Yes, you're wrong. Here's how:
I am certain the sun will rise in the morning. But I could be wrong. — ZzzoneiroCosm
If they have an abortion does that mean that they never actually believed in the pro-life movement? It would appear so.
— praxis
They changed their mind. — Banno
I am certain the sun will rise in the morning. But I could be wrong. — ZzzoneiroCosm
but:I can be certain 2+2=4.
I can feel certain the sun will rise in the morning. — ZzzoneiroCosm
If you could be wrong, then you are not certain. — Banno
I can feel certain 2+2=4.
I can be certain the sun will rise in the morning — Banno
You're ignoring Janus's definition in favor of your own. Only natural. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I can be certain 2+2=4.
I can feel certain the sun will rise in the morning. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I can feel certain 2+2=4.
I can be certain the sun will rise in the morning — Banno
Feelings are narratives? That doesn't seem right. — ZzzoneiroCosm
If you could be wrong, then you are not certain. — Banno
This definition or rule is fine - it's the beginning and end of your argument. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I can be certain 2+2=4.
I can feel certain the sun will rise in the morning. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I admit to not having been able to make sense of it. He hasn't made a case for what the difference consists in. Hence my counterexample:
I can feel certain 2+2=4.
I can be certain the sun will rise in the morning — Banno
Seems to make no difference. — Banno
I'll leave that to Janus. I can see an a-priori-a-posteriori-esque tact surfacing. Or a (likely idiosyncratic) codification of degrees of certainty. All of it seems fine to me, but not my cup of tea. — ZzzoneiroCosm
But I should learn not to waste time and energy where it will be ill-spent. Casting pearls before swine and all that... — Janus
Philosophers sometimes forget that appeals to rationality are themselves normative. That we are sometimes irrational means we can ask if we ought be rational. — Banno
Is it her view that "feelings are narratives"? That doesn't have the ring of precision to me, no matter how you parse it. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Banno and I disagree (I think) about the extent of non-verbal beliefs... — Isaac
It irks philosophers that this is not so. — Banno
I'm not sure that any disagreement we might have here would not be about the terms used rather than the nature of belief. — Banno
Mark Twain who said "you cannot use rational argument to disabuse a man of a notion that was never arrived at rationally in the first place". — Isaac
... a belief is a belief that... So, in my terms, a propensity to act as if some state of affairs were the case ... — Isaac
So our 'pro-lifer' can hold the belief that all life is sacred and also hold the belief that some life is not sacred — Isaac
They were a pro-lifer and now they are not. A change of mind. — Banno
Swift — ZzzoneiroCosm
we can 'hold something to be true'... despite our own propensity to act as though it were true. — praxis
The curious thing is that you appear perfectly willing to count emotions as social constructs but not something like beliefs. — praxis
I've never heard of "I believe" being equated with "I'm certain", it seemed out of the blue. — Isaac
Yes, the abject (and worsening) failure of the project to get people to think more rationally by using rational argument. — Isaac
So our 'pro-lifer' can hold the belief that all life is sacred and also hold the belief that some life is not sacred which he will express (and possibly even rationalise, post hoc) in different ways if and when called upon to do so. If I were to look into his brain (this can't be done yet, of course) and see the tendencies wired into his neural networks, I might render his beliefs as "he believes that all life is sacred, and he believes that all life is not sacred". He would likely not render them that way (seeing how odd it sounds) but the way he renders his beliefs is just a front - a post hoc process designed to make them meet that standard required of rational discussion. — Isaac
But this has nothing to do with rationality, but with the power hierarchy between the people involved, and the implications of this hierarchy. Neither those above oneself nor those beneath oneself are open to being convinced by the arguments one gives. — baker
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.