Why can't I doubt that I am doubting?
Assume that doubt is meaningfully defined. Or let's say we define doubt as , both the statement under doubt, and it's complement can be true or false, we do not know, the uncertainty exists.
Imagine an ultimate doubter.
In this scenario, the doubter can doubt everything, including him being in doubt.
The doubter can make the sentence “I doubt that I am doubting”.
This sentence does not break reasoning.
Let me explain how.
I doubt (A), that I am doubting(B).
These are two different levels of doubt. This is a self referential doubt.
Doubting that “I am doubting”, does not mean that the doubter is not doubting. Doubting entails both the possibilities, “I am doubting”, can be true, or “I am doubting” can be false.
So the chain of recursion goes something like this:
“I am doubting”, is True. (1)
“I doubt(A), that I am doubting(B)”, is also True. (2)
But, in (2), (B) is true under doubt or statement (A), and since (B), is in doubt, it is not as True as (1).
Again, the order of statements matter quite a lot.
Consider the sentence,
“I doubt (A), that I am not doubting(C)” (3), for example
This(C) is false, since we have already established in (A) that we are doubting, so it’s complement in a sense, that “I doubt, that I am doubting”, has to be True.
Or, am I wrong somewhere in logic? ( I get my obvious current mistake, but trying to reword it meaningfully)
Imagine an ultimate doubter.
In this scenario, the doubter can doubt everything, including him being in doubt.
The doubter can make the sentence “I doubt that I am doubting”.
This sentence does not break reasoning.
Let me explain how.
I doubt (A), that I am doubting(B).
These are two different levels of doubt. This is a self referential doubt.
Doubting that “I am doubting”, does not mean that the doubter is not doubting. Doubting entails both the possibilities, “I am doubting”, can be true, or “I am doubting” can be false.
So the chain of recursion goes something like this:
“I am doubting”, is True. (1)
“I doubt(A), that I am doubting(B)”, is also True. (2)
But, in (2), (B) is true under doubt or statement (A), and since (B), is in doubt, it is not as True as (1).
Again, the order of statements matter quite a lot.
Consider the sentence,
“I doubt (A), that I am not doubting(C)” (3), for example
This(C) is false, since we have already established in (A) that we are doubting, so it’s complement in a sense, that “I doubt, that I am doubting”, has to be True.
Or, am I wrong somewhere in logic? ( I get my obvious current mistake, but trying to reword it meaningfully)
Comments (28)
I haven't done that part yet. But, apart from that, is everything solid?
What should I be congratulating myself for? (I do not get sarcasm very well sorry, if this is)
It's valid right?
That prolixity is circular, someone must doubt something, but at the same time one can doubt that as well through a different level of doubt.
Both sentences can be true.
That seems to be exactly what you are doing here.
Of course there is. If you do doubt, then you are doubting. If you are not, then there is no doubt, and you have nothing to discuss.
Quoting guptanishank
Not possible. Doubt can only exist with respect to something.
You're giving a binary level. This is a recursion. I can always doubt the sentence under the recursion.
But this is just textbook circular reasoning with a bit of begging the question thrown in. It might as well read: "Imagine a universe where one can doubt that one is doubting. In this universe, one can doubt that one is doubting. Therefore, one can doubt that one is doubting".
One can imagine it in this Universe as well. I am removing all other elements, to make the presentation simpler.
You are just repeating it can't be done. Why not?
Because it's simple to you that if you doubt, you are doubting.
But, I am saying if you doubt enough, you can also doubt that you are doubting. That does not imply that you are not doubting.
The two sentences are different.
There are simply levels of doubt.
So I am doubting is true.
I am doubting that I am doubting, is lesser true.
I am doubting , that I am doubting, that I am doubting, is even lesser true.
But all of them are true.
Doubting that I am doubting does not mean that I am not doubting. It entails both the possibility, of doubting and not doubting.
Who are you talking to?
(Actually there’s a Confucian equilvant of same: ‘when in hole, stop digging’. )
It's just a exercise in logic for now. I am not talking about thinking for now. I have written other things for that.
Is the logic correct? What do you think? Assume that for a moment the words are well defined.
Could you please read what I replied to Wayfarer? Maybe that helps in making the logic clearer. It's only circular if you have a binary truth and only one step. That doubt exists, but it is the minimum amount of doubt at each step. This has multiple steps, and the truth value differs as you look at a collection of self referential statements. Since one statement is made before the next statement, we can say that the preceding statement assumes the prior, and it's truth value is established only under it.
@All: I have edited my first post to accurately reflect what I meant. Is it correct?
Quite an idiotic mistake to be honest. One I have made before, of not adequately defining terms before.
What if there is ‘‘nothing‘‘ to be doubted? You doubt that?
If doubt cannot exist, then you cannot doubt.
If you're doubting, then doubt exists.
If doubt doesn't exist, then you're not doubting.
What you call levels of doubt are really different senses of "doubt", So your argument really amounts to equivocation.
Quoting guptanishank
Right, once you produce a definition of "doubt", and stick to it, the problem goes away. The problem was caused by your assumption of different levels of doubt, which was really different definitions of doubt.