If logic is missing something, then what is it? What other methods are there? You haven't been able to provide any. — Harry Hindu

That last claim is false.

Logic presupposes truth, thus - all by itself - it is missing the ability to discriminate between true and false statements. I have provided an example showing how to discriminate between true and false statements without using logic... by looking.

One can actually do that here and now as well...

Look for yourself. I have already answered these questions several times over, and provided a method for discriminating between true and false statements(looking). Using logic will not provide a means of verifying/falsifying(discriminating between) these claims. Looking will.

I'm not denying that logic is needed, because it's needed to be able to know how well grounded an opinion is(by following the argument/reasoning), but it is not enough all by itself. I'm denying that it's all that's needed(that it's enough all by itself) because one also needs to be able to discriminate between true and false statements.

Do you understand that much?

You seem to believe that because I use logic as a means to deny that logic is capable of discriminating between true and false statements, that that is somehow a problem for my denying that logic alone is enough to reliably determine and/or establish which competing/conflicting opinion is true.

I'm not sure what problem you think that that amounts to.

Could you explain how it is a problem that I use logic while denying it's ability to discriminate between true and false statements?
— creativesoul
Do you know what a contradiction is? Do you know what a self-defeating argument is? — Harry Hindu

Yes and yes. I do.

Would you care to explain how you think that that applies here?

I'm not using logic to discriminate between true and false claims while denying that it is capable of doing so. That is what would need to be happening in order for my argument to be self-defeating and/or self-contradictory. That's not happening though.

So, explain how it is a problem as you see it.

So when someone keeps asking you questions that you answer, yet they won't answer the questions you posed to them, is that not a great example of someone who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with. — Harry Hindu

Not always.

I asked you a question regarding your statement that you avoided. — Harry Hindu

No. You did not. My statement was...

2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events). — creativesoul

See there where it says two different explanations for the same events?

You asked a question about how we know that the two are talking about the same things, which is another matter altogether, and one that is completely beside the point that there are situations when they are.

We agree on that. Hence, perfect...

So when someone keeps asking you questions that you answer, yet they won't answer the questions you posed to them, is that not a great example of someone who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with. — Harry Hindu

There are any number of different reasons that an interlocutor does not answer a question. For my part, I wanted to build upon our agreements first. Then see where we disagree. So, no...

It is not always a great example of someone who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with.

Logic won't help you here either. You have to look for/at real life examples/situations to the contrary. When you find one, and acknowledge that fact, you then ought know that not all unanswered questions are indicative of unshakable certainty in the one not answering(someone who will not change their mind no matter what they are presented with).

You just found one.

When someone continually contradicts themselves and avoids questions, or when the questions get tough they abandon the discussion, or just ignore the questions while asking their own, or continually attack the person rather than what they say (ad homs), then I think those are great examples of someone that doesn't want to change their mind regardless of what they are presented with. — Harry Hindu

Could be. Sure. But...

I've not contradicted myself. There have been no tough questions that I've avoided because they are tough. I've certainly not continually attacked you...

I'm left wondering how you've arrived at such belief about me based upon our interaction here...

Got some evidence? My words perhaps?

Now...

HERE is where you employ logic as a means to show me how you've arrived at your conclusions about me based upon my claims here.

Show my claims. Explain - using logic - how they led you to your conclusions about me.

Jeez. I've been sucked in...

:roll:

The reasons for accepting a specific claim will depend on the claim and the evidence for it. I doubt there is a general recipe that applies to all claims and all evidence that will tell you just when to believe and when not to believe. I believe it is much more productive to think of adjustments that can be made to one's own propensities to believe and personal evaluation of whether a claim is justified. — fdrake

So...

Can we set out this criterion for ourselves regarding what counts as sufficient/adequate reason to believe?

There is a huge asymmetry between how easy it is to show something is flawed or impoverished and how hard it is to show something is a well justified complete picture. It's easier to demonstrate falsehood than truth, and easier to find a flaw than construct a position. — fdrake

I disagree.

Untrustworthy people or institutions will use that asymmetry, letting you construct their position for them while never spelling out the complete picture, and being unable to say what would make them change their mind about the statements/the defeaters for their justifications of it, or their interpretations of evidence. — fdrake

Perhaps. Sure. Helps the audience connect.

(2) Is it from a person or institution you trust?

(2a) An institution that relies on sourced arguments that terminate in interpretations of data is a more reliable truth teller than otherwise. — fdrake

This makes no sense to me.

A sourced argument does not guarantee true premisses or conclusions. Even false claims can follow from sourced arguments that terminate in 'interpretations' of data.

(2b) A person who has a habit of backing up their claims with sources or data, or at least tells you where they're getting their information from, is a more reliable truth teller than otherwise. — fdrake

That's not true at all. A person who carefully arrives at whatever belief they hold strongly will be able to satisfy the above criterion, regardless of whether or not their belief is true.

(2c) When a person or institution uses a sourced argument, can you find other people or institutions which do the same thing? Can you find ones that you cannot establish are politically partisan who do the same thing? — fdrake

Well having widespread agreement is crucial. However, we must not forget that convention is not always right.

Intellectual hygiene.

The reasons for accepting a specific claim will depend on the claim and the evidence for it. I doubt there is a general recipe that applies to all claims and all evidence that will tell you just when to believe and when not to believe. — fdrake

This rings true.

This makes no sense to me.

Regarding sources which do research being more reliable truth tellers:

Three factors:

A source which expends effort to find out what is true can be trusted to form opinions based on things which are more likely to be true.

A source which expends effort to find out what is true is less likely to form opinions based on falsehoods.

A source which researches a claim is more likely to put it in an appropriate context for its interpretation, and is thus less likely to give undue significance to irrelevant detail.

That there are well trusted sources, newspapers even, which do not care to do basic fact checking or contextualising claims is an indictment on discourse.

That's not true at all. A person who carefully arrives at whatever belief they hold strongly will be able to satisfy the above criterion, regardless of whether or not their belief is true. — creativesoul

It depends on how the source behaves. If a source carefully constructs their output to fit an established agenda, it is not a reliable teller of truths insofar as they relate to the agenda. If a source carefully researches a topic before publishing anything on it, they will report well contextualised truths more readily and fail to report falsehoods (unless explicitly highlighting them) more readily for the above reasons.

Well having widespread agreement is crucial. However, we must not forget that convention is not always right. — creativesoul

Widespread agreement forms the basis upon which we make appeals to distinguish true claims from false ones.

Or at least we use that to determine who has the burden of proof.

I'm still standing in awe of the tremendous amount of complex clarity regarding those first two posts. Even the bits like 2 and it's caveats retain value for me despite my objections regarding their standing as always being reliable. I've voiced my concerns briefly, and they remain. Although, by and large, even those parts are indeed useful and reliable means that one can take to help ensure that they've made the right choice between conflicting opinions.

The priming stuff is on point and can be observed on a daily basis from nearly all sides of media, to one degree or another. Powerful...

I am happy to see that you and I agree(for the most part anyway?) regarding the crucial importance of forming, having, and/or holding true belief. I note also that we agree for the most part regarding the limits of logic's role in this method to determine what's best to believe. Logic alone cannot discriminate, or "distinguish" in your terms, between true and false statements/claims.

A bit on "truth-telling"...

There's an underlying element of 'truth seeking' for it's own sake that I find is crucial when considering whether or not an individual is a reliable "truth teller"... without some hidden agenda. I'm guessing we are in agreement here as well, based upon the following word choice of yours...

A source which expends effort to find out what is true...

A source which expends effort to find out what is true... — fdrake

However, one can still seek to find out what is true with the intent to not disclose this to the public. Here, we can see that seeking what's true for it's own sake does not guarantee an honest speaker and/or a sincere speech act. It does not guarantee that the "truth be told". Truth telling is about more than just knowing, and/or seeking what's true. In involves the personal character and/or motivations of the speaker as well. It is worth mention here that I am adopting the sense of "truth" that you've been using rather than arguing against it.

Anthony Fauci comes immediately to mind regarding the information being broadcast to the American public about what counts as being ready to "open the economy back up" in as safe as possible a manner. That guy checks all the boxes of being a trustworthy truth-teller for all the right reasons... a focus upon public health during the outbreak of a highly infectious disease. One who has done it already.

Interestingly enough, in recent weeks there seems to be a concerted effort to either discredit Fauci or steer people away from agreeing with - or even hearing - his advice regarding safe conditions for reopening the economy. The priming effect/affect you so aptly brought my attention to is on display during such discourse. It's similar to poisoning the well in the cases where an attempt to discredit is made, but it's just the beginning of a case of plain 'ole changing the focus most of the time.

Combined with last post for brevity...

You gave this reply serious thought, and made it worth reading, so "thank you!"
Of all your suggested disciplines, the effort to step out of one's habitual frame of reference and into another conflicting, unsettling, even hostile frame of reference is the great challenge of the seeker of truth and wisdom. We use our "truths" to navigate the world and don't abandon or even modify them readily. There is however a tipping point in thinking where the model just will not continue to accommodate the incoming new data. In an extreme case, it's like an addict admitting that his efforts to control his addiction have been based on false premises, and it's either die or make changes. We hold to our falsehoods that strongly, and sometimes only a crisis is sufficient to break through our defenses. But what a wonderful world it might be if all people were to apply your listed guidelines for critical thinking.

You gave this reply serious thought, and made it worth reading, so "thank you!"

Of all your suggested disciplines, the effort to step out of one's habitual frame of reference and into another conflicting, unsettling, even hostile frame of reference is the great challenge of the seeker of truth and wisdom. We use our "truths" to navigate the world and don't abandon or even modify them readily. There is however a tipping point in thinking where the model just will not continue to accommodate the incoming new data. In an extreme case, it's like an addict admitting that his efforts to control his addiction have been based on false premises, and it's either die or make changes. We hold to our falsehoods that strongly, and sometimes only a crisis is sufficient to break through our defenses. But what a wonderful world it might be if all people were to apply your listed guidelines for critical thinking. — Frank Pray

You're not alone here in this take... that's for sure!