Reply to Frank Apisa
I do not mean any specific belief, i mean literally there isn't any belief i can justify. If i were trying to be specific, believe me i would.
Take 'Unshakable belief' in the philosophical context, please.
Refusing to disbelieve doesn't make it unshakable, it just means that you aren't. :)
2+2=4. I doubt it.
The whole theory of mathematics are based on principles and axioms. Those are assumed to be self-evident. Like the Principle of Identity. Why is the Law of Identity assumed to be true? The only answer you'll get is, it is obvious. No it is not. It's a dogma, there is no proof. But in the end, it works fine, so we hold on to it for the sake of pragmaticality.
Math works, but it's not a belief, it's a language, and the system of this language are based axioms. I doubt axioms.
Torturing babies... Honestly, ethic beliefs are even harder to establish. They keep us alive. We feel it's wrong or right, but do you see how deep the questioning might go?
Reply to PuerAzaelis
Oh, many. The most simple one at least; no evidence for it to be true. It's blind belief. Isn't it? Why is the axiom true? Because it says so, hmmm.... let me think...
PuerAzaelisFebruary 28, 2020 at 22:13#3870480 likes
Why can't foundationalism apply at least to phenomenological occurrences such as "I am currently looking at a computer screen"?
christian2017February 28, 2020 at 22:14#3870500 likes
Most people...and I suspect YOU also...have an unshakable "belief" in gravity.
You can test it. Take a walk to the center of a bridge like the George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River...and put your "belief" to the test. See if it is "unshakable" or not.
If by “unshakable” you mean certain, you can only be certain of one thing, you own existence. Its Decarte.
You can doubt the nature of your existence but not that you exist. “I think therefore I am.”
If by “unshakable” you mean something other than certainty then why would you want to have unshakable belief in anything? You should always be open to changing your belief if given better evidence or better reasoning. Unshakable belief is the basis for delusion, self deception and fanaticism.
I am not able to establish unshakable beliefs. Are you?
I agree that mathematics rests on a set of speculative and arbitrary core beliefs, a set of axioms, which are even deemed to be circular. It is not possible to exclude logic itself from that consideration, because logic itself is also an axiomatic system. So, you cannot arrive at an unshakable belief by using logic. Science is even worse, because all its theories are deemed to have an expiry date.
In that sense, there are no unshakable beliefs unless you declare them to be such. It is your own decision what is unshakable to you. Choose wisely ...
StreetlightFebruary 29, 2020 at 02:26#3871070 likes
Good. All your beliefs should be, in principle, open to revision. Congratulations on meeting the basic requirements of rational thinking.
Reply to PuerAzaelis
Because there might not be a computer. It might just be your brains interpretation of a signal.
I agree that even if so, you might be more certain about the experience of looking to a computer screen, but even your experience or existence might be an illusion.
Regarding the question about foundationalism; I doubt that the unshakable belief we are trying to find can be the ground for other beliefs. So it's not necessarily foundationalism, id rather say scepticism.
I ask this:"Why are my simple questions stronger than even the strongest philosophical arguments?"
We look for the truth in answers, might the truth be hidden in the question?
Reply to BitconnectCarlos I do doubt my doubt. I might be believing in a God, or math. For me the doors are open, and it's disturbing state. It feels the same as lost, but it also feels a bit like freedom.
I wish Descartes doubted his doubt as well, might we have something better than the cogito argument?
Descartes accepts that he is a doubting (thinking) thing. Doubting is a state of being. How can you accept the your state of being, before you even come to a conclusion of your own existence?
He might not be really doubting.
Descartes is not creative about how good the evil demon might do his job.
If Matrix 4 comes out, and we find out the Real World (Zion) to be another Matrix, that'd be the creative evil demon I am looking for :-)
Your “creative” demon still has to make sense, it cannot deceive something that doesn't exist.
My creative evil demon might have the ability to delude with logic, in which I am conditioned to it, and think that the evil demon should make sense, while 'making sense' itself is a trap.
You are using logic to justify a belief, where logic itself is -just like math- an axiomatic made up system. Logic itself is a belief.
Before trying to make me believe in the "cogito" argument, make me believe in logic, or ANYTHING ELSE.
Even in the logical system: doubting requires existence, to be able to doubt; one should exist. Therefore; one should prove that he exists first, before he can say that he doubts.
The cogito argument is wrong in so many ways, each day you can find another fallacy, if you do your homework...
Doubting is a state of being; the proposition "I doubt" is indifferent than proposition "I am an existing thing that doubts, therefore I exist". Do you see the circularity here? It's like saying I am, therefore I am. :-)
But again, circularities may not be fallacies. My problem is bigger than that here; I do not believe in logic.
Most people...and I suspect YOU also...have an unshakable "belief" in gravity.
You can test it. Take a walk to the center of a bridge like the George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River...and put your "belief" to the test. See if it is "unshakable" or not.
#1
Our understanding or conceptualizing gravity might be false, or deficient to be true.(ie. not a pulling or pushing force, but a combination of both, or note even a force)
#2
It's empirical. Another huge problem.
I can count many other, but gravity is not really what I am looking for. The question is more epistemological, gravity does not really fit in here, trust me :-)
#1
Our understanding or conceptualizing gravity might be false, or deficient to be true.(ie. not a pulling or pushing force, but a combination of both, or note even a force)
But the question isn't really if once could potentially shakes someone's belief, the question is really if gravity is shakeable for you. And note that your point one is arguing that our understanding of gravity might not be correct, but that doesn't mean that one doubts there is gravity. And yes, empirical 'things' can be doubted, but do you ever doubt gravity? If not, then so far at least it seems unshakable for you.
Is you belief that the empirical is a problem ever get shaken?
Perhaps that is another that might be unshakable.
Or that beliefs can change. That would seem to be an unshakeable belief of yours.
But I suppose my main point is that one shouldn't approach this as everyone. What might someone change their minds on. If there's something you haven't changed your mind on, then, so far, it's been unshakable. And then it seems some metabeliefs of yours are unshakable.
Frank ApisaFebruary 29, 2020 at 12:14#3871900 likes
I also have no "unshakable beliefs." In fact, I go you one better. I do not do "believing" at all.
I make guesses...which I properly call "guesses." Some people make guesses and call them "beliefs."
I make suppositions...which I properly call "suppositions." Some people make suppositions and call them "beliefs."
I make estimates...which I properly call "estimates." Some people make estimates and call them "beliefs."
The key to getting rid of all that "belief" nonsense (whether of the shakable or unshakable variety) is simply not to corrupt our guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like...by using the word "belief" as a disguise.
Deleted UserFebruary 29, 2020 at 12:21#3871940 likes
The key to getting rid of all that "belief" nonsense (whether of the shakable or unshakable variety) is simply not to corrupt our guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like...by using the word "belief" as a disguise.
I am not sure that such a shift in vocabulary actual influences how much you trust the ideas. I assume a wide range of meanings to my own use of 'belief'. It's something I think is the case, but I am not sure. This can be anything from my best guess, so I choose path b cause I think that's where we came from, but I am not remotely sure, to beliefs that I am very confident in, that have worked for a long time, but I am open to revision around.
My creative evil demon might have the ability to delude with logic, in which I am conditioned to it, and think that the evil demon should make sense, while 'making sense' itself is a trap.
You are using logic to justify a belief, where logic itself is -just like math- an axiomatic made up system. Logic itself is a belief.
Before trying to make me believe in the "cogito" argument, make me believe in logic, or ANYTHING ELSE.
If you are not interested in making sense then there is nothing more to say. If you are going to offer nonsense as a an argument, then you have ended the discussion.
DingoJonesFebruary 29, 2020 at 15:00#3872180 likes
Even in the logical system: doubting requires existence, to be able to doubt; one should exist. Therefore; one should prove that he exists first, before he can say that he doubts.
The cogito argument is wrong in so many ways, each day you can find another fallacy, if you do your homework...
Doubting is a state of being; the proposition "I doubt" is indifferent than proposition "I am an existing thing that doubts, therefore I exist". Do you see the circularity here? It's like saying I am, therefore I am. :-)
But again, circularities may not be fallacies. My problem is bigger than that here; I do not believe in logic.
You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. Just because you can call it fallacious, or claim you do not believe in logic does not make it so. These are just empty, meaningless words and positions you are offering.
Things make sense, things happen in certain ways, there is a consistency to reality and that doesnt change just because you say it does. (Edited a grammar error.)
Anyway, like I said once you have resorted to nonsense as your argument you have checked out of the conversation.
The key to getting rid of all that "belief" nonsense (whether of the shakable or unshakable variety) is simply not to corrupt our guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like...by using the word "belief" as a disguise.
Are your "guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like" unshakeable? Is your attitude against the idea of belief unshakeable? Or are you merely "paying lip service"?
Are your "guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like" unshakeable? Is your attitude against the idea of belief unshakeable? Or are you merely "paying lip service"?
None of my guesses are unshakable...if "unshakable" means "not subject to change."
Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change...as the circumstances that caused the guess, supposition or estimate...change.
My comment had to do with the use of "believe"...particularly in the context of questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.
Janus
8.8k
None of my guesses are unshakable...if "unshakable" means "not subject to change."
Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change...as the circumstances that caused the guess, supposition or estimate...change.
— Frank Apisa
Are those two "guesses" themselves subject to change?
Every guess I make is subject to change.
Not sure of what you supposed I was guessing about...but if you want a particular considered...tell me what the particular is.
Reply to Janus Yes, a lot of people are very certain at a meta-level and then also in assumptions about the nature of reality/minds that mean that one 'should' - we should all note the use of that word in his argument - think of our beliefs as guesses.
Reply to Frank Apisa He's pointing out that you seem very certain about how we should view beliefs, that is things we think are true. We shouldn't even use the word belief - even if for many of us this does not mean it is closed to revision. It seems like you are presenting not just your view of your own approach to viewing what you believe, but how you think one should in general, view what one thinks is the case, and in quite certain terms. IOW if you tell people
Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change
that doesn't sound remotely like a guess, especially given it is universal.
The above statement: is it a belief, a judgement, a guess, an assessment, a stipulation or something else? Whatever you may call it, is it subject to change?
Do not try to ground beliefs. That’s impossible. Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having. Whatever you can’t yet rule out (on some grounds stronger than just being unable to prove it from the ground up) yet, stick with that for now. Whatever you can rule out, find a temporary replacement for, and then keep going.
Also, a belief is just something you think is true. You don’t have to have absolute certainty for it to be a belief, just be disposed to answer “yes” (even if qualified by “probably” or “I think”) when asked if it’s true.
Reply to A Seagull Infinite regress. If every belief has to be based on something then that needs to be based on something else that needs to be based on something else and so on forever, unless you stop somewhere or go in a circle in which base you’ve both abandoned rationality and the principle that lead you there in the first place. Better to just abandon that principle but keep rationality, by switching to critical rationalism instead of such justificationism.
Reply to Pfhorrest critical rationalism leads to an infinite regress also. if
Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.
then you have to criticize each belief, then the belief that you should criticize every belief, then the beliefs that led you to think that you should criticize every beleif and so on. And then criticize each belief you form during the critique session about a particular belief - like 'my belief seems problematic because of X', but then I must critique my belief that it seems problematic because of X AND my belief that X is the case and so on. And then critical rationalism needs to be criticized, if you believe in it, but can one use a belief to critique a belief. IOW whatever epistemology you have to determine if a belief is ok, this will be the one you will use to check to see if that epistemology itself is ok. Which is fruit of the poisoned tree. And by the way, I am not saying we cannot have knowledge. I am just looking at your criterion and applying it to your own beliefs and I see infinite regress here too.
You are still applying justificationist reasoning. Think outside that box.
The difference between surviving criticism and bring justified from the ground up is that surviving criticism is the default state of any belief, whereas nothing is automatically justified-from-the-ground-up To begin with, all beliefs have survived the (zero) criticism they have been subjected to thus far — including belief in critical rationalism. That doesn’t mean that all beliefs are mandatory, just that all are permissible. Only when you find some reason why a belief doesn’t work must you reject it — but not in favor of any particular other belief, just in favor of some alternative or another. You can do this by showing a belief to be contrary to itself, or showing a contradiction between some set of beliefs in which case you have to pick which ones to throw out to solve that contradiction. You can only ever whittle away at (combinations of) things that aren't possible (together); you never narrow down to the one exact thing that is definitely absolutely certain, only a narrower range of possibilities.
Consider actions for analogy. Should we do nothing until we can justify from the ground up that that thing is the one absolutely certain best thing to do, or should we instead do whatever we want unless there is some good reason not to do that particular thing, and then instead do whatever else isn’t ruled out yet? Obviously the latter, or else we would never do anything at all. Just apply the same principle to belief as to action.
You are thrown into an infinite sea of uncertainty. If you insist on standing upon (something that stands upon something that stands upon...) the nonexistent bottom, you will just drown in your own doubts. Instead learn to float in the uncertainty by clinging to whatever is buoyant enough to bear your weight... until it isn’t, and then find something else to cling to instead.
The difference between surviving criticism and bring justified from the ground up is that surviving criticism is the default state of any belief, whereas nothing is automatically justified-from-the-ground-up To begin with, all beliefs have survived the (zero) criticism they have been subjected to thus far — including belief in critical rationalism.
There is a difference between surviving and what you wrote....Please show me how my reasoning was off given that it was based on your assertion.
Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.
So you start a critique...well you have to beleive you have a belief - you could critique that. When you are critiquing a belief, you have to critique all the facets of the critique, since these will include beliefs and then that you identified the beliefs correctly, then any conclusions you draw are new beliefs....it doesn't matter if it's justification or not, you are still critiquing which will involve identifying beliefs, a process, beliefs aobut a good process conclusions and more. it has to have a regress.
Consider actions for analogy. Should we do nothing until we can justify from the ground up that that thing is the one absolutely certain best thing to do, or should we instead do whatever we want unless there is some good reason not to do that particular thing, and then instead do whatever else isn’t ruled out yet? Obviously the latter, or else we would never do anything at all.
Precisely, there is an infinite regress if one truly follows the protocols of critical rationalism. Note that deciding there is a good reason, or not, would entail a belief. believing that one notices good reasons. And on and on. But note you are not really doing critical rationalism. You are doing your own idiosyncatic version. Which is fine. But it seems to me what you are saying is you simply don't follow through on the implications. One can do this with justification also. Have some axioms.
Critical rationalists hold that scientific theories and any other claims to knowledge can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be subjected to tests which may falsify them. Thus claims to knowledge may be contrastingly and normatively evaluated.
I just did, but if you want me to pick you apart line by line:
then you have to criticize each belief
Yes, when you can, and if you don't see anything wrong with a particular belief yet, you can leave it for now and run with what you have. You don't have to prove that every belief you hold is completely immune to all possible criticism before you do anything; that would be justificationism again, and you could never get started at all.
then the belief that you should criticize every belief
Yup, and that's holding up well so far, so keeping that for now.
Also, even if it didn't hold up, I would be free on that account to continue holding that belief anyway, because that would be the rejection of all rationalism.
then the beliefs that led you to think that you should criticize every beleif and so on
That would be the problems with fideism. Criticism is just what's left after fideism is rejected on account of its own problems.
And then criticize each belief you form during the critique session about a particular belief - like 'my belief seems problematic because of X', but then I must critique my belief that it seems problematic because of X AND my belief that X is the case and so on.
If the reason for rejecting belief Y is that is contradicts belief in non-X, then you can either reject Y or reject non-X.
Of course, you should see if there is anything problematic with the belief that Y and non-X contradict, and if there is then you should reject that, and then you're free to keep believing Y and non-X. If there's not anything problematic that you see, then you're back to having to choose between Y and non-X.
And then critical rationalism needs to be criticized, if you believe in it, but can one use a belief to critique a belief. IOW whatever epistemology you have to determine if a belief is ok, this will be the one you will use to check to see if that epistemology itself is ok. Which is fruit of the poisoned tree.
Fruit of the poisoned tree only applies to justificationist reasoning. A critical rationalist doesn't argue for critical rationalism on the grounds of something else -- critical rationalism is against that sort of thing -- it's just what's left after ruling out other self-defeating possibilities, like justificationism and fideism. I'm not saying "We have to believe this because that". I'm saying "We can't believe those because of themselves. This is what's left, so we're still free to believe this."
Yes, when you can, and if you don't see anything wrong with a particular belief yet, you can leave it for now and run with what you have. You don't have to prove that every belief you hold is completely immune to all possible criticism before you do anything; that would be justificationism again, and you could never get started at all.
Right, I got that. But if you decide a belief might be a problem, then you generate beliefs. First, that it might be a problem, then that you evaluation to keep it or get rid of it is sound, then whatever subevalutations in there.Quoting Pfhorrest
Also, even if it didn't hold up, I would be free on that account to continue holding that belief anyway, because that would be the rejection of all rationalism.
So, it's an apriori. IOW since it goes against your philosophy. But one can do this in justification systems, have axioms, and leave them alone.Quoting Pfhorrest
Fruit of the poisoned tree only applies to justificationist reasoning. A critical rationalist doesn't argue for critical rationalism on the grounds of something else -- critical rationalism is against that sort of thing -- it's just what's left after ruling out other self-defeating possibilities, like justificationism and fideism.
Are you sure that's why you do that? The moment you draw any conclusion, in your version of critical rationalism, you have a new belief? Then you must, according to the rule I quoted twice, check to see if there is any problem with it. Then you have new belief that you evaluated well that there is no problem. Then....
check to see if there is any problem with it. Then you have new belief that you evaluated well that there is no problem
I think this is where you're losing the point. Criticizing your beliefs isn't some kind of final permanent thing. You look to see if there are any problems; if you don't see any, you can keep it. But maybe later you will see some that you missed before, and then you should reject it. You're never certain. Certainty is impossible. That's the point. You're only ever narrowing in on the range of possibilities as you find problems, never settling on any one possibility with certainty.
I think this is where you're losing the point. Criticizing your beliefs isn't some kind of final permanent thing. You look to see if there are any problems; if you don't see any, you can keep it.
Beliefs don't have to be certain - as you've said yourself, one can be open to revision, but they are still beliefs -, nor are they in justification or most other epistemologies. You checked your belief (you believe) and now believe there wasn't a problem. That's two beliefs at least you just accumulated when there wasn't even a (n apparant) problem. Now the process would need to go on. Each time with a branching set of new beliefs.
If you remove
Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.
right off your approach is much stronger. With that in there, I see an infinite regress.
Reply to Coben Not every unending process is an infinite regress. Critical rationalism is more like an infinite progress. The problem with justificationism is that it says “before you believe that you need a reason”, but then before you believe that reason you need another reason, going back and back (regressing) forever (infinitely). The process of criticism never ends either, but it’s not demanding that you finish that infinite process before you can believe anything. It lets you believe whatever right off the bat, but then says to never stop trying to refine those beliefs to better and better ones.
Like I said about the infinite sea. There is no bottom, so to try to stay above water by standing on something that stands on something ... that stands on the bottom will just lead you to reaching down forever until you drown. But looking for more and more buoyant things to float on doesn’t have that problem; you’ll still never find a perfectly buoyant thing that will definitely keep you afloat forever, but at least you can make do with whatever you’ve found so far instead of sinking straight to the bottom looking in vain for something solid to stand on.
It lets you believe whatever right off the bat, but then says to never stop trying to refine those beliefs to better and better ones.
But the moment you actually start criticizing it's infinite, call it regress or progress. You will have to stop (to make dinner, to live) before resolving its own criteria. Only radical skeptic justificationists do not recognize that we find ourselves in the middle of life and already having beliefs. They also pick and choose, just like a critical rationalist has to, how much to criticize (and thus form even more beliefs), how time to put in, how to prioritize which beliefs to go after and so on. Quoting Pfhorrest
But looking for more and more buoyant things to float on doesn’t have that problem; you’ll still never find a perfectly buoyant thing that will definitely keep you afloat forever, but at least you can make do with whatever you’ve found so far instead of sinking straight to the bottom looking in vain for something solid to stand on.
You still missing the point. With that criterion that I've now quoted three times, you cannot do anything but criticize beliefs. Whether you are refining or not. Whether you don't care about the bottom or not. I'll quote it a fourth time....
Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself have
Everytime you criticize you generate new beliefs, more than one for each belief you criticize. To live up to that you have an infinite process.
Why not say something like this:
If you have seem to have a significant problem, see if a belief is involved that seems like it might be both causal and you have some reasons to think it is not correct, then reevaluate it or evaulate it for the first time.
But you seem to want to hang onto that statement and if you do, its got an infinite task for you and those new tasks arise immediately.
And jusitificationists often have apriori. Science has worked this way. Space and time were absolute, they just assumed this, Newton did. These were untested apriori. Einstein ripped that up. That's OK. I don't think a justificationist has to say that everything has to be justified. Oddly you are saying that every belief must be critiqued. Justificationists may not acknowledge that they have working assumptions - though some certainly do. Natural laws is another one that is showing cracks. I think a good number of quite justificationist people assume there is no demon controlling their consciousness or recognize that they might be brains in a vat and so on, but they consider it these working apriori. Something starts indicating they are a brain in a vat or we are all in a simulation, then they will take a peek at their assumption.
Pretty much anyone can have a wait until you think you need to reevaluate epistemology. In fact you pretty much have to. You can also accept that one is, for the time being, accepting paradigmatic assumptions,w hich one is free to work with or question. We find ourselves in the middle of time and knowledge.
One you say that every belief you have must be critiqued
or
every belief you have must be justified
Every guess I make is subject to change.
— Frank Apisa
The above statement: is it a belief, a judgement, a guess, an assessment, a stipulation or something else? Whatever you may call it, is it subject to change?
My statement "Every guess I make is subject to change"...
...is simply a statement of a truth about myself. I am telling you point blank that anytime I make a guess...that guess is not only labelled a "guess"...it IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
It certainly is not a guess...any more than the statement, "My first name is Frank" is a guess.
It is my opinion that our language would be better if it were to eliminate the use of the words "believe" or "belief." I acknowledge that others may be of the opposite opinion.
Infinite regress. If every belief has to be based on something then that needs to be based on something else that needs to be based on something else and so on forever,
Not really. One can think of it as a river where your rationality is at the lower reaches of the river where the water flows languidly past fields and houses. But if you want to understand the river you have to travel upstream, and it is not an infinite regress, travel far enough and you reach the source which might be a spring and one can understand that it is fed by the rain. It is the same with beliefs.
You will have to stop (to make dinner, to live) before resolving its own criteria. Only radical skeptic justificationists do not recognize that we find ourselves in the middle of life and already having beliefs.
The difference is that critical rationalism has built into it that that is the right way to proceed. The justificationist at least nominally says "don't believe anything at all until it's justified from the ground up". Of course they can't actually live like that, so they don't, but that's just a reason to reject justificationism: you can't actually get started on believing anything if you actually do what it says you should try to do. Critical rationalism on the other hands says you don't have to justify everything from the ground up before you're warranted to believe it. You're warranted to believe anything you want, unless you've found something that demands you reject it.
It might be better if I introduce a bit of my own philosophy here, which I've been trying not to do. I think that what's called "critical rationalism" is actually a combination of two principle, which I call "criticism" and "liberalism". "Criticism" is the rejection of fideism: the rejection of unquestionable beliefs. Criticism just says "consider everything open for question, always uncertain". That is the "rationalism" part of critical rationalism. That by itself is compatible with justificationism: you could question everything, and demand conclusive answers before you let yourself believe anything, rejecting all beliefs that can't be conclusively justified yet.
But my second principle, "liberalism", says not to do that: you are free (hence "liberalism") to think whatever you like, until you find reason not to. That by itself would be compatible with fideism, e.g. a religious person would say "so I'm free to believe in God then, thanks!" But that, obviously, would be to abandon rationalism: just "believe what you want lol no rules". So it has to be combined with criticism. "Critical rationalism" is rationalism inasmuch as it is critical (as all rationalism is), without the further demand that it be justificationist.
Reply to A Seagull If your river of beliefs can start from a spring or the rain, how do you know that the water flowing past you now isn't immediately spring water or rain water? Conversely, if you think you're at the headwaters, how do you know that there isn't further upstream you can still go?
If your river of beliefs can start from a spring or the rain, how do you know that the water flowing past you now isn't immediately spring water or rain water? Conversely, if you think you're at the headwaters, how do you know that there isn't further upstream you can still go?
fed by the rain. It is the same with beliefs — A Seagull
What are the axioms of belief which are free from doubt?
Maybe it doesn't have any axioms. Or maybe they are not free from doubt.
If you want to have axioms that are free from doubt then you have to do so in an abstract world. And if you believe in that abstract world, then you run the risk of being sure of a fantasy.
Reply to A Seagull The point is that if you refuse to believe anything until it's sufficiently grounded, but at some point you can just say "this is sufficient enough" and stop looking for further grounding for that, then at any point you could do that, and you've completely thrown out the principle of refusing to believe things until they're sufficiently grounded. You're admitting that there are some things that just don't need justification, than can just be taken on faith, for no reason; or else, if you stick to the principle, you never admit any belief in anything. Justificationism either leads you to reject all beliefs or accept arbitrary beliefs, and is therefore useless as a form of rationalism.
The difference is that critical rationalism has built into it that that is the right way to proceed.
Not if you think that every belief needs to be criticized. That is, the quote I have quoted. That is an utterly unrealistic demand.
] The justificationist at least nominally says "don't believe anything at all until it's justified from the ground up".
I just don't see that, not in practice. Scientists are justificationists in general, and they must know that not all assumptions have been demonstrated and they are revisionist at least in theory.Quoting Pfhorrest
Critical rationalism on the other hands says you don't have to justify everything from the ground up before you're warranted to believe it. You're warranted to believe anything you want, unless you've found something that demands you reject it.
Right but if we have that sentence I quoted as part of the system you might as well be a justificationist. You have an endless job the moment you have a single belief. If I meet a person who works with justification who says that every belief must be justified, I will 'harrass' them just as I am you. And it has happened. If I mean a critical rationalist who makes a statement like that, well, you see what happens. And this is not just me being a pedant. I have a mixed epistemology. I use intuition, justification, and critical rationalism. I decide sometimes to let things slide that may or may not be working.
I find most purists to be, bascially, putting them necessarily in the position of being hypocrites. If your critical rationalism did not have that statement, well, then I would have much less to say. But as long as you have that endless critique generator in there, I think it is unrealistic. In fact I don't believe, I will go so far to say, that you follow that quote. In fact I know you don't because you can't. I don't see why you can't withdraw that quote because it does not fit with what you are saying here or the supposed advantage over justificationism.
Any purist, whether empiricist, Rationalist, critical rationalist, and likely others, I disbelieve. I do not thing they live up to their system not can they. Any pure version of those is inhuman and unachievable. and that sentence puts you in that category.
That by itself is compatible with justificationism: you could question everything, and demand conclusive answers before you let yourself believe anything, rejecting all beliefs that can't be conclusively justified yet.
Actually you could not do this. It's the cognitive equivalent of hitting yourself with a hammer you can't even believe exists. You cannot believe the criteria of justification. You can't decide anything even to not decide. It's gibberish.Quoting Pfhorrest
But my second principle, "liberalism", says not to do that: you are free (hence "liberalism") to think whatever you like, until you find reason not to.
A sentence that does not go with the sentence I won't quote again but have four times. IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THAT SENTENCE.
But that, obviously, would be to abandon rationalism: just "believe what you want lol no rules".
I don't think that holds. But it's another issue and we can't seem to get around that sentence.
So, this is what I see. Four times I mentioned that sentence. You haven't really defended that sentence. What you have done, as far as I can tell, is defend a critical rationalism that does not fit with that sentence. When you describe that critical rationalism it sounds much better and I would say is almost defined by not having to follow that sentence.
You could have made a case for why that sentence fits, responded to my issues with that sentence and shown how I am wrong. But instead you are silent about it.
So, I have to stop here. I might have found a defense of that sentence weak or frustrating (or been convinced) but this just makes me think you just don't want to retract anything. But it ends up like I am dealing with someone who doesn't even notice what I am responding to. You may think you explained that sentence, but you did not. You didn't put your responses in relation to that sentence. You didn't counter my critique of that sentence. In fact you said things that precisely do not fit with that sentence and did not mention it. I'm gonna drop this now. Done.
Not if you think that every belief needs to be criticized. That is, the quote I have quoted. That is an utterly unrealistic demand.
I think you must think that that means something very different from what I mean, but I have no idea what it is you think it means. It just means "don't take anything as beyond question". "Question everything", eventually, when you can get around to it, or when it's called for. It doesn't mean "reject anything until you have finished thoroughly questioning it and found conclusive answers" -- that would be justificationism.
Scientists are critical rationalists in general. Falsificationism is the mainstream philosophy of science, and that is just critical rationalism applied to empirical knowledge. Both falsificationism and critical rationalism generally are products of Karl Popper.
But my second principle, "liberalism", says not to do that: you are free (hence "liberalism") to think whatever you like, until you find reason not to. — Pfhorrest
A sentence that does not go with the sentence I won't quote again but have four times. IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THAT SENTENCE.
Here we're getting at what you misunderstand about that sentence you keep harping on. That sentence says to reject fideism: to not take anything as beyond question. Liberalism is not the same thing as fideism, though I could see why you would be confused. I have a picture I use to illustrate:
(The bulk of what's labelled "cynicism" there is justificationism, though there are also other things that I think fall within "cynicism").
Critical rationalism is what I have labelled "critical liberalism" there. All rationalism falls within what I have labelled "criticism": not taking anything to be beyond question, not accepting fideism. But not all rationalism rejects "liberalism"; only justificationist, or otherwise "cynical" (as I call it) rationalism, does that. What is usually called critical rationalism is just rationalism that is not "cynical", so not justificationist; it is only rationalist inasmuch as it is "critical", but not going so far as to be "cynical".
Likewise fideism is a kind of "liberalism", but not all "liberalism" is fideistic; "liberalism" that still holds everything open to question, critically, is just non-"cynical". Not everything non-"cynical" is fideistic, and not everything non-fideistic is "cynical"; but everything non-"cynical" is "liberal", and everything non-fideistic is "critical", or rational, and the "criticism"/rationalism that is not "cynical", or the "liberalism" that is not fideistic, is critical rationalism / "critcal liberalism".
(Quotes around things that are my own slightly unusual terminology).
BitconnectCarlosMarch 02, 2020 at 22:14#3878250 likes
I am here, I am now, I have the appearance of certain things occurring.
Ok fair enough. But if those are axiomatic, which is what I assume you are suggesting, then you should be able to draw inferences from them. What inferences can you deduce from those axioms?
The point is that if you refuse to believe anything until it's sufficiently grounded, but at some point you can just say "this is sufficient enough" and stop looking for further grounding for that, then at any point you could do that, and you've completely thrown out the principle of refusing to believe things until they're sufficiently grounded. You're admitting that there are some things that just don't need justification, than can just be taken on faith, for no reason; or else, if you stick to the principle, you never admit any belief in anything. Justificationism either leads you to reject all beliefs or accept arbitrary beliefs, and is therefore useless as a form of rationalism.
My point is that if one follows the logical sequence of beliefs back to their source one eventually arrives at something that is not a belief. This applies to every belief.
My statement "Every guess I make is subject to change"...
...is simply a statement of a truth about myself. I am telling you point blank that anytime I make a guess...that guess is not only labelled a "guess"...it IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
It certainly is not a guess...any more than the statement, "My first name is Frank" is a guess.
Not sure what you are getting at?
Your statement expresses what you think is the truth about yourself; you could well be mistaken. Thus it is either a belief about yourself or a guess. The question is whether it is subject to revision.
Janus
8.8k
My statement "Every guess I make is subject to change"...
...is simply a statement of a truth about myself. I am telling you point blank that anytime I make a guess...that guess is not only labelled a "guess"...it IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
It certainly is not a guess...any more than the statement, "My first name is Frank" is a guess.
Not sure what you are getting at?
— Frank Apisa
Your statement expresses what you think is the truth about yourself; you could well be mistaken. Thus it is either a belief about yourself or a guess. The question is whether it is subject to revision.
WHAT THE FUCK DOES "EVERY GUESS I MAKE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE" MEAN TO YOU?
I know that every guess I make is subject to change. That is not a guess. And it is not a "belief"...which is nothing more than a GUESS in disguise.
Reply to Frank Apisa So according to you not every thought you have about yourself and the world is a guess? Apparently there is at least one which is not. Are there others?
I am not able to establish unshakable beliefs. Are you?
Why would you want to? I would think that it would be advantageous to only tentatively accept a given finding, and then if presented with better, contradictory evidence, then happily "shake the belief" and tentatively accept the updated info.
Janus
8.8k
?Frank Apisa So according to you not every thought you have about yourself and the world is a guess? Apparently there is at least one which is not. Are there others?
I can engage in a conversation about the value of a nihilistic or solipsistic perspective...but they invariably leave me cold. Just not my cup of tea, so to speak.
I apologize for the tenor of my previous post, but I am not interested in further discussion in that direction. I was just answering what I thought to be an interesting question.
Comments (78)
If you are talking about whether gods exist or not...
...just choose one...and stick with it. "Belief" in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess...using the word "belief" as a disguise.
Best way to do that is to toss a coin. Heads=there is at least one GOD. Tails=there are no gods.
Refuse to budge...and you have "unshakable belief."
Torturing babies for pleasure is morally wrong.
I do not mean any specific belief, i mean literally there isn't any belief i can justify. If i were trying to be specific, believe me i would.
Take 'Unshakable belief' in the philosophical context, please.
Refusing to disbelieve doesn't make it unshakable, it just means that you aren't. :)
Is that an unshakeable belief?
2+2=4. I doubt it.
The whole theory of mathematics are based on principles and axioms. Those are assumed to be self-evident. Like the Principle of Identity. Why is the Law of Identity assumed to be true? The only answer you'll get is, it is obvious. No it is not. It's a dogma, there is no proof. But in the end, it works fine, so we hold on to it for the sake of pragmaticality.
Math works, but it's not a belief, it's a language, and the system of this language are based axioms. I doubt axioms.
Torturing babies... Honestly, ethic beliefs are even harder to establish. They keep us alive. We feel it's wrong or right, but do you see how deep the questioning might go?
Not really. I doubt it as well.
What reason do you have to doubt all axioms?
Oh, many. The most simple one at least; no evidence for it to be true. It's blind belief. Isn't it? Why is the axiom true? Because it says so, hmmm.... let me think...
1 + 1 = 2. There you go, there is an unshakeable belief.
You can doubt anything you want including doubt itself. Why stop at doubting axioms? Why not doubt your doubt itself?
Most people...and I suspect YOU also...have an unshakable "belief" in gravity.
You can test it. Take a walk to the center of a bridge like the George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River...and put your "belief" to the test. See if it is "unshakable" or not.
I might not have any unshakable beliefs.
If by “unshakable” you mean certain, you can only be certain of one thing, you own existence. Its Decarte.
You can doubt the nature of your existence but not that you exist. “I think therefore I am.”
If by “unshakable” you mean something other than certainty then why would you want to have unshakable belief in anything? You should always be open to changing your belief if given better evidence or better reasoning. Unshakable belief is the basis for delusion, self deception and fanaticism.
I agree that mathematics rests on a set of speculative and arbitrary core beliefs, a set of axioms, which are even deemed to be circular. It is not possible to exclude logic itself from that consideration, because logic itself is also an axiomatic system. So, you cannot arrive at an unshakable belief by using logic. Science is even worse, because all its theories are deemed to have an expiry date.
In that sense, there are no unshakable beliefs unless you declare them to be such. It is your own decision what is unshakable to you. Choose wisely ...
Depending on for whose pleasure: yours or the babies'.
Because there might not be a computer. It might just be your brains interpretation of a signal.
I agree that even if so, you might be more certain about the experience of looking to a computer screen, but even your experience or existence might be an illusion.
Regarding the question about foundationalism; I doubt that the unshakable belief we are trying to find can be the ground for other beliefs. So it's not necessarily foundationalism, id rather say scepticism.
I ask this:"Why are my simple questions stronger than even the strongest philosophical arguments?"
We look for the truth in answers, might the truth be hidden in the question?
I wish Descartes doubted his doubt as well, might we have something better than the cogito argument?
A:i doubt
B:i am
C: A> B
Descartes accepts that he is a doubting (thinking) thing. Doubting is a state of being. How can you accept the your state of being, before you even come to a conclusion of your own existence?
He might not be really doubting.
Descartes is not creative about how good the evil demon might do his job.
If Matrix 4 comes out, and we find out the Real World (Zion) to be another Matrix, that'd be the creative evil demon I am looking for :-)
Well I hope this belief of yours is open to revision too.
...the act of doubting requires existence. Your “creative” demon still has to make sense, it cannot deceive something that doesnt exist.
My creative evil demon might have the ability to delude with logic, in which I am conditioned to it, and think that the evil demon should make sense, while 'making sense' itself is a trap.
You are using logic to justify a belief, where logic itself is -just like math- an axiomatic made up system. Logic itself is a belief.
Before trying to make me believe in the "cogito" argument, make me believe in logic, or ANYTHING ELSE.
Even in the logical system: doubting requires existence, to be able to doubt; one should exist. Therefore; one should prove that he exists first, before he can say that he doubts.
The cogito argument is wrong in so many ways, each day you can find another fallacy, if you do your homework...
Doubting is a state of being; the proposition "I doubt" is indifferent than proposition "I am an existing thing that doubts, therefore I exist". Do you see the circularity here? It's like saying I am, therefore I am. :-)
But again, circularities may not be fallacies. My problem is bigger than that here; I do not believe in logic.
#1
Our understanding or conceptualizing gravity might be false, or deficient to be true.(ie. not a pulling or pushing force, but a combination of both, or note even a force)
#2
It's empirical. Another huge problem.
I can count many other, but gravity is not really what I am looking for. The question is more epistemological, gravity does not really fit in here, trust me :-)
Is you belief that the empirical is a problem ever get shaken?
Perhaps that is another that might be unshakable.
Or that beliefs can change. That would seem to be an unshakeable belief of yours.
But I suppose my main point is that one shouldn't approach this as everyone. What might someone change their minds on. If there's something you haven't changed your mind on, then, so far, it's been unshakable. And then it seems some metabeliefs of yours are unshakable.
I do not have to "trust" you Monist.
I also have no "unshakable beliefs." In fact, I go you one better. I do not do "believing" at all.
I make guesses...which I properly call "guesses." Some people make guesses and call them "beliefs."
I make suppositions...which I properly call "suppositions." Some people make suppositions and call them "beliefs."
I make estimates...which I properly call "estimates." Some people make estimates and call them "beliefs."
The key to getting rid of all that "belief" nonsense (whether of the shakable or unshakable variety) is simply not to corrupt our guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like...by using the word "belief" as a disguise.
If you are not interested in making sense then there is nothing more to say. If you are going to offer nonsense as a an argument, then you have ended the discussion.
You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. Just because you can call it fallacious, or claim you do not believe in logic does not make it so. These are just empty, meaningless words and positions you are offering.
Things make sense, things happen in certain ways, there is a consistency to reality and that doesnt change just because you say it does. (Edited a grammar error.)
Anyway, like I said once you have resorted to nonsense as your argument you have checked out of the conversation.
How can you tell when you are be8ing irrational? Or rational for that matter?
Are your "guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like" unshakeable? Is your attitude against the idea of belief unshakeable? Or are you merely "paying lip service"?
None of my guesses are unshakable...if "unshakable" means "not subject to change."
Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change...as the circumstances that caused the guess, supposition or estimate...change.
My comment had to do with the use of "believe"...particularly in the context of questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.
Are those two "guesses" themselves subject to change?
Every guess I make is subject to change.
Not sure of what you supposed I was guessing about...but if you want a particular considered...tell me what the particular is.
that doesn't sound remotely like a guess, especially given it is universal.
Quoting Frank Apisa
The above statement: is it a belief, a judgement, a guess, an assessment, a stipulation or something else? Whatever you may call it, is it subject to change?
Your index of rationality sounds like something the Bellman from Hunting of the Snark would keep in his back pocket.
Also, a belief is just something you think is true. You don’t have to have absolute certainty for it to be a belief, just be disposed to answer “yes” (even if qualified by “probably” or “I think”) when asked if it’s true.
Why not?
What makes you think it is impossible??
Beliefs have to be based on something. And in fact it is important to base them on real things lest one ends up with only fantasies.
then you have to criticize each belief, then the belief that you should criticize every belief, then the beliefs that led you to think that you should criticize every beleif and so on. And then criticize each belief you form during the critique session about a particular belief - like 'my belief seems problematic because of X', but then I must critique my belief that it seems problematic because of X AND my belief that X is the case and so on. And then critical rationalism needs to be criticized, if you believe in it, but can one use a belief to critique a belief. IOW whatever epistemology you have to determine if a belief is ok, this will be the one you will use to check to see if that epistemology itself is ok. Which is fruit of the poisoned tree. And by the way, I am not saying we cannot have knowledge. I am just looking at your criterion and applying it to your own beliefs and I see infinite regress here too.
The difference between surviving criticism and bring justified from the ground up is that surviving criticism is the default state of any belief, whereas nothing is automatically justified-from-the-ground-up To begin with, all beliefs have survived the (zero) criticism they have been subjected to thus far — including belief in critical rationalism. That doesn’t mean that all beliefs are mandatory, just that all are permissible. Only when you find some reason why a belief doesn’t work must you reject it — but not in favor of any particular other belief, just in favor of some alternative or another. You can do this by showing a belief to be contrary to itself, or showing a contradiction between some set of beliefs in which case you have to pick which ones to throw out to solve that contradiction. You can only ever whittle away at (combinations of) things that aren't possible (together); you never narrow down to the one exact thing that is definitely absolutely certain, only a narrower range of possibilities.
Consider actions for analogy. Should we do nothing until we can justify from the ground up that that thing is the one absolutely certain best thing to do, or should we instead do whatever we want unless there is some good reason not to do that particular thing, and then instead do whatever else isn’t ruled out yet? Obviously the latter, or else we would never do anything at all. Just apply the same principle to belief as to action.
You are thrown into an infinite sea of uncertainty. If you insist on standing upon (something that stands upon something that stands upon...) the nonexistent bottom, you will just drown in your own doubts. Instead learn to float in the uncertainty by clinging to whatever is buoyant enough to bear your weight... until it isn’t, and then find something else to cling to instead.
Coincidentally, my thread last week about my essay Against Cynicism (which is mostly against justificationism) is about this very topic.
There is a difference between surviving and what you wrote....Please show me how my reasoning was off given that it was based on your assertion.
So you start a critique...well you have to beleive you have a belief - you could critique that. When you are critiquing a belief, you have to critique all the facets of the critique, since these will include beliefs and then that you identified the beliefs correctly, then any conclusions you draw are new beliefs....it doesn't matter if it's justification or not, you are still critiquing which will involve identifying beliefs, a process, beliefs aobut a good process conclusions and more. it has to have a regress.
Quoting PfhorrestPrecisely, there is an infinite regress if one truly follows the protocols of critical rationalism. Note that deciding there is a good reason, or not, would entail a belief. believing that one notices good reasons. And on and on. But note you are not really doing critical rationalism. You are doing your own idiosyncatic version. Which is fine. But it seems to me what you are saying is you simply don't follow through on the implications. One can do this with justification also. Have some axioms.
Yes, when you can, and if you don't see anything wrong with a particular belief yet, you can leave it for now and run with what you have. You don't have to prove that every belief you hold is completely immune to all possible criticism before you do anything; that would be justificationism again, and you could never get started at all.
Yup, and that's holding up well so far, so keeping that for now.
Also, even if it didn't hold up, I would be free on that account to continue holding that belief anyway, because that would be the rejection of all rationalism.
That would be the problems with fideism. Criticism is just what's left after fideism is rejected on account of its own problems.
If the reason for rejecting belief Y is that is contradicts belief in non-X, then you can either reject Y or reject non-X.
Of course, you should see if there is anything problematic with the belief that Y and non-X contradict, and if there is then you should reject that, and then you're free to keep believing Y and non-X. If there's not anything problematic that you see, then you're back to having to choose between Y and non-X.
Fruit of the poisoned tree only applies to justificationist reasoning. A critical rationalist doesn't argue for critical rationalism on the grounds of something else -- critical rationalism is against that sort of thing -- it's just what's left after ruling out other self-defeating possibilities, like justificationism and fideism. I'm not saying "We have to believe this because that". I'm saying "We can't believe those because of themselves. This is what's left, so we're still free to believe this."
So, it's an apriori. IOW since it goes against your philosophy. But one can do this in justification systems, have axioms, and leave them alone.Quoting PfhorrestAre you sure that's why you do that? The moment you draw any conclusion, in your version of critical rationalism, you have a new belief? Then you must, according to the rule I quoted twice, check to see if there is any problem with it. Then you have new belief that you evaluated well that there is no problem. Then....
I think this is where you're losing the point. Criticizing your beliefs isn't some kind of final permanent thing. You look to see if there are any problems; if you don't see any, you can keep it. But maybe later you will see some that you missed before, and then you should reject it. You're never certain. Certainty is impossible. That's the point. You're only ever narrowing in on the range of possibilities as you find problems, never settling on any one possibility with certainty.
If you remove
right off your approach is much stronger. With that in there, I see an infinite regress.
Like I said about the infinite sea. There is no bottom, so to try to stay above water by standing on something that stands on something ... that stands on the bottom will just lead you to reaching down forever until you drown. But looking for more and more buoyant things to float on doesn’t have that problem; you’ll still never find a perfectly buoyant thing that will definitely keep you afloat forever, but at least you can make do with whatever you’ve found so far instead of sinking straight to the bottom looking in vain for something solid to stand on.
Everytime you criticize you generate new beliefs, more than one for each belief you criticize. To live up to that you have an infinite process.
Why not say something like this:
If you have seem to have a significant problem, see if a belief is involved that seems like it might be both causal and you have some reasons to think it is not correct, then reevaluate it or evaulate it for the first time.
But you seem to want to hang onto that statement and if you do, its got an infinite task for you and those new tasks arise immediately.
And jusitificationists often have apriori. Science has worked this way. Space and time were absolute, they just assumed this, Newton did. These were untested apriori. Einstein ripped that up. That's OK. I don't think a justificationist has to say that everything has to be justified. Oddly you are saying that every belief must be critiqued. Justificationists may not acknowledge that they have working assumptions - though some certainly do. Natural laws is another one that is showing cracks. I think a good number of quite justificationist people assume there is no demon controlling their consciousness or recognize that they might be brains in a vat and so on, but they consider it these working apriori. Something starts indicating they are a brain in a vat or we are all in a simulation, then they will take a peek at their assumption.
Pretty much anyone can have a wait until you think you need to reevaluate epistemology. In fact you pretty much have to. You can also accept that one is, for the time being, accepting paradigmatic assumptions,w hich one is free to work with or question. We find ourselves in the middle of time and knowledge.
One you say that every belief you have must be critiqued
or
every belief you have must be justified
then both approaches get silly.
My statement "Every guess I make is subject to change"...
...is simply a statement of a truth about myself. I am telling you point blank that anytime I make a guess...that guess is not only labelled a "guess"...it IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
It certainly is not a guess...any more than the statement, "My first name is Frank" is a guess.
Not sure what you are getting at?
Not really. One can think of it as a river where your rationality is at the lower reaches of the river where the water flows languidly past fields and houses. But if you want to understand the river you have to travel upstream, and it is not an infinite regress, travel far enough and you reach the source which might be a spring and one can understand that it is fed by the rain. It is the same with beliefs.
What are the axioms of belief which are free from doubt?
The difference is that critical rationalism has built into it that that is the right way to proceed. The justificationist at least nominally says "don't believe anything at all until it's justified from the ground up". Of course they can't actually live like that, so they don't, but that's just a reason to reject justificationism: you can't actually get started on believing anything if you actually do what it says you should try to do. Critical rationalism on the other hands says you don't have to justify everything from the ground up before you're warranted to believe it. You're warranted to believe anything you want, unless you've found something that demands you reject it.
It might be better if I introduce a bit of my own philosophy here, which I've been trying not to do. I think that what's called "critical rationalism" is actually a combination of two principle, which I call "criticism" and "liberalism". "Criticism" is the rejection of fideism: the rejection of unquestionable beliefs. Criticism just says "consider everything open for question, always uncertain". That is the "rationalism" part of critical rationalism. That by itself is compatible with justificationism: you could question everything, and demand conclusive answers before you let yourself believe anything, rejecting all beliefs that can't be conclusively justified yet.
But my second principle, "liberalism", says not to do that: you are free (hence "liberalism") to think whatever you like, until you find reason not to. That by itself would be compatible with fideism, e.g. a religious person would say "so I'm free to believe in God then, thanks!" But that, obviously, would be to abandon rationalism: just "believe what you want lol no rules". So it has to be combined with criticism. "Critical rationalism" is rationalism inasmuch as it is critical (as all rationalism is), without the further demand that it be justificationist.
If your river of beliefs can start from a spring or the rain, how do you know that the water flowing past you now isn't immediately spring water or rain water? Conversely, if you think you're at the headwaters, how do you know that there isn't further upstream you can still go?
Do you have a point? If so, what is it?
Maybe it doesn't have any axioms. Or maybe they are not free from doubt.
If you want to have axioms that are free from doubt then you have to do so in an abstract world. And if you believe in that abstract world, then you run the risk of being sure of a fantasy.
I am here, I am now, I have the appearance of certain things occurring.
I find most purists to be, bascially, putting them necessarily in the position of being hypocrites. If your critical rationalism did not have that statement, well, then I would have much less to say. But as long as you have that endless critique generator in there, I think it is unrealistic. In fact I don't believe, I will go so far to say, that you follow that quote. In fact I know you don't because you can't. I don't see why you can't withdraw that quote because it does not fit with what you are saying here or the supposed advantage over justificationism.
Any purist, whether empiricist, Rationalist, critical rationalist, and likely others, I disbelieve. I do not thing they live up to their system not can they. Any pure version of those is inhuman and unachievable. and that sentence puts you in that category.
Quoting PfhorrestActually you could not do this. It's the cognitive equivalent of hitting yourself with a hammer you can't even believe exists. You cannot believe the criteria of justification. You can't decide anything even to not decide. It's gibberish.Quoting Pfhorrest
A sentence that does not go with the sentence I won't quote again but have four times. IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THAT SENTENCE.
Quoting PfhorrestQuoting Pfhorrest
I don't think that holds. But it's another issue and we can't seem to get around that sentence.
So, this is what I see. Four times I mentioned that sentence. You haven't really defended that sentence. What you have done, as far as I can tell, is defend a critical rationalism that does not fit with that sentence. When you describe that critical rationalism it sounds much better and I would say is almost defined by not having to follow that sentence.
You could have made a case for why that sentence fits, responded to my issues with that sentence and shown how I am wrong. But instead you are silent about it.
So, I have to stop here. I might have found a defense of that sentence weak or frustrating (or been convinced) but this just makes me think you just don't want to retract anything. But it ends up like I am dealing with someone who doesn't even notice what I am responding to. You may think you explained that sentence, but you did not. You didn't put your responses in relation to that sentence. You didn't counter my critique of that sentence. In fact you said things that precisely do not fit with that sentence and did not mention it. I'm gonna drop this now. Done.
I think you must think that that means something very different from what I mean, but I have no idea what it is you think it means. It just means "don't take anything as beyond question". "Question everything", eventually, when you can get around to it, or when it's called for. It doesn't mean "reject anything until you have finished thoroughly questioning it and found conclusive answers" -- that would be justificationism.
Quoting Coben
Scientists are critical rationalists in general. Falsificationism is the mainstream philosophy of science, and that is just critical rationalism applied to empirical knowledge. Both falsificationism and critical rationalism generally are products of Karl Popper.
Quoting Coben
Here we're getting at what you misunderstand about that sentence you keep harping on. That sentence says to reject fideism: to not take anything as beyond question. Liberalism is not the same thing as fideism, though I could see why you would be confused. I have a picture I use to illustrate:
(The bulk of what's labelled "cynicism" there is justificationism, though there are also other things that I think fall within "cynicism").
Critical rationalism is what I have labelled "critical liberalism" there. All rationalism falls within what I have labelled "criticism": not taking anything to be beyond question, not accepting fideism. But not all rationalism rejects "liberalism"; only justificationist, or otherwise "cynical" (as I call it) rationalism, does that. What is usually called critical rationalism is just rationalism that is not "cynical", so not justificationist; it is only rationalist inasmuch as it is "critical", but not going so far as to be "cynical".
Likewise fideism is a kind of "liberalism", but not all "liberalism" is fideistic; "liberalism" that still holds everything open to question, critically, is just non-"cynical". Not everything non-"cynical" is fideistic, and not everything non-fideistic is "cynical"; but everything non-"cynical" is "liberal", and everything non-fideistic is "critical", or rational, and the "criticism"/rationalism that is not "cynical", or the "liberalism" that is not fideistic, is critical rationalism / "critcal liberalism".
(Quotes around things that are my own slightly unusual terminology).
You have endless patience.
Ok fair enough. But if those are axiomatic, which is what I assume you are suggesting, then you should be able to draw inferences from them. What inferences can you deduce from those axioms?
My point is that if one follows the logical sequence of beliefs back to their source one eventually arrives at something that is not a belief. This applies to every belief.
Your statement expresses what you think is the truth about yourself; you could well be mistaken. Thus it is either a belief about yourself or a guess. The question is whether it is subject to revision.
WHAT THE FUCK DOES "EVERY GUESS I MAKE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE" MEAN TO YOU?
I know that every guess I make is subject to change. That is not a guess. And it is not a "belief"...which is nothing more than a GUESS in disguise.
Why would you want to? I would think that it would be advantageous to only tentatively accept a given finding, and then if presented with better, contradictory evidence, then happily "shake the belief" and tentatively accept the updated info.
I can engage in a conversation about the value of a nihilistic or solipsistic perspective...but they invariably leave me cold. Just not my cup of tea, so to speak.
I apologize for the tenor of my previous post, but I am not interested in further discussion in that direction. I was just answering what I thought to be an interesting question.