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.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
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
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
Certainly. On the condition that I give up on being rational, which occurs from time to time, to be fair. — StreetlightX
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"? — 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. — Frank Apisa
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, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be 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
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.Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.
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
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.Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.
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.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
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.
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 you have to criticize each belief
Yup, and that's holding up well so far, so keeping that for now.then the belief that you should criticize every belief
That would be the problems with fideism. Criticism is just what's left after fideism is rejected on account of its own problems.then the beliefs that led you to think that you should criticize every beleif 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.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.
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."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.
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.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
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
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....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
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
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.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
Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.
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.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
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....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
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.Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself have
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
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.