The key to getting rid of all that "belief" nonsense (whether of the shakable or unshakable variety) is simply not to corrupt our guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like...by using the word "belief" as a disguise. — Frank Apisa

I am not sure that such a shift in vocabulary actual influences how much you trust the ideas. I assume a wide range of meanings to my own use of 'belief'. It's something I think is the case, but I am not sure. This can be anything from my best guess, so I choose path b cause I think that's where we came from, but I am not remotely sure, to beliefs that I am very confident in, that have worked for a long time, but I am open to revision around.

:up:

My creative evil demon might have the ability to delude with logic, in which I am conditioned to it, and think that the evil demon should make sense, while 'making sense' itself is a trap.

You are using logic to justify a belief, where logic itself is -just like math- an axiomatic made up system. Logic itself is a belief.

Before trying to make me believe in the "cogito" argument, make me believe in logic, or ANYTHING ELSE. — Monist

If you are not interested in making sense then there is nothing more to say. If you are going to offer nonsense as a an argument, then you have ended the discussion.

Even in the logical system: doubting requires existence, to be able to doubt; one should exist. Therefore; one should prove that he exists first, before he can say that he doubts.

The cogito argument is wrong in so many ways, each day you can find another fallacy, if you do your homework...

Doubting is a state of being; the proposition "I doubt" is indifferent than proposition "I am an existing thing that doubts, therefore I exist". Do you see the circularity here? It's like saying I am, therefore I am. :-)

But again, circularities may not be fallacies. My problem is bigger than that here; I do not believe in logic. — Monist

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. Just because you can call it fallacious, or claim you do not believe in logic does not make it so. These are just empty, meaningless words and positions you are offering.
Things make sense, things happen in certain ways, there is a consistency to reality and that doesnt change just because you say it does. (Edited a grammar error.)
Anyway, like I said once you have resorted to nonsense as your argument you have checked out of the conversation.

Certainly. On the condition that I give up on being rational, which occurs from time to time, to be fair. — StreetlightX

How can you tell when you are be8ing irrational? Or rational for that matter?

One index would be the degree to which I'm willing to admit all claims open to revision, in principle, obviously.

WHO is it that is unable to attain unshakeable belief?

The key to getting rid of all that "belief" nonsense (whether of the shakable or unshakable variety) is simply not to corrupt our guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like...by using the word "belief" as a disguise. — Frank Apisa

Are your "guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like" unshakeable? Is your attitude against the idea of belief unshakeable? Or are you merely "paying lip service"?

Are your "guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like" unshakeable? Is your attitude against the idea of belief unshakeable? Or are you merely "paying lip service"? — Janus

None of my guesses are unshakable...if "unshakable" means "not subject to change."

Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change...as the circumstances that caused the guess, supposition or estimate...change.

My comment had to do with the use of "believe"...particularly in the context of questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

None of my guesses are unshakable...if "unshakable" means "not subject to change."

Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change...as the circumstances that caused the guess, supposition or estimate...change. — Frank Apisa

Are those two "guesses" themselves subject to change?

Janus
8.8k
None of my guesses are unshakable...if "unshakable" means "not subject to change."

Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change...as the circumstances that caused the guess, supposition or estimate...change.
— Frank Apisa

Are those two "guesses" themselves subject to change? — Janus

Every guess I make is subject to change.

Not sure of what you supposed I was guessing about...but if you want a particular considered...tell me what the particular is.

Yes, a lot of people are very certain at a meta-level and then also in assumptions about the nature of reality/minds that mean that one 'should' - we should all note the use of that word in his argument - think of our beliefs as guesses.

He's pointing out that you seem very certain about how we should view beliefs, that is things we think are true. We shouldn't even use the word belief - even if for many of us this does not mean it is closed to revision. It seems like you are presenting not just your view of your own approach to viewing what you believe, but how you think one should in general, view what one thinks is the case, and in quite certain terms. IOW if you tell people

Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change

that doesn't sound remotely like a guess, especially given it is universal.

:up:

Every guess I make is subject to change. — Frank Apisa

The above statement: is it a belief, a judgement, a guess, an assessment, a stipulation or something else? Whatever you may call it, is it subject to change?

↪A Seagull One index would be the degree to which I'm willing to admit all claims open to revision, in principle, obviously. — StreetlightX

Your index of rationality sounds like something the Bellman from Hunting of the Snark would keep in his back pocket.

:up:

Do not try to ground beliefs. That’s impossible. Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having. Whatever you can’t yet rule out (on some grounds stronger than just being unable to prove it from the ground up) yet, stick with that for now. Whatever you can rule out, find a temporary replacement for, and then keep going.

Also, a belief is just something you think is true. You don’t have to have absolute certainty for it to be a belief, just be disposed to answer “yes” (even if qualified by “probably” or “I think”) when asked if it’s true.

Do not try to ground beliefs. That’s impossible. — Pfhorrest

Why not?

What makes you think it is impossible??

Beliefs have to be based on something. And in fact it is important to base them on real things lest one ends up with only fantasies.

Infinite regress. If every belief has to be based on something then that needs to be based on something else that needs to be based on something else and so on forever, unless you stop somewhere or go in a circle in which base you’ve both abandoned rationality and the principle that lead you there in the first place. Better to just abandon that principle but keep rationality, by switching to critical rationalism instead of such justificationism.

critical rationalism leads to an infinite regress also. if

Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.

then you have to criticize each belief, then the belief that you should criticize every belief, then the beliefs that led you to think that you should criticize every beleif and so on. And then criticize each belief you form during the critique session about a particular belief - like 'my belief seems problematic because of X', but then I must critique my belief that it seems problematic because of X AND my belief that X is the case and so on. And then critical rationalism needs to be criticized, if you believe in it, but can one use a belief to critique a belief. IOW whatever epistemology you have to determine if a belief is ok, this will be the one you will use to check to see if that epistemology itself is ok. Which is fruit of the poisoned tree. And by the way, I am not saying we cannot have knowledge. I am just looking at your criterion and applying it to your own beliefs and I see infinite regress here too.

You are still applying justificationist reasoning. Think outside that box.

The difference between surviving criticism and bring justified from the ground up is that surviving criticism is the default state of any belief, whereas nothing is automatically justified-from-the-ground-up To begin with, all beliefs have survived the (zero) criticism they have been subjected to thus far — including belief in critical rationalism. That doesn’t mean that all beliefs are mandatory, just that all are permissible. Only when you find some reason why a belief doesn’t work must you reject it — but not in favor of any particular other belief, just in favor of some alternative or another. You can do this by showing a belief to be contrary to itself, or showing a contradiction between some set of beliefs in which case you have to pick which ones to throw out to solve that contradiction. You can only ever whittle away at (combinations of) things that aren't possible (together); you never narrow down to the one exact thing that is definitely absolutely certain, only a narrower range of possibilities.

Consider actions for analogy. Should we do nothing until we can justify from the ground up that that thing is the one absolutely certain best thing to do, or should we instead do whatever we want unless there is some good reason not to do that particular thing, and then instead do whatever else isn’t ruled out yet? Obviously the latter, or else we would never do anything at all. Just apply the same principle to belief as to action.

You are thrown into an infinite sea of uncertainty. If you insist on standing upon (something that stands upon something that stands upon...) the nonexistent bottom, you will just drown in your own doubts. Instead learn to float in the uncertainty by clinging to whatever is buoyant enough to bear your weight... until it isn’t, and then find something else to cling to instead.

Coincidentally, my thread last week about my essay Against Cynicism (which is mostly against justificationism) is about this very topic.

The difference between surviving criticism and bring justified from the ground up is that surviving criticism is the default state of any belief, whereas nothing is automatically justified-from-the-ground-up To begin with, all beliefs have survived the (zero) criticism they have been subjected to thus far — including belief in critical rationalism. — Pfhorrest

There is a difference between surviving and what you wrote....Please show me how my reasoning was off given that it was based on your assertion.

Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.

So you start a critique...well you have to beleive you have a belief - you could critique that. When you are critiquing a belief, you have to critique all the facets of the critique, since these will include beliefs and then that you identified the beliefs correctly, then any conclusions you draw are new beliefs....it doesn't matter if it's justification or not, you are still critiquing which will involve identifying beliefs, a process, beliefs aobut a good process conclusions and more. it has to have a regress.

Consider actions for analogy. Should we do nothing until we can justify from the ground up that that thing is the one absolutely certain best thing to do, or should we instead do whatever we want unless there is some good reason not to do that particular thing, and then instead do whatever else isn’t ruled out yet? Obviously the latter, or else we would never do anything at all. — Pfhorrest

Precisely, there is an infinite regress if one truly follows the protocols of critical rationalism. Note that deciding there is a good reason, or not, would entail a belief. believing that one notices good reasons. And on and on. But note you are not really doing critical rationalism. You are doing your own idiosyncatic version. Which is fine. But it seems to me what you are saying is you simply don't follow through on the implications. One can do this with justification also. Have some axioms.

Critical rationalists hold that scientific theories and any other claims to knowledge can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be subjected to tests which may falsify them. Thus claims to knowledge may be contrastingly and normatively evaluated.

I just did, but if you want me to pick you apart line by line:

then you have to criticize each belief

Yes, when you can, and if you don't see anything wrong with a particular belief yet, you can leave it for now and run with what you have. You don't have to prove that every belief you hold is completely immune to all possible criticism before you do anything; that would be justificationism again, and you could never get started at all.

then the belief that you should criticize every belief

Yup, and that's holding up well so far, so keeping that for now.

Also, even if it didn't hold up, I would be free on that account to continue holding that belief anyway, because that would be the rejection of all rationalism.

then the beliefs that led you to think that you should criticize every beleif and so on

That would be the problems with fideism. Criticism is just what's left after fideism is rejected on account of its own problems.

And then criticize each belief you form during the critique session about a particular belief - like 'my belief seems problematic because of X', but then I must critique my belief that it seems problematic because of X AND my belief that X is the case and so on.

If the reason for rejecting belief Y is that is contradicts belief in non-X, then you can either reject Y or reject non-X.

Of course, you should see if there is anything problematic with the belief that Y and non-X contradict, and if there is then you should reject that, and then you're free to keep believing Y and non-X. If there's not anything problematic that you see, then you're back to having to choose between Y and non-X.

And then critical rationalism needs to be criticized, if you believe in it, but can one use a belief to critique a belief. IOW whatever epistemology you have to determine if a belief is ok, this will be the one you will use to check to see if that epistemology itself is ok. Which is fruit of the poisoned tree.

Fruit of the poisoned tree only applies to justificationist reasoning. A critical rationalist doesn't argue for critical rationalism on the grounds of something else -- critical rationalism is against that sort of thing -- it's just what's left after ruling out other self-defeating possibilities, like justificationism and fideism. I'm not saying "We have to believe this because that". I'm saying "We can't believe those because of themselves. This is what's left, so we're still free to believe this."

Yes, when you can, and if you don't see anything wrong with a particular belief yet, you can leave it for now and run with what you have. You don't have to prove that every belief you hold is completely immune to all possible criticism before you do anything; that would be justificationism again, and you could never get started at all. — Pfhorrest

Right, I got that. But if you decide a belief might be a problem, then you generate beliefs. First, that it might be a problem, then that you evaluation to keep it or get rid of it is sound, then whatever subevalutations in there.

Also, even if it didn't hold up, I would be free on that account to continue holding that belief anyway, because that would be the rejection of all rationalism. — Pfhorrest

So, it's an apriori. IOW since it goes against your philosophy. But one can do this in justification systems, have axioms, and leave them alone.

Fruit of the poisoned tree only applies to justificationist reasoning. A critical rationalist doesn't argue for critical rationalism on the grounds of something else -- critical rationalism is against that sort of thing -- it's just what's left after ruling out other self-defeating possibilities, like justificationism and fideism. — Pfhorrest

Are you sure that's why you do that? The moment you draw any conclusion, in your version of critical rationalism, you have a new belief? Then you must, according to the rule I quoted twice, check to see if there is any problem with it. Then you have new belief that you evaluated well that there is no problem. Then....

check to see if there is any problem with it. Then you have new belief that you evaluated well that there is no problem — Coben

I think this is where you're losing the point. Criticizing your beliefs isn't some kind of final permanent thing. You look to see if there are any problems; if you don't see any, you can keep it. But maybe later you will see some that you missed before, and then you should reject it. You're never certain. Certainty is impossible. That's the point. You're only ever narrowing in on the range of possibilities as you find problems, never settling on any one possibility with certainty.

I think this is where you're losing the point. Criticizing your beliefs isn't some kind of final permanent thing. You look to see if there are any problems; if you don't see any, you can keep it. — Pfhorrest

Beliefs don't have to be certain - as you've said yourself, one can be open to revision, but they are still beliefs -, nor are they in justification or most other epistemologies. You checked your belief (you believe) and now believe there wasn't a problem. That's two beliefs at least you just accumulated when there wasn't even a (n apparant) problem. Now the process would need to go on. Each time with a branching set of new beliefs.

If you remove

Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.

right off your approach is much stronger. With that in there, I see an infinite regress.

Oh certainty is very much possible. But of course one can be certain and wrong.

Not every unending process is an infinite regress. Critical rationalism is more like an infinite progress. The problem with justificationism is that it says “before you believe that you need a reason”, but then before you believe that reason you need another reason, going back and back (regressing) forever (infinitely). The process of criticism never ends either, but it’s not demanding that you finish that infinite process before you can believe anything. It lets you believe whatever right off the bat, but then says to never stop trying to refine those beliefs to better and better ones.

Like I said about the infinite sea. There is no bottom, so to try to stay above water by standing on something that stands on something ... that stands on the bottom will just lead you to reaching down forever until you drown. But looking for more and more buoyant things to float on doesn’t have that problem; you’ll still never find a perfectly buoyant thing that will definitely keep you afloat forever, but at least you can make do with whatever you’ve found so far instead of sinking straight to the bottom looking in vain for something solid to stand on.

It lets you believe whatever right off the bat, but then says to never stop trying to refine those beliefs to better and better ones. — Pfhorrest

But the moment you actually start criticizing it's infinite, call it regress or progress. You will have to stop (to make dinner, to live) before resolving its own criteria. Only radical skeptic justificationists do not recognize that we find ourselves in the middle of life and already having beliefs. They also pick and choose, just like a critical rationalist has to, how much to criticize (and thus form even more beliefs), how time to put in, how to prioritize which beliefs to go after and so on.

But looking for more and more buoyant things to float on doesn’t have that problem; you’ll still never find a perfectly buoyant thing that will definitely keep you afloat forever, but at least you can make do with whatever you’ve found so far instead of sinking straight to the bottom looking in vain for something solid to stand on. — Pfhorrest

You still missing the point. With that criterion that I've now quoted three times, you cannot do anything but criticize beliefs. Whether you are refining or not. Whether you don't care about the bottom or not. I'll quote it a fourth time....

Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself have

Everytime you criticize you generate new beliefs, more than one for each belief you criticize. To live up to that you have an infinite process.

Why not say something like this:

If you have seem to have a significant problem, see if a belief is involved that seems like it might be both causal and you have some reasons to think it is not correct, then reevaluate it or evaulate it for the first time.

But you seem to want to hang onto that statement and if you do, its got an infinite task for you and those new tasks arise immediately.


And jusitificationists often have apriori. Science has worked this way. Space and time were absolute, they just assumed this, Newton did. These were untested apriori. Einstein ripped that up. That's OK. I don't think a justificationist has to say that everything has to be justified. Oddly you are saying that every belief must be critiqued. Justificationists may not acknowledge that they have working assumptions - though some certainly do. Natural laws is another one that is showing cracks. I think a good number of quite justificationist people assume there is no demon controlling their consciousness or recognize that they might be brains in a vat and so on, but they consider it these working apriori. Something starts indicating they are a brain in a vat or we are all in a simulation, then they will take a peek at their assumption.

Pretty much anyone can have a wait until you think you need to reevaluate epistemology. In fact you pretty much have to. You can also accept that one is, for the time being, accepting paradigmatic assumptions,w hich one is free to work with or question. We find ourselves in the middle of time and knowledge.

One you say that every belief you have must be critiqued
or
every belief you have must be justified

then both approaches get silly.

Janus
8.8k
↪Coben :up:

Every guess I make is subject to change.
— Frank Apisa

The above statement: is it a belief, a judgement, a guess, an assessment, a stipulation or something else? Whatever you may call it, is it subject to change? — Janus

My statement "Every guess I make is subject to change"...

...is simply a statement of a truth about myself. I am telling you point blank that anytime I make a guess...that guess is not only labelled a "guess"...it IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

It certainly is not a guess...any more than the statement, "My first name is Frank" is a guess.

Not sure what you are getting at?