Inductive Expansion on Cartesian Skepticism
Foreword: IDK if this is Philosophy of Science or Epistemology since I assume correspondence theory and this is more about how to go from Cartesian Skepticism to your current beliefs from an atheistic perspective. I've organized my post in layman's conveyance first, then syllogistically so feel free to skip the layman section but that's where I think I've conveyed it best.
We start by knowing we are thinking and we are experiencing stuff. Well, in order to be thinking, we must exist.
Next, as far as we can perceive, our thoughts become our actions and these actions have a correlation with our experiences. This will be our foundation for our indictive reasoning.
Since our thoughts must exist, our actions must exist, therefore, IF our actions correlate with experiences, THEN our experiences are probably true.
Given this epistemology, we can inductively determine that there may be parts of reality we aren't immediately observing. We discover object permanence by repeatedly observing something coming in and out of our existence; if it continues to reappear after it leaves perception, then it probably exists.
BUT we still don't know HOW reality functions. So we use things happening repeatedly to assign truth probability to our theories for how reality works (this is the scientific method).
Furthermore, we encounter ideas that are not our own when interacting with the world. BECAUSE thinking implies existence (as we used to determine that we exist) THEN we can know with 100% certainty, that at least one other person exists.
As we interact with humans more, we can learn through testing whether or not they collectively share ideas then inductively develop the theory of mind (other people with their own minds exist).
Note, we don't know for certain if they each have their own minds because lying is possible. So even without invoking the reality we cannot observe (supernatural, evil genius, Last Thursdayism, etc) we have reason to doubt the statements of others.
Also note, that all of the reasons we have to doubt our own experiences also apply to doubting their experiences. So in addition to intentional deception (lying, omission, half-truths, false implications, etc.), we must also consider the unitentional falsehoods that they may convey (hallucinations, misunderstandings, accidental omissions, incomplete details, incomplete knowledge, etc.).
Therefore, we can conclude (deductively, this time) that information transmitted through other people has an inherently low likelihood of veracity without addressing the intentional and unitentional ways that the information can be made false (i.e. not corresponsing with reality).
In order to arrive at higher probabilities of truth (I'll just call it accuracy), we must develop strategies for accounting for all of these possible avenues of falsehood.
One such strategy when observing physical (non-mind) events is science. Where we develop ideas for reality's behavior and test them for reproducibility. This is literally the definition of Science.
Sometimes, physical data is not available. So we need another strategy for when dealing solely with information that a person transmits to us. This is the same strategy we use when browsing the internet: we run a credibility check on our source.
First, we cover the intentional sources of truth contamination: lying, omission, misdirection, etc. We can address this by questioning motive and history: Why may they want to lie to us? Have they lied before?
Second, we cover the unitentional sources of truth contamination: misunderstanding, hallucination, incomplete knowledge, etc. For hallucinations, we run a medical check (history, diagnosis, etc.). For incomplete knowledge, we assess expertise and their methods for acquiring this knowledge.
Note, without these rigorous tests, knowledge we get from other people is inherently VERY unreliable. I'm talking 50% or lower. What's more, is everytime we add a new person in our game of telephone, we multiply our probabilities that each person got it right. If we assume each person had a 70% chance of getting it right, and this knowledge passes through 3 people, then there is only a 34.3% chance that the knowledge is correct.
If we apply this rule to historical knowledge, then all secondary sources are at best, guesses at the truth. And the accuracy of the knowledge decreases exponentially the further away from the event our account comes from.
Summary: given our egocentric position, we can only inductively determine that our experiences are reality. However, there are some deductive truths we can arrive at using IF THEN statements such as "object permanence" and a "theory of mind." Given that we can only inductively know things, we must use strategies to maximize the accuracy of our beliefs. Stategies include "the scientific method" for physical information and "credibility" for when information comes from other people. Without physical information/evidence, person-sourced information has a very low probability of truth (accuracy) due to how probabilities multiply. Historical knowledge suffers the same faults as person-sourced knowledge and so must be handled/assessed accordingly.
---Syllogistically---
---FUNDAMENTAL EPISTEMOLOGY---
GIVEN TRUTHS:
1. I am thinking.
2. I have external observations (sight, sound, etc).
3. I have internal states (hunger, pain, etc).
4. I have a personal imperative (my wants: I want to avoid bad internal states and seek good internal
THEREFORE:
1. IF my internal states correlate with external observations (I eat food, I feel less hungry) THEN there exists a possibility that my observations are true.
2. IF my internal states repeatedly correlate with external observations, THEN the likelihood of my observations being true increases (every time I eat, I feel less hunger, so food is probably real)
---OBJECT PERMANENCE---
1. IF an observed thing becomes unobserved, there exists a possibilty that it didn't cease existence.
2. IF an unobserved thing becomes reobserved, THEN it probably didn't cease existence.
3. IF unobserved things continue existence independent of immediate observation, THEN there exists an observable reality that is independent of my immediate observation.
---THEORY OF MIND---
1. Existence is implied by thoughts
2. Thoughts generate ideas
3. There exists ideas separate from my mind (given)
4. Therefore, there exist thoughts separate from my mind
5. Therefore there exists at least one other mind
---SCIENCE---
1. If initial observations of multiple events are the same, AND final observations of the same multiple events are similar, THEN a pattern has been observed
2. IF a pattern has been observed, AND initial observations match the initial observations of the events of the pattern, THEN final observations will probably match the final observations of the pattern
---CREDIBILITY---
1. Another mind (another person) makes a claim about reality.
2. A claim is honest IF the claimant is not lying or engaging in misdirection
3. A claim is thorough IF the claimant has not misunderstood their observations, AND has complete knowledge of their observations, AND has true observations
4. IF their claim is honest and thorough, THEN it is probably true.
We start by knowing we are thinking and we are experiencing stuff. Well, in order to be thinking, we must exist.
Next, as far as we can perceive, our thoughts become our actions and these actions have a correlation with our experiences. This will be our foundation for our indictive reasoning.
Since our thoughts must exist, our actions must exist, therefore, IF our actions correlate with experiences, THEN our experiences are probably true.
Given this epistemology, we can inductively determine that there may be parts of reality we aren't immediately observing. We discover object permanence by repeatedly observing something coming in and out of our existence; if it continues to reappear after it leaves perception, then it probably exists.
BUT we still don't know HOW reality functions. So we use things happening repeatedly to assign truth probability to our theories for how reality works (this is the scientific method).
Furthermore, we encounter ideas that are not our own when interacting with the world. BECAUSE thinking implies existence (as we used to determine that we exist) THEN we can know with 100% certainty, that at least one other person exists.
As we interact with humans more, we can learn through testing whether or not they collectively share ideas then inductively develop the theory of mind (other people with their own minds exist).
Note, we don't know for certain if they each have their own minds because lying is possible. So even without invoking the reality we cannot observe (supernatural, evil genius, Last Thursdayism, etc) we have reason to doubt the statements of others.
Also note, that all of the reasons we have to doubt our own experiences also apply to doubting their experiences. So in addition to intentional deception (lying, omission, half-truths, false implications, etc.), we must also consider the unitentional falsehoods that they may convey (hallucinations, misunderstandings, accidental omissions, incomplete details, incomplete knowledge, etc.).
Therefore, we can conclude (deductively, this time) that information transmitted through other people has an inherently low likelihood of veracity without addressing the intentional and unitentional ways that the information can be made false (i.e. not corresponsing with reality).
In order to arrive at higher probabilities of truth (I'll just call it accuracy), we must develop strategies for accounting for all of these possible avenues of falsehood.
One such strategy when observing physical (non-mind) events is science. Where we develop ideas for reality's behavior and test them for reproducibility. This is literally the definition of Science.
Sometimes, physical data is not available. So we need another strategy for when dealing solely with information that a person transmits to us. This is the same strategy we use when browsing the internet: we run a credibility check on our source.
First, we cover the intentional sources of truth contamination: lying, omission, misdirection, etc. We can address this by questioning motive and history: Why may they want to lie to us? Have they lied before?
Second, we cover the unitentional sources of truth contamination: misunderstanding, hallucination, incomplete knowledge, etc. For hallucinations, we run a medical check (history, diagnosis, etc.). For incomplete knowledge, we assess expertise and their methods for acquiring this knowledge.
Note, without these rigorous tests, knowledge we get from other people is inherently VERY unreliable. I'm talking 50% or lower. What's more, is everytime we add a new person in our game of telephone, we multiply our probabilities that each person got it right. If we assume each person had a 70% chance of getting it right, and this knowledge passes through 3 people, then there is only a 34.3% chance that the knowledge is correct.
If we apply this rule to historical knowledge, then all secondary sources are at best, guesses at the truth. And the accuracy of the knowledge decreases exponentially the further away from the event our account comes from.
Summary: given our egocentric position, we can only inductively determine that our experiences are reality. However, there are some deductive truths we can arrive at using IF THEN statements such as "object permanence" and a "theory of mind." Given that we can only inductively know things, we must use strategies to maximize the accuracy of our beliefs. Stategies include "the scientific method" for physical information and "credibility" for when information comes from other people. Without physical information/evidence, person-sourced information has a very low probability of truth (accuracy) due to how probabilities multiply. Historical knowledge suffers the same faults as person-sourced knowledge and so must be handled/assessed accordingly.
---Syllogistically---
---FUNDAMENTAL EPISTEMOLOGY---
GIVEN TRUTHS:
1. I am thinking.
2. I have external observations (sight, sound, etc).
3. I have internal states (hunger, pain, etc).
4. I have a personal imperative (my wants: I want to avoid bad internal states and seek good internal
THEREFORE:
1. IF my internal states correlate with external observations (I eat food, I feel less hungry) THEN there exists a possibility that my observations are true.
2. IF my internal states repeatedly correlate with external observations, THEN the likelihood of my observations being true increases (every time I eat, I feel less hunger, so food is probably real)
---OBJECT PERMANENCE---
1. IF an observed thing becomes unobserved, there exists a possibilty that it didn't cease existence.
2. IF an unobserved thing becomes reobserved, THEN it probably didn't cease existence.
3. IF unobserved things continue existence independent of immediate observation, THEN there exists an observable reality that is independent of my immediate observation.
---THEORY OF MIND---
1. Existence is implied by thoughts
2. Thoughts generate ideas
3. There exists ideas separate from my mind (given)
4. Therefore, there exist thoughts separate from my mind
5. Therefore there exists at least one other mind
---SCIENCE---
1. If initial observations of multiple events are the same, AND final observations of the same multiple events are similar, THEN a pattern has been observed
2. IF a pattern has been observed, AND initial observations match the initial observations of the events of the pattern, THEN final observations will probably match the final observations of the pattern
---CREDIBILITY---
1. Another mind (another person) makes a claim about reality.
2. A claim is honest IF the claimant is not lying or engaging in misdirection
3. A claim is thorough IF the claimant has not misunderstood their observations, AND has complete knowledge of their observations, AND has true observations
4. IF their claim is honest and thorough, THEN it is probably true.
Comments (55)
Hello and welcome to this forum. I have enjoyed reading your OP. Very well structured and written. Thanks for sharing it. To be honest, I do not how to answer in order to start a debate with you but I would like to share a brief personal note:
Quoting Virus Collector
Because they know is necessary. I want to put the question backwards: Are we ready to live on the truth?
Quoting Virus Collector
I think I get your overall point - you're describing a more or less formal process of induction. This part I don't get - You're trying to tie what you have to say back to the certainty of Descartes, but it doesn't work. I think, therefore I am, but that doesn't mean my experiences have any connection with an outside reality or even with a coherent internal reality. The same goes for my actions, if they are really even actions at all. If I even have a body.
Quoting Virus Collector
Now we're stepping out onto dangerous ground - making factual statements about how people learn about reality. How much of what we know of at a truly basic level is based on induction. I'm not sure, but cognitive science may have something to say about it. We are not blank slates.
Quoting Virus Collector
Problem is, almost everything we know above a certain level is based on what we've been told by others - all of science, history, current events, etc. What we can directly observe is severely restricted.
Again - good post.
Don't we? Isn't reality made up of basic divine material?
3) and 4) are unjustified.
Quoting Virus Collector
1) applies to astrology as well.
2) That the final observations of the pattern and the final observations match depends on the state of the initial pattern. They can probably match or probably not.
What do you mean by this?
Thank you, that's a great point. I did some re-evaluation of this framework and found that we can't actually tie our beliefs to reality itself but we can assign truth statements to the pattern we observe with sense data.
---DEFINITIONS---
1. Belief ? models of reality that are believed to be true/mostly true
1a. A belief holds a value (x) WHERE 1=True (x measures the reliability of belief)
1b. IF a belief is not true THEN it holds a value (x). 1>x?0
2. Tactus ? recognition-independent experiences
3. Affectus ? recognition-dependent experiences
4. Recognition ? a form of remembering characterized by a feeling of familiarity when something previously experienced is again encountered
4. Fundamental ? the first element in a series
5. Thought ? a present-tense engagement in logic
6. Experience ? tactus, affectus
7. Predictions ? the logical implications of a belief
8. Personal Imperative ? a predetermined set of wants (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)
9. Observations ? true tactus (tactus that correspond with reality)
---FUNDAMENTAL EPISTEMOLOGY---
1. I have thoughts
2. I have beliefs
4. I have tactus
5. I have affectus
6. Tactus are the most fundamental experience
9. I have a personal imperative: avoid bad tactus/affectus AND seek good tactus/affectus (EX: avoid pain, seek happiness)
10. IF my tactus continuously/repeatedly correlate with my beliefs, THEN the likelihood of my beliefs being true increases (EX: Belief - IF I eat, THEN I feel less hungry. IF I feel less hunger each time I eat, THEN my belief is more likely to be true)
It isn't that we observe reality but that we must interact with our tactus in order to satisfy our personal imperative. So we will never have that certainty but we build a framework of reality from the ground up using observation, models, and more observations (science). It is inherently probabilistic though, that is true.
Quoting T Clark
That is true. I think the idea is that through the theory of mind and the fundamental epistemology, we should be able to trace the claims of others to sense data. When we can't we drop the belief. Credibility is really just a shortcut for saving time.
3) was really just defining thorough. How is 4) unjustified? If the claimant isn't lying and their analysis of their claim is solid, then what they're claiming is probably true
Quoting Hillary
1) Yeah. It actually applies to all superstitions too. This premise was really just defining a pattern. We see patterns everywhere. Even when they are coincidental.
Quoting Hillary
That's absolutely true. This is what precision and uncertainty are for. When our initial conditions are exactly the same, the output should be the same. There exist systems where this logic doesn't work perfectly though (Chaotic systems & Statistical systems like QM)
In my understanding, most, maybe all, intuition is based on my past experiences over a lifetime. That doesn't mean the knowledge is "traceable." Generally, a specific belief is not associated with a particular experience or experiences that I can identify.
:clap: :100:
Also, Descartes doesn't prove he exists by attempting global skepticism since the attempt itself presuppose he (the attempter) exists on pain of performative self-contradiction (e.g. "I do not exist"). If "the cogito" demonstrates anything it's this: "doubting happens" (not that "the doubter exists").
What gives mental phenomena a special ability to exist without an object, but not physical phenomenon?
Lets compare defartes to descartes
"A fart, therefore farting happens"
"A doubt, therefore doubting happens."
Both are tautologies? Same logical structures?
And
"A fart, therefore an ass"
"A doubt, therefore a mind"
These are deductions based on definitions?
Because a fart is by definition gas that comes from an ass, a fart by definition requires an ass.
How is the relationship between a fart and an ass different than the relationship between a doubt and a mind?
Why can doubting happen without a mind, while farting can't happen without an ass?
Is it not special pleading?
It depends on your theory of truth. If you require truthmakers, then yes, the ass must exist.
If you don't require truthmakers, say your truth theory leans toward behaviorism, then you can't make existential claims based on true statements.
Do you agree with that?
It sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse.
That the territory depends on the map.
That if my map says that a map maker is required, then it is required
And if my map doesn't say that a map maker is required, my map can exist without a maker.
We theorise to try and understand. So "my theory of truth" is basically my current understanding of truth. Understanding doesn't determine what is the truth.
On the other hand, we do need to be clear what we are talking about by truth. Do we mean the map or the territory?
And map vs territory confusion can be the most problematic thing. Every philosophic and religious conflict may be said to be conflicts over differing maps. Putting the map over the territory is Idolatry and superstition.
What is the territory? What exists beyond our maps?
I think of a truth theory as a choice that has implications. The truth theory you're using, which is along the lines of correspondence theory, is what the average intelligent person acts on. That is, if there is a deer track, there was a deer who made it. If there is a thought, there is a mind the thought is a part of, or however you want to put it.
As phenomenology, correspondence works, but that defangs it in terms of existential claims. If we want to take a stronger, more realist approach, then we've strayed into Tractacus territory, which explains the fatal flaw in correspondence theory: that we're trying to take a picture of the camera we're using to take the picture.
Behaviorism is just ridiculous, but people adhere to it for various ridiculous reasons, none of which are very interesting.
The point, as I see it, is that Descartes is supposed to start with nothing. He takes some concept of the self for granted, missing or choosing to ignore how problematic that is. He also takes language for granted. Somehow this reasoning voice whose body may be a dream can safely be taken for granted. It sounds more like a Beckett play than a metaphysical foundation. The way to fix this, saving what it gets right about that voice, is to scrap the absurd solitude (because the self makes no sense without a non-self) and discuss our communal commitment to rationality above all things. Descartes set a weird but still legible example of striving toward presuppositionlessness, which is a flavor of autonomy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/
The territory might just be that our maps aren't ever exhaustive or entirely trustworthy. Let's say that the territory is all true statements. Let's say our maps are our beliefs. Unlike the analogy might suggest, the territory and map are both made of assertions. Our maps are our best guesses about the territory, beliefs we have reason to hope are true. This approach does conform to the analogy when we reflect that we never bother to create enough beliefs to match the presumably infinite size of the territory. There are many truths we'll never care about, like the number of electrons in a particular transistor at a particular instant.
"Correspondence theory of truth" is the positive version of the same law, the law of non-contradiction.
I fail to see how its a theory.
Can you give an example of where "You are right/wrong" means something other than correspondence/non-correspondence?
I can accept that correspondence isn't sufficient for truth, but not that it isn't necessary.
A trap in philosophy and is getting so tangled up in theory and language that all we have is an infinite regress of maps referring to other maps, and reality attaining the status of myth and legend.
It's a definition of truth. It's not of version of the LONC.
Quoting Yohan
It does seem pretty basic, I agree. You can look at people as if they're monkeys who communicate through chirps and screams. None of it really means anything. It's just sounds that are made according to a protocol. This is a more externalist/behaviorist approach. People embrace it because they think it frees them of religion and mysticism.
I also like to zoom out and think in terms of chirps and screams. Perhaps the protocol is the meaning. This protocol swells and becomes self-referential, until it can talk about itself as chirps and screams governed by evolving norms (a protocol).
:up:
Good point. Another trap, though, is simply giving up on the labor of clarifying concepts. No one cares if the Target cashier has strong account of truth or justice.
You then go on to talk of chirps and screams that mean nothing ?
Behaviorism has its heart in the right place.
It's a thesis that announces "I'm meaningless!"
It's just stupid.
Is this a Lovecraft story? :grimace:
I think you have a cartoon of it in mind ? This cartoon is often invoked by mystics or mysterions.
Here's one take on the real thing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/
You are chirping and squeaking about chirps and squeaks here. Talk about talk about talk.
Only as weird or unweird as life itself.
The chirps aren't about anything. They're just chirps.
Are you sure you aren't a self-hating behaviorist ?
:razz:
True. Per Frege, infinite regress is the reason to abandon attempts to define truth.
But the point I was making previously was that your power to make existential claims based on true statements depends on whether your audience accepts correspondence theory. There's no reason they have to do that. They can be truth skeptics if they want.
If they reject correspondance theory they would be doing that on the basis that they think correspondance theory doesn't correspond with the way truth works.
You have to accept correspondance theory in order to say correspondance theory doesn't correspond with reality.
Or else, what does it mean to say correspondance theory is untrue?
No. A truth skeptic would say correspondence theory lacks analytical clarity. The truth predicate just has a certain role in language use.
That still seems like its about correspondance.
That, in order for a statement or theory to correspond with reality, it must be analytically clear. Since unclear statements can't be tested to see if they correspond.
Maybe I don't get it?
Can you give an example of a truth claim that is true despite not corresponding with reality?
Let's take the claim that it's going to rain tomorrow.
Can you explain what two things we're supposed to see corresponding?
And the question of the year award goes to javi2541997.
Do you suppose we need justifications for definitions i.e. can we ask why, as herein relevant, one defines truth in the way we have/will? There are many theories of truth (correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, etc.) and all of 'em are reasoned-to theories.
In short does the notion of correctness apply to the definition of truth?
I think not. Correctness depends on a way of functional ethics which leads some dilemmas. For example: the "correct" way of helping a kid who passed through a trauma is avoiding him from it even with lies. I am acting so correctly but... I am not telling to that kid the "truth" right?
I have no idea what you're talking about! Nevertheless, it exudes verissimilitude/truthiness. Perhaps me too dumb to understand mon ami! Gracias even so, muchas gracias.
What I mean is: sometimes we have to use lies to help others because it is right despite the fact that we are avoiding to them the truth.
Sometimes the truth could be painful.
:up:
Good morning from my side.
As I see it you wait till tomorrow and see if it rains.
If it does, then the claim is in accord with reality.
Although this is not deductive knowledge, but inductive guess.
With deduction its about corresponding or according with laws of logic or root definitions.
With induction its about according or corresponding with the appearance of the world.
Consistent with, in accord, corresponding, cohering with, matching.
What two things correspond? There's an SEP article on correspondence theory .
Look at the "objections" section. Also, there's an SEP article on truthmakers, which is one of the most fascinating topics in philosophy.
The truth claim and the truth criteria.
What exactly is a truth claim? Is it sounds and marks? Is it a sentence? Or is it something else?
I guess 'truth claim' is redundant. To claim means to state that something is the case. Dunno how to define 'state'. Maybe 'to express a belief'.
I don't think a 'belief' is sounds and marks. Sounds and marks are made so that ideas can be communicated or recorded down.
So then what exactly is an 'idea', 'thought' or 'belief'. Its something of the mind? What is mind? Something to do with subjectivity, with "my" being, or perspective, or perception. What is being. What am I? What is perception?
Can what these are, if they are more than imaginary constructs of the "mind", be put down in writing? How could they?
But this is a process of going deeper and deeper to the foundation. Maybe truth doesn't correspond to any idea or theory?
The two parts that "correspond" in correspondence theory are called the truthbearer and the truthmaker.
As you see, the philosophical ground becomes boggy when we go to try to explain what each of those are, and we haven't even gotten to the nature of the correspondence relation yet.
Though it's fun to wade through that bog searching for iron age witches, there are bigger problems with correspondence theory, probably the biggest being that according to plain logic laid out by Frege, truth can't be defined.
This is a problem with language in general, and why its important to understand the limits of language. The language of logic only works if we already have our definitions in place. We can't use logic to determine definitions. How are definitions established in the first place, prior to logic? and...is there any truth value to a definition? Or is a definition something made up, something without truth value, like art?
I agree there is problems with correspondance theory but also think it still needs to be used in dealing with pragmatic realty. I doubt its either or. Is there a truth theory that is less tricky?
I don't think so.
So how to we determine which to use if they are all tricky? I guess that is another question without a clear answer.
I guess the question would be: why do we need a theory of truth? Why do we need to have a definition? We can't teach someone what truth is.