Whether it's unreasonable to doubt someone or something, depends on many factors given a particular context, but generally one needs to have good reasons to doubt. However, there can be causes for a doubt - for example, I may have poor eyesight. — Sam26
If I remember correctly, my example is that the teacher is an expert, and the information or evidence you have gives you reasons to believe he is an expert. So given such information, it would be unreasonable to doubt what he's telling you about the game of chess.So unless I have good reasons, I shouldn't doubt that you're an expert chess player, or that Banno is an expert tennis player? That doesn't seem right. Surely I need good reasons to believe that you are? — Michael
If someone tells me that they're an expert, it can be reasonable to doubt him even if I don't have evidence that he's lying (or otherwise mistaken). — Michael
If I remember correctly, my example is that the teacher is an expert, and the information or evidence you have gives you reasons to believe he is an expert. — Sam26
As I've said, the given is that he's an expert, thus it follows that his knowledge is superior to yours. — Sam26
But him being an expert isn't the same as me having evidence that he's an expert. Any random person who talks to me in the street might be an expert. — Michael
Are you suggesting that in those occasions where, unknown to me, the person I'm talking to is an expert it would be unreasonable to doubt what he tells me? That doesn't strike me as right. — Michael
I need reasons to believe that the person I'm talking to is an expert. So given suggested evidence X (say, him telling me that he's an expert), am I to just assume that X is evidence? Or am I free to doubt that it's evidence, despite not having any evidence that he's lying? — Michael
Someone simply telling you they're an expert isn't good evidence that they are, so no, that wouldn't be enough. Here's the evidence you have: First, you saw him play in tournaments, you've read his expertise in articles and books, you know his rating according to FIDE is 2700, he owns a chess club where he teaches chess, etc., etc. Is that enough? — Sam26
Using the above reasons, what evidence do I have that is score is 2,700? Am I to just assume that the source is accurate? Or am I free to doubt it until evidence that it's trustworthy is given to me? And then why should I believe that the evidence that it's trustworthy is itself trustworthy? — Michael
Well, as Banno suggested before, it mostly comes down to an attitude. Your attitude is either that of trust or doubt. I might not have any reasons to believe that someone is lying to me, but I still doubt that his words are evidence. And that's perfectly rational. — Michael
Yes, if I was reading an official print out of FIDE ratings, I would make an assumption that it's accurate. — Sam26
You can always create a scenario where it might be reasonable to doubt something, there's no denying that, but at some point your doubting just doesn't make sense. Let's say I have an inductive argument that's only 80% probable, is it reasonable to doubt the conclusion? I would say no. Why? Because most of the evidence is in favor of the conclusion.
Most people don't lie, so is it reasonable to assume someone is lying? Maybe, if most of the people you've been in contact with are liars.
It means their will decides how lemons taste to you. It means there is a strong correlation between what they want you to experience and what you experience. — Magnus Anderson
So is it reasonable to suppose that there are aliens interfering with our taste buds? — Banno
I assumed you were working with the definition of 'Constitutive Rule' given earlier in the thread, according to which a Constitutive Rule is an ostensive definition of a word. But here you say that a constitutive rule is 'what a culture takes to be inherently given in perception'. Is it what is actually given in perception, or merely what some people 'take' to be given? — PossibleAaran
Doubt has to hinge on something we know. — Caldwell
immune — Magnus Anderson
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.