I find this an ironic/appropriate perspective in a sub on philosophy. My impression of undergrad intro to philosophy was that it was rife with epistemic trespassing. Some issue would be brought up for debate, and scientific or economic details would be conveniently omitted for the sake of argument. Or people would argue about an issue that could probably have been resolved if either party simply knew more about the issue.

I see it on this sub as well, plenty of people that seem very intelligent, making otherwise cogent arguments that are made completely undermined or irrelevant by deep knowledge of the subject matter.

I'm probably doing it now, since I also don't have deep knowledge of philosophy.