If something is irrefutable, then their is no possibility of of disproving or denying it. Whereas a belief is something one holds to be true without requiring proof. Consequently, if one knows something to be truly irrefutable, it is not a belief, but rather a fact.
Isaac ShmuklerAugust 03, 2018 at 07:24#2023940 likes
Reply to Txastopher By irrefutable I mean to negate claims like "it will rain tomorrow" since regarding these type of claims one has enough data to reasonably decide whether they are true or false.
Irrefutable in this sense, includes claims like "one stops to exist after one is dead."
I'm guessing the OP means beliefs that can't be doubted, which I'm not aware of any. Just about anything can be doubted. Even Cogito, ergo sum can be picked apart.
But maybe Witty's hinge propositions come close.
Isaac ShmuklerAugust 03, 2018 at 07:29#2023960 likes
By irrefutable I didn't mean that one cannot disprove it even theoretically. Of course, a person can theoretically come back to life and tell us that he actually didn't stop to be conscious even after dying, but this is only theoretical.
Isaac ShmuklerAugust 03, 2018 at 07:33#2023970 likes
I also didn't mean to beliefs that cannot be doubted. I meant to beliefs that might be false. Irrefutable only means that it cannot be disproved using the data available.
Another example is the belief that there is a free will.
Irrefutable only means that it cannot be disproved using the data available.
That means just about all of metaphysics, unless there exist irrefutable metaphysical arguments. Maybe for trivial matters, like the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns.
Consequently, if one knows something to be truly irrefutable, it is not a belief, but rather a fact.
There's an error here in thinking that facts and beliefs are on a par. they are not. Facts are about states of affairs, while beliefs are about propositions. A belief is an attitude towards a proposition.
Further, if some proposition is irrefutable, then it seems odd to call it a fact. Facts need justification; bit how could one justify what cannot be refuted?
Isaac ShmuklerAugust 03, 2018 at 08:06#2024110 likes
Reply to Banno I do! It is only irrefutable using the data currently available.
Just as in the examples I already gave. I will give one more:
There is life on planets other than earth. (This can be disproved only theoretically).
It is irrefutable in a sense but not completely. (I am afraid that this is very simple).
Reply to Isaac Shmukler SO by irrefutable you mean not refuted. That's not what most of us mean.
Isaac ShmuklerAugust 03, 2018 at 08:14#2024140 likes
Reply to Banno The suffix -able denotes an ability and the prefix ir- denotes a negation. This means that irrefutable means "that cannot be refuted." I have used this term correctly, in a limited sense, but correctly. It cannot be refuted using the data available. It can be refuted however, theoretically.
This is what I meant by irrefutable.
Refuted means that it has been refuted in the past. This is clearly not what I meant.
My understating of 'irrefutable' is that it describes a fact that can be shown to be true and as a consequence cannot be disproved. Your example of an itchy ear could, conceivably, be a lie. Therefore, it is not irrefutable; or is refutable. That there is supreme being cannot be shown to be true therefore is not irrefutable; or is refutable.
If refutable means can be shown to be untrue, then irrefutable means cannot be shown to be untrue; or can be shown to be true.
"Cannot be shown to be untrue" is not the same as "can be shown to be true".
Clearly, but when dealing with the concept of refutability it does since irrefutability is a quality predicated on refutability. If we don't accept that a condition of irrefutability is that it can be shown to be true, then all things that can't be shown to be true automatically become irrefutable and we end up with the tortuous nonsense of having to prove negatives; e.g. absence of God.
?Txastopher There is a world of difference between you believing tht my ear is itchy, and my believing that my ear is itchy.
They are two completely different things.
I thought we'd established that we are not talking about beliefs.
If my ear itches, then it is irrefutable that my ear itches on an internal level. If I tell you that my ear itches, then it is refutable since I may be lying. So you're right, there is a difference,... and?
If I tell you that my ear itches, then it is refutable since I may be lying.
— Txastopher
And how would you refute this? How would you show that I was lying?
Bearing in mind that all I claim is that it is refutable, then I would ask you, "Are you lying about your ear itching?", if you replied truthfully in the affirmative then I would have refuted your claim, but, more importantly, this shows that the claim is refutable.
Reply to Isaac Shmukler The problem you're going to run into is that there are many different uses of the word irrefutable, depending on one's epistemology. For example, for me, one use of what's irrefutable is what's foundational, i.e., what cannot be coherently or reasonably doubted generally.
Another use of the term might be a proof, i.e., if the premises are true, then the conclusion is irrefutable. Even inductive arguments might be referred to as irrefutable depending on the strength of the premises. But you're going to get people who hold to the idea that their version of the word irrefutable is the only use that counts.
Good luck trying to get unanimity - I've never seen it happen in this forum or any other forum, but don't let that deter you.
Should irrefutable beliefs be valued according to their truth or their utility?
Here, the condition of irrefutable is necessary since otherwise one would clearly value the beliefs according to their truth considering they can be proven to be true or false.
I don't know what these terms mean. Does ignoring the word belief, does "irrefutable" refer to necessary truths? If so, well, so of them ought to be valued, but not fetishized. Every logical or mathematical system has necessary truths. But most necessary truths are trivial or at least uninteresting in most discourses. But for most truths, they are not irrefutable in any sense whatsoever. This is enormously more so for beliefs. Any belief can believe mistaken, none are irrefutable in principle.
Aleksander KvamAugust 06, 2018 at 03:11#2032790 likes
belief is only good for the psyke of the person/group of people in question, in a positive way. and beyond that shouldnt be valued at all. a dose of cold logic and absolute truth is what we need.
Irrefutable only means that it cannot be disproved using the data available.
That which cannot be disproved:
1. It's a fact
2. We don't have enough data to either confirm or deny a proposition.
I guess you mean 2 by ''irrefutable''. Poor choice of words because, usually'' ''irrefutable'' pertains to a sound argument and its true conclusion.
Anyway, given inadequate data to make a decision it is adivsed to suspend judgment until we do have the information that swings our belief. Until such a time one does have the option to choose a side depending on what one prefers.
We could also pick apart an idea and take away what one likes and discard what one doesn't. For instance take religion. We could invest in its moral teachings and reject the superstition.
I think beliefs are quite complex and we may be able to break them down into chunks that are palatable or tasteless.
Isaac ShmuklerAugust 06, 2018 at 22:51#2035060 likes
Reply to TheMadFool It seems that my initial formulation is far from being clear. I should try to ask this question in a much simpler way:
What is more important, the knowledge of the truth or well-being?
One of the implications is the answer to the following question: Should one rather believe in what brings one well-being or in what brings one closer to the truth?
What is more important, the knowledge of the truth or well-being?
Well, that's a value issue isn't it? Which do you value? Well-being or truth? Truth doesn't change for anything. Everyone, the weakest to the most powerful, has to come to terms with this fact.
Well-being comes in all shapes and sizes. What is food for the goose is poison for the gander. This is a, well, truth and what follows is there can be no universal definition of well-being. Of course some have differentiated lesser-happiness (of the flesh) and higher-happiness (of the mind) but this distinction lacks general appeal. We don't see people, when told of it, running to philosophers in search of the proverbial wisdom of sages. This being the case we're unable to use well-being as an anchor for our ships.
Anyway, at the scale of the universe itself, at 13.8 billion years old, which choice you make is inconsequential.
If we are talking about the total Truth, it is the eternity desire(pothos) of the human soul. In greek language the word ''Truth'' is called ''Alithia'' and etymologically means ''what can not be forgotten''.
So i believe that once we had met Truth, and our soul can never forget this <>. And the whole journey of life, only has meaning when we are travelling back to this land, with any cost.
The well-being instead, concerns the earthy desires. It is also a choise, but not for the heroes...
Comments (38)
If something is irrefutable, then their is no possibility of of disproving or denying it. Whereas a belief is something one holds to be true without requiring proof. Consequently, if one knows something to be truly irrefutable, it is not a belief, but rather a fact.
Irrefutable in this sense, includes claims like "one stops to exist after one is dead."
I'm guessing the OP means beliefs that can't be doubted, which I'm not aware of any. Just about anything can be doubted. Even Cogito, ergo sum can be picked apart.
But maybe Witty's hinge propositions come close.
Another example is the belief that there is a free will.
That means just about all of metaphysics, unless there exist irrefutable metaphysical arguments. Maybe for trivial matters, like the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns.
There's an error here in thinking that facts and beliefs are on a par. they are not. Facts are about states of affairs, while beliefs are about propositions. A belief is an attitude towards a proposition.
Further, if some proposition is irrefutable, then it seems odd to call it a fact. Facts need justification; bit how could one justify what cannot be refuted?
Then it seems that in saying "irrefutable", you do not mean irrefutable.
SO you believe. :razz:
Just as in the examples I already gave. I will give one more:
There is life on planets other than earth. (This can be disproved only theoretically).
It is irrefutable in a sense but not completely. (I am afraid that this is very simple).
This is what I meant by irrefutable.
Refuted means that it has been refuted in the past. This is clearly not what I meant.
My understating of 'irrefutable' is that it describes a fact that can be shown to be true and as a consequence cannot be disproved. Your example of an itchy ear could, conceivably, be a lie. Therefore, it is not irrefutable; or is refutable. That there is supreme being cannot be shown to be true therefore is not irrefutable; or is refutable.
If refutable means can be shown to be untrue, then irrefutable means cannot be shown to be untrue; or can be shown to be true.
I don't care if you believe me or not; I believe my ear is itchy because... well, my ear is itchy. For me, doubt has no place here.
"Cannot be shown to be untrue" is not the same as "can be shown to be true".
Something appears to have stopped. What, in fact, however, is that “something”?
I would call that “something” a personality.
Essentially, therefore, a personality disappeared from one’s occasional, or more than occasional, experience.
A particular thing we do not know is what death is, because we are not able to report it.
To summarise: Someone who “dies” has disappeared.
I'm sure you don't, but at the very moment you make your observation public then you invite reasonable scepticism.
They are two completely different things. Your scepticism will not scratch my ear.
Clearly, but when dealing with the concept of refutability it does since irrefutability is a quality predicated on refutability. If we don't accept that a condition of irrefutability is that it can be shown to be true, then all things that can't be shown to be true automatically become irrefutable and we end up with the tortuous nonsense of having to prove negatives; e.g. absence of God.
I thought we'd established that we are not talking about beliefs.
If my ear itches, then it is irrefutable that my ear itches on an internal level. If I tell you that my ear itches, then it is refutable since I may be lying. So you're right, there is a difference,... and?
And how would you refute this? How would you show that I was lying?
Actually, such propositions underpin Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
From the OP: Quoting Isaac Shmukler
Odd.
Bearing in mind that all I claim is that it is refutable, then I would ask you, "Are you lying about your ear itching?", if you replied truthfully in the affirmative then I would have refuted your claim, but, more importantly, this shows that the claim is refutable.
I didn't ask the quoted question, but since you mention it; "This proposition is false".
Is too.
Another use of the term might be a proof, i.e., if the premises are true, then the conclusion is irrefutable. Even inductive arguments might be referred to as irrefutable depending on the strength of the premises. But you're going to get people who hold to the idea that their version of the word irrefutable is the only use that counts.
Good luck trying to get unanimity - I've never seen it happen in this forum or any other forum, but don't let that deter you.
I don't know what these terms mean. Does ignoring the word belief, does "irrefutable" refer to necessary truths? If so, well, so of them ought to be valued, but not fetishized. Every logical or mathematical system has necessary truths. But most necessary truths are trivial or at least uninteresting in most discourses. But for most truths, they are not irrefutable in any sense whatsoever. This is enormously more so for beliefs. Any belief can believe mistaken, none are irrefutable in principle.
That which cannot be disproved:
1. It's a fact
2. We don't have enough data to either confirm or deny a proposition.
I guess you mean 2 by ''irrefutable''. Poor choice of words because, usually'' ''irrefutable'' pertains to a sound argument and its true conclusion.
Anyway, given inadequate data to make a decision it is adivsed to suspend judgment until we do have the information that swings our belief. Until such a time one does have the option to choose a side depending on what one prefers.
We could also pick apart an idea and take away what one likes and discard what one doesn't. For instance take religion. We could invest in its moral teachings and reject the superstition.
I think beliefs are quite complex and we may be able to break them down into chunks that are palatable or tasteless.
What is more important, the knowledge of the truth or well-being?
One of the implications is the answer to the following question: Should one rather believe in what brings one well-being or in what brings one closer to the truth?
Well, that's a value issue isn't it? Which do you value? Well-being or truth? Truth doesn't change for anything. Everyone, the weakest to the most powerful, has to come to terms with this fact.
Well-being comes in all shapes and sizes. What is food for the goose is poison for the gander. This is a, well, truth and what follows is there can be no universal definition of well-being. Of course some have differentiated lesser-happiness (of the flesh) and higher-happiness (of the mind) but this distinction lacks general appeal. We don't see people, when told of it, running to philosophers in search of the proverbial wisdom of sages. This being the case we're unable to use well-being as an anchor for our ships.
Anyway, at the scale of the universe itself, at 13.8 billion years old, which choice you make is inconsequential.
So i believe that once we had met Truth, and our soul can never forget this <
The well-being instead, concerns the earthy desires. It is also a choise, but not for the heroes...
Isn't well-being the application of the knowledge of truth?