If logic is missing something, then what is it? What other methods are there? You haven't been able to provide any. — Harry Hindu
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
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
I asked you a question regarding your statement that you avoided. — Harry Hindu
2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events). — creativesoul
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
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
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
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
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
(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
(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
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 makes no sense to me.
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. — creativesoul
Well having widespread agreement is crucial. However, we must not forget that convention is not always right. — creativesoul
A source which expends effort to find out what is true...
A source which expends effort to find out what is true... — fdrake
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.