The basis is simply that person A says "I reasonably supported assertion P," because person A sincerely feels that to be the case, whereas person B says "No you didn't," because they sincerely feel that to be the case.
So now what do we do? — Terrapin Station
Well we would apply reason to determine which was correct. — DingoJones
Well we would apply reason to determine which was correct. It doesnt matter what each of them feel about the reason, there is a fact of the matter about if the standard is being properly applied. It depends in how exactly you define reason, but that is one way that is useful and meaningful. — DingoJones
And how's that going? Can you give me a single example from the whole of academic philosophy where one of two competing ideas has been rejected by the majority of epistemic peers in the field by the application of reason? — Isaac
That doesnt mean there is not a fact of the matter about what is reasonable. — DingoJones
That doesnt mean there is not a fact of the matter about what is reasonable. — DingoJones
They are both applying reason, though. Re a standard--so some consensus? (Hence my initial question.) — Terrapin Station
No, but that's irrelevant if we can't access that fact reliably. I'm not saying the concept is useless. Complete nonsense can be dismissed this way, but when it comes to the really interesting stuff, it is almost inevitable that the very reason it is interesting is that the competing ideas in the field have not proven to be decidable by any means of argumentation we have. — Isaac
Not “a” standard, a specific one, the standard of reason. For example, if a person is contradicting themselves then they have failed to properly apply the standard. Obviously, to apply a standard the basis of those standards must be accepted but in the case of reason this is the most basic way we make sense of things. Saying a circle is also a square makes no sense, is not valid reasoning — DingoJones
Whether or not a person thinks they are being reasonable, there is a fact of the matter of whether they actually are. — DingoJones
So if it's not determined by consensus what is it determined by? You say that some claim doesn't make sense and isn't reasonable. The other guy says it does make sense; it is reasonable. You say that it's a fact that it's not reasonable. He says that it's a fact that it's reasonable. Now what do we do. How do we figure out who is right? — Terrapin Station
You use the standard. — DingoJones
They are both applying reason, though. — Terrapin Station
Re a standard--so some consensus? (Hence my initial question.) — Terrapin Station
:up:Not to mention what happens in each case when they jump on your lap. — Banno
So the guy who is contradicting himself says that he is being reasonable. You and almost everyone else says he is not, and says that he's not following "the" standard.
So once again, the question is whether "the" standard is determined by consensus. — Terrapin Station
Often I wonder if my reply to someone was actually read. Seems every so often they are more scaned than read. Looking for some word steam in them to be quoted back with an argument, often little to do with the idea in the post. It is the equivalent of not listening in a discussion, just thinking about what you are going to say next, and waiting for the other person to stop making noise so you can talk again. It all stems from the same issue in my opinion. It comes from the objective being trying to win an argument instead of participating in an exchange of ideas. — Rank Amateur
You use the standard. What you are talking about is accepting the standard. Im not saying anyone must accept reason, only that should they choose to do so, they are accepting a particular standard, some basic rules that govern what is reasonable. If they do not follow that standard, regardless of whether or not they claim to be doing so, then they are not being reasonable.
The consensus would be in deciding whether or not to BE reasonable, it is something you agree or decide to do. The creation of that standard needs no consensus.
Someone creates a mile, a certain length of distance that they call a mile. If another person says “i just walked 10ft, a whole mile” then they are not correct according to that created standard of a mile. They claim its a mile, but there is a fact of the matter about what a mile actually is and 10 ft isnt it. No consensus required. This person can claim they are using miles, or they can use km instead, or feet instead or whatever..they could get a million people to call 10ft a mile. Doesnt matter, it doesnt change the created standard and when they claim 10ft is a mile they are wrong, they are just calling something else a mile that is not. They have not accepted the standard of the mile, but have rejected it or redefined it into something else (ergo, not a mile). — DingoJones
I don't need a consensus to know, for example, if someone has presented an invalid argument. If the standard was validity, then they're being unreasonable. That's how this works. — S
None of this answers any of the questions I asked you. Do you need me to go into detail why it doesn't answer the questions I asked? — Terrapin Station
Your question has been answered, just not in the way you would like me to answer it. I — DingoJones
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.