely think that Lewis is trying to argue? In raising this question, I do not have an answer in mind - I have the most difficult time understanding what Lewis is trying to say, at least in the paper ("Elusive Knowledge") that we are discussing about.

I'm not sure Lewis is saying "ignorance is bliss." I take the rule more as "the less one considers alternative explanations for a phenomenon (i.e. the less epistemology one does) the more accurate one can be in ascribing knowledge to a subject."