How much should you doubt?

khaled

I'm not sure if this falls under epistemology or general philosophy but here we go.

We demonstrably have very different ideas of what is and is not reasonable to believe on this site, otherwise it wouldn't be interesting. But we can agree on some general characteristics of when something is reasonable to believe. Such as: Doesn't lead to contradictions, has supporting evidence, is the simplest alternative for explaining things, etc.. and something unreasonable to believe is missing these elements.

Everyone thinks their beliefs are reasonable and everyone has differing beliefs (on this site and elsewhere). So by definition some of these beliefs would be unreasonable. The question is: How much is it reasonable to doubt your own beliefs? We call someone who doubts that 2+2=4 unreasonable, and we call someone who beliefs that the earth is 6000-10000 years old unreasonable too. So there is some point on this spectrum which we all lie at. You can doubt too much and go crazy and you can doubt too little and be dogmatic. The question is: What degree of doubt is reasonable? How do you know if you're doubting too much or too little?

Was Descartes reasonable in trying to doubt every last belief of his? In the end he managed to "prove" most of his most important beliefs back (and he even got God out of it! What a coincidence!) so sometimes I also wonder if we are even capable of truly doubting what we believe. Maybe we already decided what to believe for the most part, and only doubt as a pretense to seem reasonable in front of others, when we're really just trying to find a way to confirm our own beliefs logically. So is this reason to doubt more? Or to give up and doubt less?

What do you think?

Tom Storm

The other, somewhat more interesting question from my perspective is, how is your life different if you doubt fundamental first principles?

For the person who says matter is an illusion and only consciousness is real, what are the practical day-to-day consequences of that view?

Everyone thinks their beliefs are reasonable — khaled

That may not be the whole story though. Reasonable applied to what? If your staring point is less dogmatic, standards of reasonableness have less extreme implications. I am not a philosopher and have no idea but the starting point for me is nothing is 100% certain and there is no agreement about how we can access truth. I would venture that capital T truth may not exist. But is certainty and truth necessary?

Isaac

Maybe we already decided what to believe for the most part, and only doubt as a pretense to seem reasonable in front of others, when we're really just trying to find a way to confirm our own beliefs logically. — khaled

Spot on.

'Reasons' are mostly post hoc narratives to explain to ourselves, and others, why we believe what we do.

We'd no doubt like to imagine they're foundational. The phenomenal influence of culture, social group, peer belief, subliminal data etc on our beliefs pretty much conclusively shows otherwise.

khaled

↪Isaac

The question then is: Now what? Is this reason to doubt more, or less?

Then again, doesn't this also apply for the reasons you believe this:

We'd no doubt like to imagine they're foundational. The phenomenal influence of culture, social group, peer belief, subliminal data etc on our beliefs pretty much conclusively shows otherwise. — Isaac

We seem to be stuck here. If we throw everything out as "Oh you just believe that because you've been conditioned to believe that" we'd have to throw THAT out too.

So we are still left with the question: How much should you doubt? What counts as "reasonable"? etc

Isaac

The question then is: Now what? Is this reason to doubt more, or less? — khaled

Does it matter? If we're not really arriving at our beliefs that way anyway, then we don't really need an answer to that question.

Then again, doesn't this also apply for the reasons you believe this: — khaled

Yes, indeed it does.

We seem to be stuck here. If we throw everything out as "Oh you just believe that because you've been conditioned to believe that" we'd have to throw THAT out too. — khaled

I don't think we need to throw anything out. I don't intend that one should read what I said as pejorative. Most of that methodology is perfectly effective. As you've said yourself many times, if it was a rubbish way to arrive at beliefs about the world we'd never have resolved to do it that way.

It's just about recognising that there are numerous influences on beliefs. I'm not even rejecting the idea that things like parsimony, coherence and the like are in the mix.

The problem is reliably isolating them by introspection is very difficult (maybe even impossible), so whilst such analysis might be loosely instructive we shouldnot expect any particularly robust results from it. As you said, Descartes 're-discovered' God that way. Hardly a unforeseen plot twist!

khaled

↪Isaac

It's just about recognising that there are numerous influences on beliefs. I'm not even rejecting the idea that things like parsimony, coherence and the like are in the mix.

The problem is reliably isolating them by introspection is very difficult — Isaac

Right but what do we do instead of introspection?

Does it matter? If we're not really arriving at our beliefs that way anyway, then we don't really need an answer to that question. — Isaac

I would think the answer is “No” then. Doubting your beliefs isn’t fun usually. And if it’s not how you arrive at beliefs anyways then why bother with it?

Doesn’t sound right. But maybe it is.

SophistiCat

Everyone thinks their beliefs are reasonable and everyone has differing beliefs (on this site and elsewhere). So by definition some of these beliefs would be unreasonable. — khaled

One quibble here: What is reasonable for one to believe depends (uncontroversially) on one's epistemic situation. For example, it is reasonable for you to believe that you know where you are right now, whereas for me it is not.

Isaac

Right but what do we do instead of introspection? — khaled

I don't think we necessarily need do anything instead. We're pretty good at thinking, using all sorts of methods. If there's a mistake, I think it might be in confusing reasoning (as a thinking method) with the social value of 'right' thought. There's a social value in having a case that is immune (or seemingly so) to counter-argument using established methods of debate. That social value is not the same as the utility/aesthetic value of the belief to you.

I would think the answer is “No” then. Doubting your beliefs isn’t fun usually. And if it’s not how you arrive at beliefs anyways then why bother with it? — khaled

Yeah. Only you'll do it anyway, because it's equally uncomfortable to hold dissonant concepts at the same time, equally uncomfortable to hold beliefs which seem incongruous with those in your community (depending on your personality type), and equally uncomfortable to hold beliefs which constantly yield surprising results.

That seems enough to me already. Doing it deliberately on top of all that seems a bit masochistic.

Dharmi

I'd say you should doubt everything, like what Descartes said. Once we do that, I think we come up with only a few basic things that remain. The problem of Agrippa, of justification, of truth, whether there is such a thing, of metaphysics, are metaphysical questions worth talking about?

Finally, the ultimate question, is there some inherent meaning, value, purpose etc. to life, or is there not?

Then we find out the answers, or at least try to the best of our ability.

khaled

↪Isaac

That seems enough to me already. Doing it deliberately on top of all that seems a bit masochistic. — Isaac

I would know.

Albero

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198785897.001.0001/oso-9780198785897 This might interest you

khaled

↪Dharmi

Once we do that, I think we come up with only a few basic things that remain. — Dharmi

I doubt it!

khaled

↪Albero

link isn’t working

Albero

↪khaled

That's bizarre, it might be a country thing. The book is called "Unbelievable Errors" by Bart Streumer. It's essentially an argument for a radical skepticism of everything we know. I felt it would be appropriate

Dharmi

↪khaled

How so?

T Clark

How do you know if you're doubting too much or too little? — khaled

I've had to deal with this issue all my professional career - not "When should I doubt" but "When should I believe." Here's how I lay it out to myself.

What do I know/believe?
How do I know it?
How certain am I of it?
What are the consequences of being wrong in this situation?
How certain do I have to be in this particular situation?
What needed information am I missing?
How do I go about getting that information.

I think "What are the consequences of being wrong" is probably the most important of these questions. It's usually left out of the discussion.

Ciceronianus

Was Descartes reasonable in trying to doubt every last belief of his? — khaled

Descartes never really doubted anything. He was engaged in an exercise which he thought necessary
because, for reasons not entirely clear to me, he thought it appropriate to explain why he didn't doubt what he didn't doubt. So, he pretended to doubt what he didn't doubt, and by pretending to doubt what he didn't doubt he claimed to discover that he was right not to doubt what he didn't doubt in the first place.

khaled

↪Dharmi

You wouldn’t really be left with anything. If you want to keep doubting, beyond any reasonable stopping point, you could. The question is where is a reasonable stopping point.

khaled

↪T Clark

Well now you’ve replaced one question (whatever it was you were doubting) with 7. More room for doubt. But I think “How certain do I have to be in this situation” is the most important there.

khaled

↪Isaac

There's a social value in having a case that is immune (or seemingly so) to counter-argument using established methods of debate. That social value is not the same as the utility/aesthetic value of the belief to you. — Isaac

When should you favor the utility/aesthetic value over the social value? Some people, like flat earthers do it too much. Others too little, and are probably anxiety ridden because of that.

T Clark

I think “How certain do I have to be in this situation” is the most important there. — khaled

Agreed. And if you look in discussions of knowledge, that old justified true belief baloney, you don't see that kind of issue addressed.

Isaac

When should you favor the utility/aesthetic value over the social value? — khaled

I actually think most people do not choose. Take religion as an example (I know it's not exactly a theory of utility, but it is in the 'get to heaven' sense, so...). A priest may talk about his religion, use his knowledge of it for the social value that knowledge brings. But that same priest might well steal, abuse, misbehave... If he really believed that an eternity of torture faced him should he have sex with that hooker (or whatever), then would he do so anyway? To my understanding, the answer is a resounding no. He doesn't believe it insofar as it affects his actions at that time, he does believe it insofar as it affects his speech later to his congregation.

We can believe different things in different behavioural contexts even if, as a world-view, the two would be contradictory.

Doing so is not without its pain, but it's often a pain lesser than the alternative in either case.

180 Proof

Was Descartes reasonable in trying to doubt every last belief of his? — khaled

No. He had no grounds, or reasons, to "doubt everything". Proof: he couldn't even doubt that he was doubting ... which, not entailing, presupposes (on pain of performative contradiction to deny) himself embodied and imbedded in the world. Only beliefs lacking sufficient grounds are dubious – such as Descartes' belief that 'it's reasonable to doubt that for which there aren't sufficient grounds to doubt' (vide Peirce's "paper doubts", Witty's On Certainty).

↪Ciceronianus the White

:sweat: :up:

TheMadFool

↪khaled

We should doubt everything, in fact we should even cast doubt on Descartes' much-discussed and perfectly good argument, the cogito ergo sum. You know how logic, the highly esteemed method of ascertaining truths and exposing lies, gets its street cred? By putting itself on trial i.e. we seem to award the badge of legitimacy only to those things that can self-doubt.

If you're certain, you're certainly wrong because nothing deserves certainty — Bertrand Russell

khaled

↪TheMadFool

We should doubt everything — TheMadFool

I doubt it!

TheMadFool

I doubt it! — khaled

The force is strong with this one.

Dharmi

↪khaled

Sure you would. Doubting something by itself doesn't lead to nothing, only doubting that's untempered by being realistic about what you can and cannot know or understand.

Deleted User

Was Descartes reasonable in trying to doubt every last belief of his? — khaled

What Descartes did was groundbreaking at the time. It takes courage to doubt everything at the risk of going completely insane. It paved the way for a new scientific age and I love him for it.

khaled

↪TaySan

It takes courage to doubt everything at the risk of going completely insane. — TaySan

Did he really though? He got all his beliefs back. With God as a bonus.

Maybe doubting everything should drive you insane.

Banno

↪khaled

Someone who doubts that the bishop always remains on the same coloured squares isn't a leading epistemologist; they have just misunderstood the rules of Chess.

Pinprick

Everyone thinks their beliefs are reasonable and everyone has differing beliefs (on this site and elsewhere). So by definition some of these beliefs would be unreasonable. — khaled

It could also be that they’re all unreasonable; that there is no absolutely reasonable belief. Actually, considering that humans are not perfectly reasonable creatures, I’m not sure perfect reasons could even be an outcome. I mean, why is it that this:

Doesn't lead to contradictions, has supporting evidence, is the simplest alternative for explaining things, etc.. — khaled

is what determines what is reasonable? It’s certainly possible that nature is not uniform, and that contradictions can exist in nature. I think it’s pretty well accepted that nature is constantly changing, so why insist on consistent fundamental aspects of nature?

The question is: What degree of doubt is reasonable? How do you know if you're doubting too much or too little? — khaled

If you doubt reason itself, then where does that leave us? Does doubt need to be reasonable? Why, or why not? Also, what exactly do you mean by doubt? Is anything less than 100% certainty doubt? Is simple open-mindedness about the possibility of being wrong doubt?

Either way, I think to answer your question we first need to determine whether or not, or how likely, the world is intelligible. The reasonableness of beliefs about the world depend on how accurately we can access the world.

How much should you doubt?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions