If you have a problem with logic "presupposing some truth", then why did you presuppose that there are two opposing opinions and that there is a best one to believe? — Harry Hindu

I have no such problem. Logic does presuppose truth. That's not a problem unless we forget to 'keep it in mind', so to speak.

It seems to me that logic doesn't presuppose some truth, you do...(the premise). — Harry Hindu

You do realize that those are not mutually exclusive options, right? Logic does. I do. You do, as well.

No problem.

That's the way it is.

Name a method of seeking what is best to believe that doesn't presuppose that there is something best to believe - a truth. — Harry Hindu

"A truth"???

:confused:

I do not talk like that. Have not. Would not, unless I was intentionally and deliberately temporarily adopting another's use/sense of the term "truth".

On my view truth IS correspondence with/to what's happened and/or is happening. So, no...

I'm not using the term "truth" as a means for referring to some true thought, belief, and/or statement thereof that is best to believe. I use the term "opinion" or "statement" to pick out opinions that consist of statements. They are true(or not) if and only if they correspond to what's happened and/or is happening.

Which is the best(out of the group) is the question, and more importantly, is there a universally applicable and reliable method for determining which competing explanation(conflicting statements) is true, if any are...

I'm puzzled by the lack of understanding regarding some stuff talked about heretofore. For example...

It's by definition alone that seeking "what's best to believe" when faced with competing explanations of the same events presupposes a remarkable and significant difference between the explanations.

How else could they be competing? Or better... conflicting, because that's the terminology invoked in the OP.

You act as if there's something wrong with presupposing that not all explanations are on equal footing; are well-grounded; are true; etc.

They are not.

That's a factual statement Jack, and the presupposition is a true belief!

:wink:

Maybe it should be up to creativesoul to clarify what he meant by "best to believe regarding some subject matter". — Harry Hindu

When faced with competing valid explanations for what's happened and/or is happening, it is always best to err on the side of the one with the fewest unprovable premisses, the most falsifiable/verifiable claims, and the fewest entities necessary in order for it to have the explanatory power that it does - whatever that may be, and/or amount to.

The fewer the terms necessary for adequate explanation the better. The fewer falsehood, the better. Etc.

That's what's best to believe at all times regarding any and all competing explanations for the same events.

So, how's the conflict resolution going, chaps? Is all that truth and logic doing it for you? — unenlightened

:smile:

As has been already mentioned... we first have to agree on what it is that we're talking about. It seems clear to me that there are different senses of the same term being used by different individuals. Namely, the terms "logic" and "truth".

Of course, that alone sorely needs correcting.

Logic isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway...

Some logic is still being used despite the fact that it's little more than an accounting malpractice of certain thought and belief. For example, here's a famous, or perhaps infamous one...

If one follows the logic of Gettier, one will arrive at saying that Smith has belief that he does not have. Smith does not believe that Jones will get the job. Jones getting the job does not make Smith's belief true. It makes it false, for Smith believed that Smith, himself, would get the job.

The so-called 'rules of logical entailment' permit changing the referent of "the man with ten coins in his pocket" from Smith to Jones. In doing so that changes Smith's own belief about who will get the job from himself to Jones. It changes the truth conditions(and meaning) of Smith's belief. The problem of course, is that while Smith believes the statement, that belief includes a rigid designator for "the man with ten coins in his pocket". That phrase - in Smith's own belief - refers to himself, and no other individual.

However, in order to agree with Gettier - regarding Case I - the reader has to also agree that if Jones got the job, Smith's belief would somehoe be true. Clearly, Smith's belief could only be true if he, himself, got the job, because that is what he believed would happen.

What happens in that case is that Gettier loses sight of what Smith's belief is by virtue of talking about it as though it were equivalent to the statement/proposition. It's not. That's a sleight of hand, because...

The statement/proposition has truth conditions aside from, and/or greater than Smith's belief. Smith's belief does not.

The statement, when held in isolation, when looked at as though it is somehow separate from Smith's belief, is true regardless of who the man is, so long as he has ten coins in his pocket.

However, and this is key...

Smith's belief statement would have been true if, and only if, he got the job, because he was the man with ten coins in his pocket that he believed would. He did not. Smith's belief was false.

So...

Logic alone is inadequate for establishing whether or not any particular statement is true. True statements are more reliable than false ones. Determining which opinion is best requires seeking out true ones whenever we can. Logic alone cannot do that.

One who knows nothing at all about using logic can tell whether or not all sorts of simple statements are true. So, if one such individual already knew 'X', and suddenly found themselves witnessing conflicting opinions in direct conflict to 'X', they could, quite possibly already be, one step forward in determining which of the opinions were reliable and true.

That is not because one was using logic. It's because they already knew 'X' and thus could not believe a statement to the contrary. That's the human condition grounding the 'LNC'.

Logic is not always needed and is never adequate for determining/establishing which conflicting statement is true, if any are.

Under review...

For those leaning on logic, please remember this...

The sole aim of logic is to preserve truth. The sole aim of logical notation is to take proper account of pre-existing thought, belief, and/or statements thereof, all of which also presuppose truth somewhere along the line. — creativesoul

So, you tell me creativesoul, what other methods are there besides logic to determine what is true?
— Harry Hindu

Looking.

Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though. — creativesoul

If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing — Harry Hindu

The above are explicitly stated reasons that existed in time prior to your statement above. In your defense, I did not let you know about it at the time. Perhaps you missed that?

If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing - a time when logic didn't provide the best thing to believe and the best thing to believe wasn't something subjective, as logic isn't meant for determining what is subjectively best to believe - what makes you feel good as logic entails understanding that your feelings should have no bearing one determining what is true, and therefore useful. — Harry Hindu

If you're asking if you can apply logic to ethical questions, then no. There is no such thing as an objective morality. When it is right to open an economy is when individuals feel safe in going out in public, and that can vary from individual to individual. So it seems to me that you are attempting to answer an unanswerable question, or attempting to answer a subjective question as if it had an objective answer. — Harry Hindu

You're establishing a pattern of arguing with your own imagination... strawmen abound. — creativesoul

I said the above as a result of those paragraphs immediately preceding it... You invoked all sorts of loaded language that I had not used. I suggest copy my words and then give it a bit... think about them as they are written. Do not add to them, for they are very carefully chosen. Trust me.

Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though.
— creativesoul
If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing — Harry Hindu

I've offered at least three already. Address those.
— creativesoul
You're not being very helpful. — Harry Hindu

A re read would be most helpful.

If you claim that logic can't do it alone, then you must have a reason to say such a thing — Harry Hindu

I've offered at least three already. Address those.

You're establishing a pattern of arguing with your own imagination... strawmen abound.

What I was referring to was the hermenutic circle, where the meaning of anything (word, concept, idea) is determined by the context in which it occurs, while simultaneously the context is composed of such meanings — Pantagruel

Where truth is whatever we say it is, because we said so...

What about the things that exist in their entirety prior to our naming them? What role do they play in this circle?

Feeling safe is not being safe, by the way...

One can be told the 'right' sorts of things to believe and feel that they are safe, and yet not be.

So, you tell me creativesoul, what other methods are there besides logic to determine what is true? — Harry Hindu

Looking.

Logic can help us determine how well grounded the opinion is by asking for the reasoning behind the opinion. So, in that way, logic can help us to determine which opinion is more reliable. Not alone though.

I'd like to reprise common sense for a moment, and suggest that it is common, not in the sense of there being no shortage, but in the sense of it being shared. Meaning is shared, senses are shared, and this is the bedrock on which all communication is founded. Our discussion cannot begin without this commonality. — unenlightened

Indeed...

Here's a few common sense lines of thought regarding that...

Names have referents. Naming practices pick individual things out of this world. It is often the case that a disagreement amounts to different people using the same name to talk about very different things.

Well sure, empiricism is just as necessary as rationality, if that is what you mean. If not, then I would encourage you to give examples of where logic/empiricism, alone is inadequate. — Harry Hindu

The question is whether or not there is some universally applicable reliable method for determining which opinion is true when we find ourselves being presented with conflicting opinions about the same things.

You stated "logic". I answered that logic alone is inadequate for determining which conflicting opinion is true.

Now you're invoking a philosophical position called "empiricism" and adding it to logic alone, as if to say logic and empiricism are enough - when used in conjunction with one another - to tell which conflicting opinion is true. I'm still objecting to that for it's not true. Logic and empiricism are inadequate. They are not capable of being used as a means to discriminate between true and false claims.

So, in effect you're changing your answer, and/or moving the goalposts. I could object on those grounds, but that would look like a hollow victory, and I'm not interested in winning. I am interested in shedding some much needed light upon an everyday problem.

If speaker A says "We should re-open the economy" and speaker B says "We should not re-open the economy" we have ourselves a real life everyday example to discuss.

So...

Tell me how logic alone can discriminate between which of these two statements is true, if either is and exactly how logic determines that much.

I'll tell you how it cannot, even when - especially when - accompanied by empiricism.

For those leaning on logic, please remember this...

The sole aim of logic is to preserve truth. The sole aim of logical notation is to take proper account of pre-existing thought, belief, and/or statements thereof, all of which also presuppose truth somewhere along the line.

Generally speaking...

In order to choose better, one must perform a comparison/contrast between the opposing views. Not just any comparison will do here though. We need one that increases our chances of successfully navigating the world we all find ourselves deeply embedded within. It ought be fairly uncontentious to exclaim this much, for it is precisely opposing opinions that we are contemplating the worth/value of.

Which, of either, opinions are true and what makes them so?

We must know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, in order to know which of multiple conflicting opinions is best(reliable and true).

If A mans his post in the face of an attack, then A is brave.
But A can man his post for a while, but abandon it when the fighting becomes too fierce.
So A is both brave and not-brave. — Pantagruel

Introduce a timeline. Brave at this time, not at the other. A is not both brave and not-brave at the same time.

Sometimes when there are competing opinions, both sides include some true stuff, but arrive at starkly different opinions regarding say... the way things are and what ought be done next.

When to "reopen the economy" is a fine example of this.

This is a much more difficult situation for a listener to ascertain, and drake is fairly spot on regarding much of what it takes. The shame is that one needs to be able to do that, because that shows us that we cannot trust some of those elected officials.

The rules of correct inference(logic) cannot tell us whether or not some statement or other is true. If the aim is to determine which of two competing statements is true, then logic is of no help here. It can, however, be used to establish whether or not a statement has been arrived at by virtue of following those rules, if we know the particular kind of logic being used. Logic can help us to determine if statements are reasoned.

Typically, logical statements are held to be better(more reliable) than those that are not arrived at via logical means, however, a statement/opinion can be both valid(a logical statement/conclusion that follows the rules of correct inference) and false.

Logic alone is utterly inadequate for the task at hand.

One has to know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. That's the easy part. The hard part is remembering that after inadequate language use begins.

You quoted my response to you and compared it to another's response to you. In doing so, you managed to completely avoid what we were talking about.

Common sense is over rated. The only reason anyone would say that anything non-trivial is common sense is because they cannot or will not justify it for other reasons. People appealing to common sense usually do so regarding matters where evidence and careful argument is mandatory. "Geopolitics, only common sense!", "Economics, only common sense!", "The mind, it's common sense!". It's usually just another way to avoid providing evidence or argument and to mock whoever or whatever you disagree with. A "salt of the earth" version of self evidence. — fdrake

While the above is a true report of some, it is not a true report of all... uses of "common sense". The notion of "common sense" when used to classify some belief or other, can be an irrevocably important aspect used to compel the audience to place the utmost importance upon the simplest of true statements, arguments, and/or lines of thought.

I will employ the notion of common sense in the appropriate circumstances.

However, if we look at it closely, opposing positions are already reasoned to by their respective proponents. In other words both have a rightful claim to logic and rationality. — TheMadFool

I think that that's exactly wrong in that it is true, but totally irrelevant.

Either can say what they want about whether or not they are thinking logically and rationally. Saying that and being that are two completely different things. Being that is not solely up to the speaker. Saying that is.

Let us start by supposing that there are two opposing opinions on some matter. Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter?
— creativesoul
Logic. — Harry Hindu

Logic presupposes truth.

I don’t see objective/subjective as a dichotomy... — Possibility

I suggest getting your vision checked.

Let's see: you want a recipe, or an algorithm. But no particulars. No ingredients, No measurements. — tim wood

That's just a misreading altogether. It's also very compelling evidence - to me in particular - that you've not read much of my writing.

:smile:

Which statements are true and what makes them so?

How's that?

:wink:

Same solution.

...the truth of your report... — Possibility

What is that, exactly?

:brow:

I'm curious since you invoked those terms in that order.

You can be certain of the truth of your report only by excluding the possibility that you may be mistaken; and that yours is not the only valid perspective — Possibility

One can be certain that there is a cup in the cupboard without any further consideration whatsoever regarding the possibility of being mistaken or another's perspective(belief). One can be certain that that was true when spoken/considered by looking.

You and I have very different ideas regarding truth and certainty.

Had you asked if there were any "tried and true universally applicable method" to determine fact or truth, then you've got a discussion, but one needing preliminary remarks on the terms used. — tim wood

That's no discussion I want to get involved in. It devolves into arguing about which definition is best when faced with competing opinions about the meaning of the same word.

That is precisely the issue I'm looking to resolve.

Are so and so being effected/affected in 'disproportionate' numbers?

The data may lend some weak support to charges and/or implications of race discrimination by showing that there is a larger percentage of X's being Y'd than other races/ethnic groups. However, it could be the case that out of every group being Y'd, the X's far outnumber the individuals in any other group, and everyone is being Y'd, so...

The quantity of X's being Y'd is indeed much higher than the quantity of any other group, as one would expect without any racial underpinnings whatsoever. If one compares the number of X's to the overall number of those being Y'd and arrives at knowing that that percentage is very high(say 55%), then one could claim that that is the evidence that shows a disproportionate amount of X's are getting Y'd.

However, from there it does not warrant further concluding that such 'disproportionate' numbers count as sufficient evidence for, or proof of, discrimination. It's not.

I would advise caution regarding 2a and 2b... but that does not take anything away that matters.

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. 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. 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.

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.

So here are some rules of thumb I find helpful:

(1) Sources, is the person's claim backed up by data?

(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.
(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.
(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?

(3) Be on the lookout for question substitution and cognitive shortcuts; are a person or institution's claims regarding a question actually demonstrating a much weaker or different claim? EG: "There are racial differences in intelligence" vs "There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of race categories in IQ tests that are entirely attributable to biological factors"; the first is a lazy claim that relies on a lot of priming and framing to be interpreted as true, it does not spell out its truth conditions or justifying conditions or potential defeaters, whereas the second spells out its truth conditions, justifying conditions and gives a recipe for constructing defeaters. Find the latter kind of statement more worthy of investigation and plausible entertainment than the former.

(4) The form a question is posed in or a claim is made are not innocuous and innocent; we can be primed to alter our dispositions. If the truth conditions of a claim are only explicable (as in, can be stated), given that you already are predisposed to evaluate it as true, make some extra effort to doubt that claim.

(5) If you're looking to cut through noise, don't use raw Google to check something, use Google scholar. That will give you access to peer reviewed papers, their abstracts will tell you who wrote them and sometimes who funded them, which you can check for conflict of interest if you don't trust them. You also get a sense of how much that work is used by their citation count, though it is not a particularly good measure of inherent truth or usefulness for various reasons like peer review being its own kind of filter bubble.

(6) Consume media that reacts more slowly than Twitter and other social media. It takes longer to read a thinkpiece and follow its sources than to knee jerk True/False assign a soundbite, but over a long time of practicing intellectual hygiene you get a more fruitful knee jerk reaction; True/False/Frame or Priming dependent/Plausible/Well justified.

(7) No one is immune to the effects of ideology or thinking from the wrong perspective about something. Do not let yourself be filterbubbled and confirm all your suspicions through constant saturation in their content. As much as it pains you, if you're on the right read what the left is saying, if you're on the left read what the right is saying. And try your hardest not to dismiss something just because it's from a source you're discinclined to like.

(8) Dismissing a source due to being unreliable should be done on a domain by domain basis: if you trust the UK newspaper the Guardian on one topic (say, to report the effects of healthcare spending cuts), that doesn't mean you should trust it on another (say, to report about security overreach from British institutions - their team of journalists that dealt with Snowden got dissolved and their head was replaced with someone very sympathetic to GCHQ).

(9) The more domains a source relies on bullshit to justify its claims in, the less trustworthy it is (like the UK's Sun).

We are always in error, the goal is to learn to be less wrong. — fdrake

Ah drake...

That deserves permanent preservation!

Brilliant. Beautiful. Clear. Concise. Germane. Practical.

The agreement resonated within while reading. Literally... a visceral affect/effect.

Thank you. My respect for you has just increased exponentially.

Is this matter of any relevance or importance to us? — Outlander

I would think that knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is of the utmost relevance, significance, and/or importance to anyone and everyone attempting to successfully navigate the world they live in.

Wouldn't you?

So you are basically asking if there is a universal method of identifying truth? — Pantagruel

Not so much. The very idea that we can identify something bears the burden of explaining what that particular thing is.

But what does it mean to talk in terms of "identifying truth"?

I am inquiring to see if there is a universally reliable method for ascertaining which - if any - of multiple competing reports upon the same things is true?

Is there a reliable method for discriminating between true and false statements?

Change it to which opinions or parts thereof are true.

We cannot be certain about everything. It quite simply does not necessarily follow that we ought not be certain about anything.
— creativesoul

I agree - who said anything about ought? — Possibility

I did because it is implicit in using the fact that we cannot be certain about everything as reason or justification for taking it a bit further and implying that we ought keep it in mind and that by doing so cannot be certain about anything.

If there is a cat on the mat, then the statement "the cat is on the mat" is true. Of that, I am absolutely certain and very well ought be.

Agree?

...you cannot be absolutely certain that you typing on your computer keyboard is what is true in an objective sense — Possibility

This is confused, and unnecessarily so. My typing is an event, an occurrence. That's what's happened and/or is happening. The report thereof is what was/is true. Of that much I can be absolutely certain, and very well ought be.

Personally I reject the objective/subjective dichotomy, but for far different reasons than are being discussed here.

We can be absolutely certain about what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. That is the basic point of our disagreement.

If you mean to say that - based upon the data showing that the universe is expanding like an air balloon - we can confidently surmise that it came from a singularity, or some such. I readily acknowledge and agree that that is a commonly held belief. It is also supported by current observations.

Big Bang requires that the concentration of energy required to produce what is currently within the universe as we know it to 'fit into' an indefinable volume, an immeasurable amount of space-time. Before the event, all of the necessary ingredients for that explosion to happen just come from nowhere.

It's magic.

it is not useful in discussion — ttjordy

Yes, that is exactly right.