The other day I told Chris Hill about an idea I had about Williamson’s arguments against luminosity, and in his inimitable manner he was very enthusiastic about it and said I should write it up so I did but I think this is not really the kind of paper he had in mind.
Still, it is a paper of sorts, even if like everything else I do nowathesedays it is adamandantly drafticious. (–That last sentence was ridiculously self-indulgent. –True, but it is sortofkinda making a philosophical point of sorts, and I’ve decided self-indulgence in philosophy’s service is a feature not a bug.)

The hardest part of the paper was coming up with a title. After “Should we Respond to Evil with Indifference?”, I figured I set the bar pretty high. So I started playing with allusions to either luminosity or, more promisingly, margin of error principles. Very revolutionary in epistemology if right. Or even if not. The marginalist revolution. Again. Jevons, Walras and Menger. Jevons – worked in Australia. No real connection there. Walras. I am the. John Paul George Ringo. John Paul. Pope. Pope Timothy. Could there be a heterodox Pope Timothy? Anyway, this was going nowhere fast, so I just settled for Luminous Margins.