It is not inconsistent, nor do I think you have you given coherent logic to how you think it's inconsistent. Here is what I wrote you earlier-
"In your example, the person must assent to the idea that barley believing that they can give someone a ride to the doctors, yet agree to do so is proper behavior, for if they don't, then I don't understand how they met the threshold to assent to such, and thus your example to me would not seemingly be sound in proving your point."
— moo
Now please quote where you explain why someone would agree to such. I think you have created a false scenario where one wouldn't agree to such, yet your argument seems to depend on such errored example to make your point. It does not reflect my logic! If the person agrees at the lowest threshold of assent, then they have met the necessary confidence to assent to that belief. You act like that is low confidence, but how??? Why do they think they have met the threshold of assent when they cannot rightly offer a symbol of trust in relation to the belief they have assented too??? Quote where you deal with that logic! — moo
I currently think assent to a belief happens has soon as something is perceived to be more likely the case than not (51%). So, one trusts in it more than not, but a handshake puts another condition on it, so that one must trust more than not that they will likely not jeopardize their perceived integrity with the handshake, so to reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief. — DreamCatcher
Ok, but isn't the social norm in relation to taking someone to the doctors mean one should only assent to taking one to the doctors when they are confident enough to do such?? To me it seems you have created a false context to try and defend your position! Please argue with strict logic against my position without bringing in other contexts to muck up the clarity of things. — moo
So, I think the statement,"Will you give me a ride to the doctors tomorrow", can be assented to at different degrees of confidence, and unless one believes that they know exactly what the future will bring, it will be at a probability less than 100%. And I think it could be as low as 51%, which is the lowest threshold of assent. Now, supposing it is at 51%, can they not on your own terms simply share their belief, and if the other person assumes that their confidence was higher in saying "yes", then that is the other person's own fault? If not, then please explain why. With what I quoted above, I think I conveyed that "proper behavior" is another condition placed upon their belief, and to "reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief." So, I think your concern here of proper behavior and assent conflates two beliefs, and if you think they need high confidence to properly give their word, then shouldn't that type of thinking also apply to the handshake? — DreamCatcher
Yes, I think one should only assent to taking one to the doctors when they are confident enough to do such, so if they are at 51% confidence that they will give them a ride, then they have likely not reached at least 51% that they will not harm the relationship in simply stating their belief, so if they care about the relationship, they should not do it, and likewise, you should probably not shake on the lowest threshold of assent to a belief, but only shake on high confidence. — DreamCatcher
If the person agrees at the lowest threshold of assent, then they have met the necessary confidence to assent to that belief. You act like that is low confidence, but how??? Why do they think they have met the threshold of assent when they cannot rightly offer a symbol of trust in relation to the belief they have assented too??? Quote where you deal with that logic! — moo
If the person agrees at the lowest threshold of assent, then they have met the necessary confidence to assent to that belief. You act like that is low confidence, but how??? Why do they think they have met the threshold of assent when they cannot rightly offer a symbol of trust in relation to the belief they have assented too??? Quote where you deal with that logic!
— moo — moo
If the person agrees at the lowest threshold of assent, then they have met the necessary confidence to assent to that belief. You act like that is low confidence, but how??? Why do they think they have met the threshold of assent when they cannot rightly offer a symbol of trust in relation to the belief they have assented too??? Quote where you deal with that logic! — moo
I currently think assent to a belief happens has soon as something is perceived to be more likely the case than not (51%). So, one trusts in it more than not, but a handshake puts another condition on it, so that one must trust more than not that they will likely not jeopardize their perceived integrity with the handshake, so to reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief. — DreamCatcher
The confidence needed I think is defined by the individual, and thus your notion that 51% is inherently weak seems wrong to me. For example, if one believes that taking someone to the doctor is something that requires a high level of confidence, then to reach that belief you must reach that required level of confidence. Once you reach that high level of confidence, then you assent to that belief, which is marked by 51%. Anything above 51% is surplus, and only further strengthens what was already strong enough to assent to. — moo
If they assent to the belief that they can take them to the doctors, does not that assent include/imply the belief that they have a high likelihood of achieving it? — moo
What is the logic behind the opening statement that you think is flawed. The logic please, not some examples that you think somehow showcases the logic of your argument, but the actual logical flaw clearly expressed! — moo
I asked you to quote where you address what I have asked you again and again, could you not find it? — moo
To you first question, it can happen, but all that means is they have assented to a responsibility they have low confidence in, so they MUST think they don't need more confidence for they have assented to the idea that they don't need anymore, right? — moo
Your first premise, I agree with.
Your second premise is ambiguous as "more" is a relative term.
Your third premise has the term "high confidence", but your second premise just has the term "more confident" and thus is incoherent with your claim. — moo
One trusts in things they believe! Sure, the more trust one has, the more confidence, but that does not mean one cannot shake on what they believe! For if they believe in it, that represent a degree of trust, and they can give a symbol of trust on that degree of trust. That degree being the assent to belief. If someone reads something more into the situation then there really is, that is on them with their wrong assumption about the situation. One may be understandably confused because of social norms or other means that mislead them, but their confusion does not mean the other person was technically wrong, does it? — moo
If confusion happens, why? Because of the influence of an incoherent mob of people with their wrong assumptions? Trust may be associated with high confidence, but so what? The person didn't shake on something they claim they have high confidence in, only on the confidence that they believe in something. If everyone in the world is confused by you and your beliefs and think your wrong, does that make you actually wrong? If not, then how do you think you have coherently argued against my logic when your logic as I have pointed out again and again seems to be dependent on the social norm of wrongly assuming something about a situation? Your logic depends on social norms, and with that type of thinking one can ultimately fault you for whatever the society norms are. But are they in the right for doing such? — moo
It was not a quote, but so what? It addresses your question, doesn't it? As far as the contradiction part, I already expressed: "When you state they may need a high level of confidence to assent to a particular belief, which is then marked by 51%, that seems to me to be a contradiction of terms; you cannot have a high level of confidence when you are at the lowest confidence possible. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why." — DreamCatcher
You have injected "responsibility" when I have already told you that is not part of the situation, so you are mudding things up when I've already clarified things. — DreamCatcher
I think they have assented to a belief that they have low confidence in, so they don't need more confidence to have the belief, but they may need more confidence to take on a responsibility, and to not cause confusion by merely shaking someone's hand on the belief. Do you agree? If you disagree then please explain why. — DreamCatcher
My third premise does not state anything about high confidence.
If one trusts in things they are more confident about, then that naturally leads trust being highly associated to high confidence rather then low confidence, and so my second premise is not incoherent with my claim stated in my conclusion that, "trust is naturally associated to high confidence (premise 2)". Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.
Please confirm you have failed to show my argument as unsound, or if you disagree then please explain why. — DreamCatcher
I think by not going along with the social norm, and not qualify what one is doing, it can cause confusion and mistrust, which I think goes against the function of the handshake, and thus it is technically wrong if you want the handshake to function as a symbol of trust. With what you said about them reading into the situation, how are they making a wrong assumption? Can they not be making the right assumption, or presumption, giving the social norm, and it is your responsibility to try to clarify things if your intention does not align with their foreseeable expectation? — DreamCatcher
Again, I think the handshake is a social norm, so to take issue with my argument because it's based on a social norm is incoherent. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.
I think whether or not someone can justly fault someone by a social norm depends on the situation. — DreamCatcher
It does not address it when it was brought up multiple times before. So, your tardiness to the issue it a result of what? — moo
I disagree with contradictory terms, and if you understood you own logic you would see that. If one needs high confidence to assent to a particular belief, like taking someone to a medical appointment, then the high confidence necessary to cause one to assent to the belief that they can take on the responsibility is marked by what? 51% on your own terms! Right? — moo
Is not the original question asking someone if they can take them to the doctors tomorrow? Does that question not deal with the idea of responsibility?????? — moo
I have shown you again and again, that assenting to a belief takes a certain level of confidence, and you can then stand behind that confidence with a handshake. I think I have shown you again and again that if one is not willing to stand behind their belief with a handshake, which is a symbol of trust, then why would they put trust in a belief that they have assented to, but won't stand behind it with a symbol of trust like a handshake? The only way I see that making sense, is that a handshake is not simply a symbol of trust, but a symbol beyond just trust. — moo
But what is the route of mistrust? If they are not making the wrong assumption, then fine. It just means that a handshake is not simply a symbol of trust. Please confirm this. — moo
A handshake is a social norm, and I believe it operates with in a framework, and just because there are perhaps strong associations with it in a particular manner, does not mean those associations are the complete picture, and if one is blinded by such association's/social norms, then that is on them for neglecting the truth of the situation. The way you're thinking seems to go, is like this, social norms rule, bend to them, or you're in the wrong, unless you're not. Well, I think I'm not in the wrong and am operating within the framework. — moo
I thought I had already addressed your question with this: "If one barely has the belief that they have a responsibility to take someone to the doctors, then for example they may think that they maybe dreamed that they made an arrangement to drive them, and they will probably try to increase their confidence by calling the person or something." That was written right before you asked your question again, and thus your restated question shows a lack of comprehension on your part, right? I then addressed your question again because you didn't comprehend it the first time apparently, and you wrote:"I asked you to quote where you address what I have asked you again and again, could you not find it?", and that indicates to me you probably didn't even comprehend that I addressed your question again, which is consistent with your lack of comprehension from the first time. All of this is consistent with your lack of comprehension of my argument when you requested for me to give the clear logic when I already provided it, and your lack of comprehension when I had to quote for you the following on another matter: "I currently think assent to a belief happens has soon as something is perceived to be more likely the case than not (51%). So, one trusts in it more than not, but a handshake puts another condition on it, so that one must trust more than not that they will likely not jeopardize their perceived integrity with the handshake, so to reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief." So, it seems you are the one who is tardy. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why. — DreamCatcher
Wrong. Again, you fail to comprehend.
I wrote this: "Your opening post presents one belief that is assented to at the lowest threshold of belief. I think the lowest threshold to any belief is always 51%. So, I think there is no context relevant to your position that changes things. Again, your position holds one can always shake on one's belief, even if they barely believe it, and it is valid behavior to do. That is what the disagreement is over. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why. If you agree that is what the disagreement is over, then hopefully you can see how you are straying away from your stated position when you state now: "see how in some contexts one may need as little as 51% to shake on something, just as other contexts may need 90%, and other contexts 99% confidence in their belief?". Again, the lowest threshold to assent to any belief is always 51%. If you disagree with that premise, then please explain why."
So, as I've already stated, any one belief can be assented to at 51%, and so your statement, "If one needs high confidence to assent to a particular belief ...", is I believe a mistaken notion. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why. — DreamCatcher
Is not the original question asking someone if they can take them to the doctors tomorrow? Does that question not deal with the idea of responsibility??????
— moo
I have already clarified the matter, and so your question shows a lack of comprehension. I wrote this: "I tried to give an example with the ride to the doctor, and unfortunately, the way I wrote things conveys that one is giving a promise when they say "yes", so I think that confuses what I'm trying to show. However, if one has a belief that, "I will drive this person to the doctors tomorrow", and it's at the lowest threshold of assent, it is by definition at the lowest confidence level possible, meaning, it is held with little confidence (51%). If the one needing a ride asks, "is that a belief that you have", and the person simply responds "yes", and the other person says shake on it, and they do, I imagine you can see how that situation may jeopardize the relationship, and I think that goes against the function of the handshake, which again, I think is to engender trust. That is why I believe your position is unsound."
And I wrote this:"The opening post speaks of beliefs, and it's not clear to me if one can choose a belief, but I think one can choose to take on the responsibility of something. So, I currently think a belief is always assented to by a feeling of confidence when it's at 51% or more, but assenting to take on a responsibility depends on how responsible the person is; the more responsible they are, the more confidence I think they require to take on a responsibility. Again, the opening post speaks of assenting to beliefs, not to assenting to take on the responsibility of something, so please keep that in mind. As I conveyed in my other post, I adjusted the scenario of driving someone to the doctors as not involving making a promise."
So, hopefully you can see that your question does not push the conversation forward, but just conveys your lack of comperhension. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why. — DreamCatcher
I have shown you again and again, that assenting to a belief takes a certain level of confidence, and you can then stand behind that confidence with a handshake. I think I have shown you again and again that if one is not willing to stand behind their belief with a handshake, which is a symbol of trust, then why would they put trust in a belief that they have assented to, but won't stand behind it with a symbol of trust like a handshake? The only way I see that making sense, is that a handshake is not simply a symbol of trust, but a symbol beyond just trust.
— moo
I think one can have a weak level of trust in a belief they have assented to, but they would not necessarily want to simply shake on it. I think at least generally the handshake is a symbol beyond mere trust; it is a symbol of a high level of trust or confidence, as I have been putting forth. I think all you do above is restate your position without confronting my argument, and so my argument still stands. Again, please confirm you failed to show my argument as unsound, and you continue to do so, or if you disagree then please explain why.
You indicated my second premise and my claim in my conclusion are incoherent with each other, and I conveyed that they are coherent, and requested for you to confirm this, but you did not. Please confirm you failed to fulfill my request, and then please address it. — DreamCatcher
1. The handshake, in this context, is a symbol of trust (you have stated this is your belief)
2. One trusts in things they are more confident about.
3. If confusion happens, then that can lead to mistrust, which goes against the function of the handshake.
Therefore, given that trust is naturally associated to high confidence (premise 2), the handshake can lead to confusion if the confidence behind it is lower than the normal expectation, which can cause mistrust, and that goes against the handshake's function of being a symbol of trust. — DreamCatcher
A handshake is a social norm, and I believe it operates with in a framework, and just because there are perhaps strong associations with it in a particular manner, does not mean those associations are the complete picture, and if one is blinded by such association's/social norms, then that is on them for neglecting the truth of the situation. The way you're thinking seems to go, is like this, social norms rule, bend to them, or you're in the wrong, unless you're not. Well, I think I'm not in the wrong and am operating within the framework.
— moo
What is your framework? If your framework is not from a shared understanding, then it will not serve a shared meaning, correct? If it will not serve a shared meaning, then what function does it have? You have stated that you think it's purpose is to be a symbol of trust, and I have put forth that, to fulfill your own notion, the handshake needs to carry a shared meaning with others, and that trust is naturally associated with high confidence, and so confusion and mistrust can happen with the way you have things, and that goes against your own premise that the handshake is a symbol of trust. Therefore, you're not operating coherently within your own stated framework. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why. — DreamCatcher
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.