I don't think this is true. I pointed out where in OC 284 and 285 where Wittgenstein seems to hold to the notion that some beliefs aren't propositional at all, i.e., they are reflected in our actions. But of course this isn't the thrust of OC. — Sam26

Perhaps Sam. That would seem to be incommensurate with his talk of hinge propositions... wouldn't it?

Clearly he did not finish that part of his project, so his thoughts on the matter are only as has been recorded. Too bad we can't ask him. It seems he had not yet come to acceptable terms with all of it(concerning basic beliefs and/or hinge propositions and how they did not require justification).

Well grounded true belief does not always consist of language.

Are you suggesting that there are beliefs which cannot be stated?

That is, not just beliefs which have not been stated, but beliefs which are un-statable?

How would such ineffable beliefs differ from beetles in boxes? — Banno

Language less creatures do not make claims about private ineffable beliefs(or meaning). Witt's beetle in a box is all about such claims.

:brow:

Right?

I'm in agreement with the thrust of Sam's thoughts here, or at least what I think they are based upon what's been said by him, and my own reading and/or understanding of Witt's On Certainty, which was of course published posthumously.

Witt was an adherent of JTB, and was looking to avoid the problem of justificatory regress. Hinge propositions were his attempt. They are defined as the ones(beliefs) that lie beyond the scope of justification... somehow. They need no justification. Witt never clarified how. Witt also seemed to believe that all knowledge is dubitable. Being able to doubt 'X', was part of Witt's own personal criterion for being classified as a bit of knowledge(as knowing 'X'). His remarks on Moore support this interpretation as well.

Sam's participation here seems to be shedding some much needed light upon pre-linguistic belief. It is worth noting that it exists in it's entirety prior to being named. It certainly does not consist of propositions.

As mentioned earlier, Witt was a proponent of JTB, and as such also held that all belief content is propositional. Hence... the most basic and foundational beliefs were dubbed - in Witt's framework - "hinge propositions".

This is where I part ways with Witt upon this matter. I suspect Sam may agree, at least in part.

???

Are you suggesting that there are beliefs which cannot be stated? — Banno

Do language less creatures state anything?

The point of me saying, "keep in mind that I'm not necessarily trying to keep my thoughts in line with Wittgenstein," is that they are my thoughts, not necessarily Wittgenstein's. It doesn't concern me if Wittgenstein had an interest in prelinguistic beliefs or not. I'm exploring the idea because I find it interesting in terms of what is bedrock.

The only point I'm trying to make about prelinguistic beliefs, is that they are the starting points of all beliefs. They are the most basic of all beliefs. The structure of all beliefs rests on prelinguistic or nonlinguistic beliefs. — Sam26

Yep.

"Work ethic"?

Perhaps there is your problem: "How do we make more people middle class?"

The United States has not just forgotten to look after each other, but long pushed a myth that actively rejects looking out for each other as worthwhile. No wonder it is in such a mess. — Banno

Spot on.

You gave this reply serious thought, and made it worth reading, so "thank you!"

Of all your suggested disciplines, the effort to step out of one's habitual frame of reference and into another conflicting, unsettling, even hostile frame of reference is the great challenge of the seeker of truth and wisdom. We use our "truths" to navigate the world and don't abandon or even modify them readily. There is however a tipping point in thinking where the model just will not continue to accommodate the incoming new data. In an extreme case, it's like an addict admitting that his efforts to control his addiction have been based on false premises, and it's either die or make changes. We hold to our falsehoods that strongly, and sometimes only a crisis is sufficient to break through our defenses. But what a wonderful world it might be if all people were to apply your listed guidelines for critical thinking. — Frank Pray

You're not alone here in this take... that's for sure!

Combined with last post for brevity...

A bit on "truth-telling"...

There's an underlying element of 'truth seeking' for it's own sake that I find is crucial when considering whether or not an individual is a reliable "truth teller"... without some hidden agenda. I'm guessing we are in agreement here as well, based upon the following word choice of yours...

A source which expends effort to find out what is true...

A source which expends effort to find out what is true... — fdrake

However, one can still seek to find out what is true with the intent to not disclose this to the public. Here, we can see that seeking what's true for it's own sake does not guarantee an honest speaker and/or a sincere speech act. It does not guarantee that the "truth be told". Truth telling is about more than just knowing, and/or seeking what's true. In involves the personal character and/or motivations of the speaker as well. It is worth mention here that I am adopting the sense of "truth" that you've been using rather than arguing against it.

Anthony Fauci comes immediately to mind regarding the information being broadcast to the American public about what counts as being ready to "open the economy back up" in as safe as possible a manner. That guy checks all the boxes of being a trustworthy truth-teller for all the right reasons... a focus upon public health during the outbreak of a highly infectious disease. One who has done it already.

Interestingly enough, in recent weeks there seems to be a concerted effort to either discredit Fauci or steer people away from agreeing with - or even hearing - his advice regarding safe conditions for reopening the economy. The priming effect/affect you so aptly brought my attention to is on display during such discourse. It's similar to poisoning the well in the cases where an attempt to discredit is made, but it's just the beginning of a case of plain 'ole changing the focus most of the time.

I am happy to see that you and I agree(for the most part anyway?) regarding the crucial importance of forming, having, and/or holding true belief. I note also that we agree for the most part regarding the limits of logic's role in this method to determine what's best to believe. Logic alone cannot discriminate, or "distinguish" in your terms, between true and false statements/claims.

I'm still standing in awe of the tremendous amount of complex clarity regarding those first two posts. Even the bits like 2 and it's caveats retain value for me despite my objections regarding their standing as always being reliable. I've voiced my concerns briefly, and they remain. Although, by and large, even those parts are indeed useful and reliable means that one can take to help ensure that they've made the right choice between conflicting opinions.

The priming stuff is on point and can be observed on a daily basis from nearly all sides of media, to one degree or another. Powerful...

Intellectual hygiene.

The reasons for accepting a specific claim will depend on the claim and the evidence for it. I doubt there is a general recipe that applies to all claims and all evidence that will tell you just when to believe and when not to believe. — fdrake

This rings true.

(2) Is it from a person or institution you trust?

(2a) An institution that relies on sourced arguments that terminate in interpretations of data is a more reliable truth teller than otherwise. — fdrake

This makes no sense to me.

A sourced argument does not guarantee true premisses or conclusions. Even false claims can follow from sourced arguments that terminate in 'interpretations' of data.

(2b) A person who has a habit of backing up their claims with sources or data, or at least tells you where they're getting their information from, is a more reliable truth teller than otherwise. — fdrake

That's not true at all. A person who carefully arrives at whatever belief they hold strongly will be able to satisfy the above criterion, regardless of whether or not their belief is true.

(2c) When a person or institution uses a sourced argument, can you find other people or institutions which do the same thing? Can you find ones that you cannot establish are politically partisan who do the same thing? — fdrake

Well having widespread agreement is crucial. However, we must not forget that convention is not always right.

Untrustworthy people or institutions will use that asymmetry, letting you construct their position for them while never spelling out the complete picture, and being unable to say what would make them change their mind about the statements/the defeaters for their justifications of it, or their interpretations of evidence. — fdrake

Perhaps. Sure. Helps the audience connect.

There is a huge asymmetry between how easy it is to show something is flawed or impoverished and how hard it is to show something is a well justified complete picture. It's easier to demonstrate falsehood than truth, and easier to find a flaw than construct a position. — fdrake

I disagree.

The reasons for accepting a specific claim will depend on the claim and the evidence for it. I doubt there is a general recipe that applies to all claims and all evidence that will tell you just when to believe and when not to believe. I believe it is much more productive to think of adjustments that can be made to one's own propensities to believe and personal evaluation of whether a claim is justified. — fdrake

So...

Can we set out this criterion for ourselves regarding what counts as sufficient/adequate reason to believe?

Jeez. I've been sucked in...

:roll:

When someone continually contradicts themselves and avoids questions, or when the questions get tough they abandon the discussion, or just ignore the questions while asking their own, or continually attack the person rather than what they say (ad homs), then I think those are great examples of someone that doesn't want to change their mind regardless of what they are presented with. — Harry Hindu

Could be. Sure. But...

I've not contradicted myself. There have been no tough questions that I've avoided because they are tough. I've certainly not continually attacked you...

I'm left wondering how you've arrived at such belief about me based upon our interaction here...

Got some evidence? My words perhaps?

Now...

HERE is where you employ logic as a means to show me how you've arrived at your conclusions about me based upon my claims here.

Show my claims. Explain - using logic - how they led you to your conclusions about me.

So when someone keeps asking you questions that you answer, yet they won't answer the questions you posed to them, is that not a great example of someone who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with. — Harry Hindu

There are any number of different reasons that an interlocutor does not answer a question. For my part, I wanted to build upon our agreements first. Then see where we disagree. So, no...

It is not always a great example of someone who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with.

Logic won't help you here either. You have to look for/at real life examples/situations to the contrary. When you find one, and acknowledge that fact, you then ought know that not all unanswered questions are indicative of unshakable certainty in the one not answering(someone who will not change their mind no matter what they are presented with).

You just found one.

I asked you a question regarding your statement that you avoided. — Harry Hindu

No. You did not. My statement was...

2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events). — creativesoul

See there where it says two different explanations for the same events?

You asked a question about how we know that the two are talking about the same things, which is another matter altogether, and one that is completely beside the point that there are situations when they are.

We agree on that. Hence, perfect...

So when someone keeps asking you questions that you answer, yet they won't answer the questions you posed to them, is that not a great example of someone who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with. — Harry Hindu

Not always.

You seem to believe that because I use logic as a means to deny that logic is capable of discriminating between true and false statements, that that is somehow a problem for my denying that logic alone is enough to reliably determine and/or establish which competing/conflicting opinion is true.

I'm not sure what problem you think that that amounts to.

Could you explain how it is a problem that I use logic while denying it's ability to discriminate between true and false statements?
— creativesoul
Do you know what a contradiction is? Do you know what a self-defeating argument is? — Harry Hindu

Yes and yes. I do.

Would you care to explain how you think that that applies here?

I'm not using logic to discriminate between true and false claims while denying that it is capable of doing so. That is what would need to be happening in order for my argument to be self-defeating and/or self-contradictory. That's not happening though.

So, explain how it is a problem as you see it.

If logic is missing something, then what is it? What other methods are there? You haven't been able to provide any. — Harry Hindu

That last claim is false.

Logic presupposes truth, thus - all by itself - it is missing the ability to discriminate between true and false statements. I have provided an example showing how to discriminate between true and false statements without using logic... by looking.

One can actually do that here and now as well...

Look for yourself. I have already answered these questions several times over, and provided a method for discriminating between true and false statements(looking). Using logic will not provide a means of verifying/falsifying(discriminating between) these claims. Looking will.

I'm not denying that logic is needed, because it's needed to be able to know how well grounded an opinion is(by following the argument/reasoning), but it is not enough all by itself. I'm denying that it's all that's needed(that it's enough all by itself) because one also needs to be able to discriminate between true and false statements.

Do you understand that much?

It is a duty on the reader to assume positive intent unless convinced otherwise, not a duty on the writer to do all in their power to prove positive intent. — Isaac

And you...

...when you are the reader?

:brow:

If I say "I wish you had said X because if you had then it would have meant Y", I can only think of either one of two cases. Either Y is currently not the case and only would become the case contingent on my saying X, or Y is contingent on X but not exclusively so, Y may be the case anyway - in which case the statement seems to have no purpose, as Y may or may not be the case regardless of my saying X. — Isaac

Yeah. I can see that. However, it could also be the case that the reader/listener was looking for some confirmation that you were willing to do those things, but were uncertain based upon what you did say...

:smile:

I can assure you that that's not an accurate report of Un's thought and belief on the matter.
— creativesoul

Good.

But he used the contingent "I wish you would have..." along with the conditional "Because then you want to hear my method, and you want me to hear yours, and you want to hear what I think about your method and what I think about what you think about my method.". — Isaac

I'm not saying that your interpretation would be mistaken regardless of who used those terms. I'm saying it is mistaken because not everyone uses them like that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Had you said what was suggested, I too would have been a bit more convinced that who proposed the method did not matter, and that you were - in fact - interested in considering another method. It also would indicate that you were open to the idea that your own method could be improved, or that you were not all that certain that you have the best method. All of this is assuming the sincerity of the speaker. That's reading charitably.

Of course, in another vein of thought...

If one is certain that they have the best method, they will use it when it's appropriate to do so. Method is about attaining a goal, achieving something of worth, pursuing an end, etc.

The method here, as it pertains to the OP, is how to go about deciding which of two differing opinions is best. I think hearing them out(at least until they are found sorely lacking) is crucial in any such comparative analysis.

Don't you?

In that... Un not only hit the nail squarely on the head, he drove it home...

Current conflict...

Many people have been encouraged to feel hostile and angry about the economic shutdown and other consequence of covid19 such as the social distancing measures. So, there is a conflict between what the foremost experts in the field of infectious disease demand must be done in order to stop the novel corona virus, and the feelings that much of the American public have. Those negative, angry, and hostile feelings are the result of correlations drawn between the way they've come to terms with what's happened and what's happening(which includes not only the virus stuff, but also their own terrible feelings of uncertainty/discontent).

The idea of being mad about being forced to follow social distancing guidelines was encouraged and perpetuated. That was and is a horrible public disservice. It remains in place, and is as active as ever. Growing, in fact.

A diversion.

The focus has changed from Trump's undeniable incompetence and other real problems regarding the pandemic that are not Trump's fault, to a broad-based sense of fear that one's liberty and freedom have been taken away by virtue of being required to do what it takes to stop the spread of covid19.

Report of what's happened and/or is currently happening...

Some guys poke and prod others and/or their beliefs in a deliberate intentional I'm-just-being-a-dick fashion, which is devaluing another. It's best for everyone to see that those guys are just dicks. The world is chock full of 'em.

Common sense...

Such people have no business wielding tremendous power over anyone they care so little about...

We are all teachers. We are all students. We are all susceptible to believing falsehoods that have been passed down from generation to generation.

Academics are certainly not immune.

I wish you would have put it is that you don't care whose method, all you care about is to find the best method. Because then you want to hear my method, and you want me to hear yours, and you want to hear what I think about your method and what I think about what you think about my method. That's a discussion.
— unenlightened

What happened to charitable interpretation? There are (at least) two methods in a conflict about how to help the homeless (my example). Your method and my method. If it is a conflict between me and you, then one of those methods can be identified with the label 'yours' and the other with the label 'mine'. It's just a linguistic device used in a single sentence. I could have called them method 'A' and method 'B', but I didn't, I chose the more conventional 'yours' and 'mine'. The post before you said you didn't understand my position, next post apparently you understand it so well that on the basis of a single sentence you find yourself so convinced you understand it that you're faced with no more charitable alternative than to conclude I'm an egotist so obsessed with my own thoughts that I don't even want to hear those of my interlocutors. — Isaac

While that could be what someone means when saying precisely what Un said... I can assure you that that's not an accurate report of Un's thought and belief on the matter. Those are certainly NOT the words he chose to use. That's only one of many different things that can be derived from those same words. I suggest you imagine a few other possibilities.

:brow:

All logic consists(in part) of premisses.

All premisses are statements/propositions/claims/assertions/expressions of thought and belief. Henceforth, I'll just use the term "statements".

All logic consists(in part) of statements.

All thought and belief presupposes correspondence with/to fact/reality by virtue of consisting entirely of correlations.

All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content.



So...

Logic presupposes truth.

When we use logic, we presuppose truth by virtue of treating premisses as if they are true, because that's precisely how one follows an argument. That's of the utmost importance here, because judiciously discriminating between conflicting opinions is an exercise of discriminating between mutually exclusive statements as well as identifying the thought and belief that they are grounded upon, and doing that requires knowing the rules of correct inference(logic).



Fast forward to a pair of conflicting opinions about what's happened and/or is happening. When and if the pair of opinions can be adequately simplified to a pair of mutually exclusive statements, much becomes clear, even if only by virtue of coincidence. I think this is close to focusing upon "hinge propositions" or "core belief", in the sense that drake used earlier.

I wanted to have a bit of discussion about some concern(s) that you've repeatedly expressed, but I'd like to take them one at a time.

Ok?

First up...

You seem to believe that because I use logic as a means to deny that logic is capable of discriminating between true and false statements, that that is somehow a problem for my denying that logic alone is enough to reliably determine and/or establish which competing/conflicting opinion is true.

I'm not sure what problem you think that that amounts to.

Could you explain how it is a problem that I use logic while denying it's ability to discriminate between true and false statements?

So these two threads of the discussion strike me as two sides of the same thing. I don't know what they're two sides of, but I'm very convinced they're the same thing.

Side (1): Setting out one's claims defeasibly; paying attention to what would make you wrong, not just what makes you right. Writing so that the link between your claims and your motivation for having them is clear.

Side (2): Putting one's beliefs and identity at risk when arguing. Being not just open to, but enthusiastically pursuing, sites of tension in one's beliefs and identity as revealed in communication with the other.

It strikes me that writing in manner (1) requires willingness to engage in manner (2).

It also strikes me that it's easier to cultivate side (1) habits than side (2) habits. I base that on there being some general principles which can be written down, and some heuristics, like:

Being able to state what it would take for me to be wrong.
Being able to describe the connections between my claims in a somewhat neutral manner; why does x follow from y, and in what way does it follow?
Being able to describe the motivating context for my engagement.

that are relatively easy to understand in the context of side (1).

But, that "being able to describe the motivating context for my engagement" looks to me to be bleeding into side (2), often when I post on here I'm bringing baggage; intellectual and emotional; to the discussion. The things that motivate me to respond aren't just intellectual; they're aesthetic and emotional. Like when I correct someone who's doing mathematics really badly but being obstinate about their correctness; it strikes me as wrong cognitively, but also it's somehow a violation of my identity.

I speculate that there are motivational/emotional analogues of hinge propositions; statements and motivating contexts which are archetypical of my identity, and my attachment to those statements is very strong and very hard to revise. A hinge proposition is (roughly) an epistemic device that must be believed in order to have a discussion, but phrased as a statement; like "There is a world outside my mind". It is not something which can be doubted without doing considerable violence to how one makes sense of the world.

It seems to me that there are analogues to that regarding my identity insofar as it intersects with intellectual commitments; there are things I must believe to make sense of the world in the way I do. Someone who appears not to operate under those assumptions will simultaneously be judged by me to be wrong intellectually, but I'll condemn the belief to distance myself from it to save myself doing emotional work or to otherwise preserve my belief structure as it is.

That condemning might occur when a core belief; something strongly connected in my network of beliefs; is being challenged. Challenged in the manner that if I were to accept it, I wouldn't just have to change my mind or admit that I believed something falsely, I would also have to change how I think and thus what I believe about myself. — fdrake

Really good stuff in there!

You see the way I wish you would have put it is that you don't care whose method, all you care about is to find the best method. — unenlightened

Spot on. No need to openly admit fallibility in a discussion where everyone already knows it, and shows that much as well... with comments precisely like you've wished for above.

Here's a good list of proposed agreements to form a basis for better discussion.

1 Some conflicts get resolved.
2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events).

Do we agree that the two statements above report upon two remarkably different situations, consisting of remarkably different things?
— creativesoul
Sure. — Harry Hindu

Perfect!

Do we agree that there are some conflicts involving people who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with?

:smile:

I'm compelled to make a better attempt at building a bridge of mutual understanding.

Please know that my participation here is all about one thing... Attempting to figure out if it is actually possible to acquire knowledge of how to best discriminate between competing/conflicting opinions.

Given that the thread is about conflict resolution, and you and I have not been communicating our thoughts as clearly and concisely as I think we are both capable of doing, I'm making this deliberate atttempt because we may not be as far apart as it may seem. As Banno tends to say, and rightly so, we agree on far more than we disagree.

I'm thinking of this post as an attempt at a fresh start built upon pre-existing agreement(s). Let's bring some into view. That seems as good a path as any. So...

Here's a good list of proposed agreements to form a basis for better discussion.

1 Some conflicts get resolved.
2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events).

Do we agree that the two statements above report upon two remarkably different situations, consisting of remarkably different things?

:smile:

P.S.

The irony of my misspelling the word "attempt" during an attempt...

:nerd:

This pandemic has shown some of the inevitable problems that globalization brought to bear in terms of the sheer power that foreigners have over everyday citizens lives and livelihoods.

It's certainly showing what many find most disconcerting and/or troubling about the pandemic and it's effects/effects.

Such is the risk one takes in executing tremendous power over common people, being forced to care about their lives and/or livelihoods. When faced with a ten million dollar dent in a one hundred million dollar personal stash or the suffering and death of all those who could have been saved by using that money...

Choose to save the people.

Defer all debt, until we have made it as safe as we can. Treat all debt like it's been in a time warp... a wrinkle in time. In the meantime, until we've done the best - everything we can do - to make the world safe from the serious threat of covid19 currently dominating the face of the planet, offer everyone without the necessary means to live the means to do so. This will come at a financial cost. Where will the money come from?

Who cares? We find the money for all sorts of things that are far less important than this. Pressed, it's simple. Figure out what it will take to do this and then take that amount from those who've benefitted the most from the global economy, or take away their ability to ever use it - and the consumers(ahem... victims) - again.

The current - real life - conflict is about whether or not common everyday people ought be forced to choose between the health and safety of themselves and their loved ones or inevitable financial collapse - as a result of the pandemic, which is a result not of their own doing...

Sure... some will die, and some will suffer horribly. Many will suffer more than others. Acknowledgement alone is not enough though, especially coming from a world leader. When those who are the least secure, the least privileged, the least fortunate, the least lucky... when those people suffer far more than need be, and it is at 'the hands' of those who have the most, then we have a BIG problem.

The suffering is not all the same. Some will suffer financially and get by just fine. This pandemic may may a mere bump in the road to many... perhaps most. For others however, this pandemic could become the sure path to unnecessary financial and physiological(personal health) ruin. Such is the case when we're in the middle of a worldwide pandemic and far too much economic concern dominates the discussion table and we lose sight of what must be done before we make people go back to work and/or everyday normal life.