It is my opinion that our language would be better if it were to eliminate the use of the words "believe" or "belief." I acknowledge that others may be of the opposite opinion.

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, — Pfhorrest

Not really. One can think of it as a river where your rationality is at the lower reaches of the river where the water flows languidly past fields and houses. But if you want to understand the river you have to travel upstream, and it is not an infinite regress, travel far enough and you reach the source which might be a spring and one can understand that it is fed by the rain. It is the same with beliefs.

fed by the rain. It is the same with beliefs — A Seagull

What are the axioms of belief which are free from doubt?

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. — Coben

The difference is that critical rationalism has built into it that that is the right way to proceed. The justificationist at least nominally says "don't believe anything at all until it's justified from the ground up". Of course they can't actually live like that, so they don't, but that's just a reason to reject justificationism: you can't actually get started on believing anything if you actually do what it says you should try to do. Critical rationalism on the other hands says you don't have to justify everything from the ground up before you're warranted to believe it. You're warranted to believe anything you want, unless you've found something that demands you reject it.

It might be better if I introduce a bit of my own philosophy here, which I've been trying not to do. I think that what's called "critical rationalism" is actually a combination of two principle, which I call "criticism" and "liberalism". "Criticism" is the rejection of fideism: the rejection of unquestionable beliefs. Criticism just says "consider everything open for question, always uncertain". That is the "rationalism" part of critical rationalism. That by itself is compatible with justificationism: you could question everything, and demand conclusive answers before you let yourself believe anything, rejecting all beliefs that can't be conclusively justified yet.

But my second principle, "liberalism", says not to do that: you are free (hence "liberalism") to think whatever you like, until you find reason not to. That by itself would be compatible with fideism, e.g. a religious person would say "so I'm free to believe in God then, thanks!" But that, obviously, would be to abandon rationalism: just "believe what you want lol no rules". So it has to be combined with criticism. "Critical rationalism" is rationalism inasmuch as it is critical (as all rationalism is), without the further demand that it be justificationist.

If your river of beliefs can start from a spring or the rain, how do you know that the water flowing past you now isn't immediately spring water or rain water? Conversely, if you think you're at the headwaters, how do you know that there isn't further upstream you can still go?

If your river of beliefs can start from a spring or the rain, how do you know that the water flowing past you now isn't immediately spring water or rain water? Conversely, if you think you're at the headwaters, how do you know that there isn't further upstream you can still go? — Pfhorrest

Do you have a point? If so, what is it?

fed by the rain. It is the same with beliefs — A Seagull
What are the axioms of belief which are free from doubt? — PuerAzaelis

Maybe it doesn't have any axioms. Or maybe they are not free from doubt.

If you want to have axioms that are free from doubt then you have to do so in an abstract world. And if you believe in that abstract world, then you run the risk of being sure of a fantasy.

The point is that if you refuse to believe anything until it's sufficiently grounded, but at some point you can just say "this is sufficient enough" and stop looking for further grounding for that, then at any point you could do that, and you've completely thrown out the principle of refusing to believe things until they're sufficiently grounded. You're admitting that there are some things that just don't need justification, than can just be taken on faith, for no reason; or else, if you stick to the principle, you never admit any belief in anything. Justificationism either leads you to reject all beliefs or accept arbitrary beliefs, and is therefore useless as a form of rationalism.

a fantasy — A Seagull

I am here, I am now, I have the appearance of certain things occurring.

The difference is that critical rationalism has built into it that that is the right way to proceed. — Pfhorrest

Not if you think that every belief needs to be criticized. That is, the quote I have quoted. That is an utterly unrealistic demand.

] The justificationist at least nominally says "don't believe anything at all until it's justified from the ground up".

I just don't see that, not in practice. Scientists are justificationists in general, and they must know that not all assumptions have been demonstrated and they are revisionist at least in theory.

Critical rationalism on the other hands says you don't have to justify everything from the ground up before you're warranted to believe it. You're warranted to believe anything you want, unless you've found something that demands you reject it. — Pfhorrest

Right but if we have that sentence I quoted as part of the system you might as well be a justificationist. You have an endless job the moment you have a single belief. If I meet a person who works with justification who says that every belief must be justified, I will 'harrass' them just as I am you. And it has happened. If I mean a critical rationalist who makes a statement like that, well, you see what happens. And this is not just me being a pedant. I have a mixed epistemology. I use intuition, justification, and critical rationalism. I decide sometimes to let things slide that may or may not be working.

I find most purists to be, bascially, putting them necessarily in the position of being hypocrites. If your critical rationalism did not have that statement, well, then I would have much less to say. But as long as you have that endless critique generator in there, I think it is unrealistic. In fact I don't believe, I will go so far to say, that you follow that quote. In fact I know you don't because you can't. I don't see why you can't withdraw that quote because it does not fit with what you are saying here or the supposed advantage over justificationism.

Any purist, whether empiricist, Rationalist, critical rationalist, and likely others, I disbelieve. I do not thing they live up to their system not can they. Any pure version of those is inhuman and unachievable. and that sentence puts you in that category.

That by itself is compatible with justificationism: you could question everything, and demand conclusive answers before you let yourself believe anything, rejecting all beliefs that can't be conclusively justified yet. — Pfhorrest

Actually you could not do this. It's the cognitive equivalent of hitting yourself with a hammer you can't even believe exists. You cannot believe the criteria of justification. You can't decide anything even to not decide. It's gibberish.

But my second principle, "liberalism", says not to do that: you are free (hence "liberalism") to think whatever you like, until you find reason not to. — Pfhorrest

A sentence that does not go with the sentence I won't quote again but have four times. IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THAT SENTENCE.

That by itself would be compatible with fideism, e.g. a religious person would say "so I'm free to believe in God then, thanks!" — Pfhorrest

But that, obviously, would be to abandon rationalism: just "believe what you want lol no rules". — Pfhorrest

I don't think that holds. But it's another issue and we can't seem to get around that sentence.

So, this is what I see. Four times I mentioned that sentence. You haven't really defended that sentence. What you have done, as far as I can tell, is defend a critical rationalism that does not fit with that sentence. When you describe that critical rationalism it sounds much better and I would say is almost defined by not having to follow that sentence.

You could have made a case for why that sentence fits, responded to my issues with that sentence and shown how I am wrong. But instead you are silent about it.

So, I have to stop here. I might have found a defense of that sentence weak or frustrating (or been convinced) but this just makes me think you just don't want to retract anything. But it ends up like I am dealing with someone who doesn't even notice what I am responding to. You may think you explained that sentence, but you did not. You didn't put your responses in relation to that sentence. You didn't counter my critique of that sentence. In fact you said things that precisely do not fit with that sentence and did not mention it. I'm gonna drop this now. Done.

Not if you think that every belief needs to be criticized. That is, the quote I have quoted. That is an utterly unrealistic demand. — Coben

I think you must think that that means something very different from what I mean, but I have no idea what it is you think it means. It just means "don't take anything as beyond question". "Question everything", eventually, when you can get around to it, or when it's called for. It doesn't mean "reject anything until you have finished thoroughly questioning it and found conclusive answers" -- that would be justificationism.

Scientists are justificationists in general — Coben

Scientists are critical rationalists in general. Falsificationism is the mainstream philosophy of science, and that is just critical rationalism applied to empirical knowledge. Both falsificationism and critical rationalism generally are products of Karl Popper.

But my second principle, "liberalism", says not to do that: you are free (hence "liberalism") to think whatever you like, until you find reason not to. — Pfhorrest

A sentence that does not go with the sentence I won't quote again but have four times. IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THAT SENTENCE. — Coben

Here we're getting at what you misunderstand about that sentence you keep harping on. That sentence says to reject fideism: to not take anything as beyond question. Liberalism is not the same thing as fideism, though I could see why you would be confused. I have a picture I use to illustrate:



(The bulk of what's labelled "cynicism" there is justificationism, though there are also other things that I think fall within "cynicism").

Critical rationalism is what I have labelled "critical liberalism" there. All rationalism falls within what I have labelled "criticism": not taking anything to be beyond question, not accepting fideism. But not all rationalism rejects "liberalism"; only justificationist, or otherwise "cynical" (as I call it) rationalism, does that. What is usually called critical rationalism is just rationalism that is not "cynical", so not justificationist; it is only rationalist inasmuch as it is "critical", but not going so far as to be "cynical".

Likewise fideism is a kind of "liberalism", but not all "liberalism" is fideistic; "liberalism" that still holds everything open to question, critically, is just non-"cynical". Not everything non-"cynical" is fideistic, and not everything non-fideistic is "cynical"; but everything non-"cynical" is "liberal", and everything non-fideistic is "critical", or rational, and the "criticism"/rationalism that is not "cynical", or the "liberalism" that is not fideistic, is critical rationalism / "critcal liberalism".

(Quotes around things that are my own slightly unusual terminology).

You have endless patience.

I am here, I am now, I have the appearance of certain things occurring. — PuerAzaelis

Ok fair enough. But if those are axiomatic, which is what I assume you are suggesting, then you should be able to draw inferences from them. What inferences can you deduce from those axioms?

The point is that if you refuse to believe anything until it's sufficiently grounded, but at some point you can just say "this is sufficient enough" and stop looking for further grounding for that, then at any point you could do that, and you've completely thrown out the principle of refusing to believe things until they're sufficiently grounded. You're admitting that there are some things that just don't need justification, than can just be taken on faith, for no reason; or else, if you stick to the principle, you never admit any belief in anything. Justificationism either leads you to reject all beliefs or accept arbitrary beliefs, and is therefore useless as a form of rationalism. — Pfhorrest

My point is that if one follows the logical sequence of beliefs back to their source one eventually arrives at something that is not a belief. This applies to every belief.

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? — Frank Apisa

Your statement expresses what you think is the truth about yourself; you could well be mistaken. Thus it is either a belief about yourself or a guess. The question is whether it is subject to revision.

Janus
8.8k
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?
— Frank Apisa

Your statement expresses what you think is the truth about yourself; you could well be mistaken. Thus it is either a belief about yourself or a guess. The question is whether it is subject to revision. — Janus

WHAT THE FUCK DOES "EVERY GUESS I MAKE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE" MEAN TO YOU?

I know that every guess I make is subject to change. That is not a guess. And it is not a "belief"...which is nothing more than a GUESS in disguise.

So according to you not every thought you have about yourself and the world is a guess? Apparently there is at least one which is not. Are there others?

I am not able to establish unshakable beliefs. Are you? — Monist

Why would you want to? I would think that it would be advantageous to only tentatively accept a given finding, and then if presented with better, contradictory evidence, then happily "shake the belief" and tentatively accept the updated info.

Janus
8.8k
↪Frank Apisa So according to you not every thought you have about yourself and the world is a guess? Apparently there is at least one which is not. Are there others? — Janus

I can engage in a conversation about the value of a nihilistic or solipsistic perspective...but they invariably leave me cold. Just not my cup of tea, so to speak.

I apologize for the tenor of my previous post, but I am not interested in further discussion in that direction. I was just answering what I thought to be an interesting question.