debate

[memimemi]

ii) Yes.  To do otherwise is to deny the phenomenon of religious belief.  Tertullian's "credo qua absurdum;" Kirkegaard's 'leap of faith:' for many, knowledge of how God performs his divine acts is in direct contravention with faith in God, which is isopomorphic with belief in God. 

iii) First, we need to separate the concepts of '(absolute) Truth' from mere truth.  The former, were it to be a consistant quality, must not be false in any way at all.  The latter, however, has no such strict requirement.  Look at the scientific method: all truths are conditionial.  Does this mean that science is not a means of garnering knowledge?  Did Ptolemy not 'know' that the planets followed their unusual epicycles, on their paths around the Earth?  Human-level truths are necessarily conditionial - until such a time as we become omniscient, we have no way of knowing whether any true statement is absolutely true.

ii) All the religious belief I have encountered is more similar to believing despite having evidence against (know of no mechanism) rather than despite having solid proof (know no mechanism exists) against.

iii) I think I understand. You are using truth to describe our perception of a statement rather than describing the truth value of the statement. Is this accurate?

ii) You echo my point.  In no case is knowledge directly implied by belief; belief, however, may be caused by sure knowledge.  Knowledge is our best-fit theory to fit the facts; belief does not require factual evidence.  I believe that Nessie is a holdover of the Reptilian aliens, who are responsible for crop circles and Cadbury's refusal to give up the Caramilk secret.  Do you not agree that I may hold these beliefs, without evidence, with (filtered through Confirmation Bias) evidence, or even despite evidence?

Religious belief is the same, essentially.  Mind you, my example was obviously hyperbole - but I'm sure you can find analogous arguments without me having to offend anybody's faith.

iii) Almost.  I'm saying that the very concept of 'absolute Truth' is beyond our ability to comprehend, due to conditional status of our ability to discern it.  We can agree that a rose is pretty; can we place an absolute Truth value on the statement "Roses are intrinsically beautiful?"  If we are to remain honest with ourselves, we must keep in mind that we, as finite creatures, cannot take a position outside of Truth, in order to ascertain/disprove its existence.  We can only infer our localized truths, from our explorations of reality, and agreement across a population as to the results. 

In the end, what I'm saying is that our perception of local truth places a hard limit on our ability to recognize and/or comprehend an Absolute Truth(ness?).

[pervepic]

I am able to bring quotes too from the same source you used. Did you quoted a sentence about logical tautology on purpose, even after I was saying that I was speaking about rhetorical tautology? Here it is:

"Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct". "Believing absolutely is foolish" or "irrationality is foolish" is pretty much that, although may not be a tautology in its purest form.

About the paradox:

"A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason, similar to circular reasoning." Paradox is a contradiction, which can be true: "Veridical paradoxes, such as the birthday paradox, which are seeming absurdities that are nevertheless true because they are perfectly logical."

You can argue with Quine if you want, but some paradoxes (they are contradictions too) can be true. Often they are true and false at the same time. So if I saying using the universal form of the sentence that "believing absolutely in something is foolish" then if this sentence is true then I can't believe that sentence absolutely (universally?) and therefore believing absolutely in something may not be foolish. If it is true then it is false. What we have here is a paradoxical and rhetorically tautological derivation from a truism.

[OldTrees]

I am able to bring quotes too from the same source you used. Did you quoted a sentence about logical tautology on purpose, even after I was saying that I was speaking about rhetorical tautology? Here it is:

"Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct". "Believing absolutely is foolish" or "irrationality is foolish" is pretty much that, although may not be a tautology in its purest form.

About the paradox:

"A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason, similar to circular reasoning." Paradox is a contradiction, which can be true: "Veridical paradoxes, such as the birthday paradox, which are seeming absurdities that are nevertheless true because they are perfectly logical."

You can argue with Quine if you want, but some paradoxes (they are contradictions too) can be true. Often they are true and false at the same time. So if I saying using the universal form of the sentence that "believing absolutely in something is foolish" then if this sentence is true then I can't believe that sentence absolutely (universally?) and therefore believing absolutely in something may not be foolish. If it is true then it is false. What we have here is a paradoxical and rhetorically tautological derivation from a truism.

Sorry. I do not see a significant difference between the tautologies. All of them have the same form from my understanding. I used the logic one because logic is purer than rhetoric.

Tautology is in the form where the conclusion is the premise. The premises of the statement "Believing absolutely is foolish" are "Believing absolutely is ignoring the possibility of error", "Ignoring the possibility of error is irrational" and "Being irrational is foolish". This is of the form:
A -> B
B -> C
C -> D
Therefore A -> D
This is linear not cyclical. It needs to be cyclical to be a tautology.

There are 4 states of belief relevent to the statement: absolute belief, belief, disbelief, absolute disbelief
If I absolutely believe the statement then I would be a fool.
If I believe the statement then I would not be a fool for my belief is not absolute.
If I disbelieve the statement then I would not be a fool for my disbelief is not absolute.
If I absolutely disbelieve the statement then the statement would claim I would be a fool.
Only the first is self contradicting.
If the statement is true then the 1st and 4th are irrational, the 3rd is mistaken and the 2nd is both rational and correct.
If the statement is false then the 1st and 2nd are mistaken and the 3rd and 4th are correct.
It is not similar to the Veridical paradoxes.

[pervepic]

I didn't say that it is a Veridical paradox, but I said that a contradiction can be true (what you just denied previously). Since our main sentence is expressed in the universal form and doesn't express any doubt about itself whatsoever (using words "sometimes", "often" etc); it doesn't say that it can be wrong itself, therefore it can't be a "just belief" or "mere belief" or even "belief" about itself, but something very similar to that what it seems to deny. But the vague term "absolute belief" leaves some room for different interpretations, of course. Since this sentence is so opaque, as I have said like a mockingbird several times, there is just no point to use most strict mathematical logic here. But the most narrow definitions of contradiction and tautology can be used to try to object me. Some people just can't admit that they were wrong.

If we use a normal human language and not just letters and empty formulas or try to define a tautology through mathematical cycle (which is just ridiculous in case of the rhetorical tautology I spoke), then a tautology is a way to use different words say the same thing, which were already assumed. But since new words are used, some new (no matter how tiny) aspects of meanings are already present with them. This means that sentence can be more or less tautological. Things are not always black and white ("pure") like you assume.

As I said, it is hard to see why "belief" is relevant to the statement itself, because it is not expressed, it doesn't say that it can be wrong itself, but the concrete universal form of the statement is present and expressed and that makes the whole sentence look like a classical self-contradiction. And tautological elements are still there. I quess that mockingbird stops to repeat himself about this topic, but will open his mouth again if he sees counter-arguments that are not artificial.

[OldTrees]

I didn't say that it is a Veridical paradox, but I said that a contradiction can be true (what you just denied previously). Since our main sentence is expressed in the universal form and doesn't express any doubt about itself whatsoever (using words "sometimes", "often" etc); it doesn't say that it can be wrong itself, therefore it can't be a "just belief" or "mere belief" or even "belief" about itself, but something very similar to that what it seems to deny. But the vague term "absolute belief" leaves some room for different interpretations, of course. Since this sentence is so opaque, as I have said like a mockingbird several times, there is just no point to use most strict mathematical logic here. But the most narrow definitions of contradiction and tautology can be used to try to object me. Some people just can't admit that they were wrong.

If we use a normal human language and not just letters and empty formulas or try to define a tautology through mathematical cycle (which is just ridiculous in case of the rhetorical tautology I spoke), then a tautology is a way to use different words say the same thing, which were already assumed. But since new words are used, some new (no matter how tiny) aspects of meanings are already present with them. This means that sentence can be more or less tautological. Things are not always black and white ("pure") like you assume.

As I said, it is hard to see why "belief" is relevant to the statement itself, because it is not expressed, it doesn't say that it can be wrong itself, but the concrete universal form of the statement is present and expressed and that makes the whole sentence look like a classical self-contradiction. And tautological elements are still there. I quess that mockingbird stops to repeat himself about this topic, but will open his mouth again if he sees counter-arguments that are not artificial.

This is why we use context (the conversation the quote comes from) and assume the speaker can read what they wrote. It was evident to everyone in the conversation that the statement was not believed absolutely. Words are symbols for meaning. Sometimes the meaning is contextual.

I am sorry but I do not see how 2 descriptive premises, 1 normative premise and 1 normative conclusion count as being tautological. Descriptive statements and Normative statements say drastically different things.
Finally is your definition of rhetorical tautology equivalent to taking a statement of the form of P->Q and then changing to R->S where R and S are synonyms of P and Q? If the synonyms have to be exact then the statement is not a rhetorical tautology. If the synonyms can contain new information then all valid arguments could be classified as rhetorical tautologies. This would render rhetorical tautologies and insignificant classification.
Is there a rhetorical tautology in: "All cats are mammals." "All mammals are warm blooded." "All cats are warm blooded."

[pervepic]

Damn, once more I couldn't resist. I hope that this is the last time.

Where are those evident contextual meanings, again? Although everybody may assume that but it wasn't there, at least in the first post and the written sentence. The last one is that we should analyze, not to derive meanings from the other sources and create assumtions that weren't written down.

"I am sorry but I do not see how 2 descriptive premises, 1 normative premise and 1 normative conclusion count as being tautological. Descriptive statements and Normative statements say drastically different things"

You may even create more normative and descripive premises that could mean different things. Why only 3? There should be some semi-steps etc. I haven't said that I agree with those and therefore haven't said anything about their tautological potential. Don't put wrong words in my mouth, again. What I said is that "believing absolutely" is basically a nonsense and contradiction (yes, again, and I'm not gonna repeat that) which is used by others to describe us as fools - this is pretty much its only meaning.

"Finally is your definition of rhetorical tautology equivalent to taking a statement of the form of P->Q and then changing to R->S where R and S are synonyms of P and Q?"

I'm not here to create exhaustive definitions and don't have my own. I just used a given one.

"If the synonyms have to be exact then the statement is not a rhetorical tautology."

Mh?

"If the synonyms can contain new information then all valid arguments could be classified as rhetorical tautologies."

Why? All valid arguments are using synonyms?

 This would render rhetorical tautologies and insignificant classification. Is there a rhetorical tautology in: "All cats are mammals." "All mammals are warm blooded." "All cats are warm blooded."

Do you understand that every word, even synonyms, have slightly different meanings  because they are used differently and in the different context. That doesn't mean that every argument is tautological or something. The circle of understanding (hermeneutical circle) is a different thing. Something like formal logic has made some serious damage here.

[OldTrees]

Damn, once more I couldn't resist. I hope that this is the last time.

Where are those evident contextual meanings, again? Although everybody may assume that but it wasn't there, at least in the first post and the written sentence. The last one is that we should analyze, not to derive meanings from the other sources and create assumtions that weren't written down.

Opening post

since there arent any sections dedicated to the ever-enjoyable sport of debate, i felt one should be posted. i felt philosophy is a nice home for it too. so without further ado, lets start things off.

i feel that absolutely believing something is true is foolish.
any retorts or personal elaborations?

Note the use of the word "feel" opposed to "know" or "claim".
Note the request for retorts. Something that is only done by those that are not ignoring the possibility of error.
Note that the discussion continues to talk about doubt and skepticism. It should be assumed that someone that is skeptical would be skeptical about skepticism.

What I said is that "believing absolutely" is basically a nonsense and contradiction (yes, again, and I'm not gonna repeat that) which is used by others to describe us as fools - this is pretty much its only meaning.

Believing absolutely (aka not considering the possibility of error) is neither nonsense nor a contradiction. It describes ignoring the possibility of error. This is possible to do. Since it is possible to do, a term describing it is no nonsense. Even if you don't ignore the possibility for error there exist those that do. In fact there are those that take pride in ignoring doubt even when faced with evidence. It can be misused to label those that do not ignore the possibility of error as fools. However all terms can be misapplied so the possibility of misapplication is not a legitimate critique. You claim that it is only used as Ad Hominem. This is not so. I have been using the term yet have not yet labeled anyone with it. Obviously it has a use beyond calling people fools.

[pervepic]

"Note the use of the word "feel" opposed to "know" or "claim"."

Where? You just assume that? Units feeling doesn't matter anyway, what came next should be analyzed. Unit doesn't point that his feelings about the next statement should be the object of discussion.

"Note the request for retorts. Something that is only done by those that are not ignoring the possibility of error."

It can be a just a polite gesture or whatever.  It can be also a task thrown on us - like "do you see a paradox here?" Shouldn't concentrate on people and their possible state of mind but only look at the statement that was presented us as a task.

"Note that the discussion continues to talk about doubt and skepticism. It should be assumed that someone that is skeptical would be skeptical about skepticism."

Doesn't matter how it continues. The problematic statement was already thrown up.  Skeptics are usually skeptical about skepticism? What makes them skeptics then? How they differ from non-skeptics that are skeptical about skepticism?

"Believing absolutely (aka not considering the possibility of error) is neither nonsense nor a contradiction. It describes ignoring the possibility of error. This is possible to do. Since it is possible to do, a term describing it is no nonsense. Even if you don't ignore the possibility for error there exist those that do. In fact there are those that take pride in ignoring doubt even when faced with evidence. It can be misused to label those that do not ignore the possibility of error as fools. However all terms can be misapplied so the possibility of misapplication is not a legitimate critique. You claim that it is only used as Ad Hominem. This is not so. I have been using the term yet have not yet labeled anyone with it. Obviously it has a use beyond calling people fools."

Something that I wanted to add and why I started this post: Yes, it is possible to ignore the possibility of error, but only then if you are aware of that possibility of error. Then you can forget about it for a while. If you don't know that there is a possibility of error, then you can't ignore it. Now, usually I can believe in something (know the possibility of error) and know something (don't know the possibility of error, I hold that my belief is quite necessarily true). "Absolute belief" is something I don't meet in relation to myself, because it is impossible to know (as believer) and not to know (as a knower, since my belief is absolute) the possibility of error at the same time. From where its meaning and usage comes from? It can come from only from the others who have the perspective to myself and my beliefs which I don't have. Only they can see that I am stupid or make errors and believe in something absolutely that is not true. I can perceive myself only as thinking and knowing, but for them my thinking may be stupidity and knowing is "absolute believing". Of course I can try to see myself as others do, like "stupid" for example, but this remains an empty word for me, because I don't have that necessary distance from myself as others do. Of course I can see others "stupid" in the same way as they see me. But I can't see much non-contradictory usage of the "absolute belief" which doesn't refer to my (or their) foolishness or errenousness, because it is something that reduces my (or their) knowing to believing. This fool-making process gives life to this phenomenon, because it is hard to see how it can exist in itself, without it.

[OldTrees]

"Note the use of the word "feel" opposed to "know" or "claim"."

Where? You just assume that? Units feeling doesn't matter anyway, what came next should be analyzed. Unit doesn't point that his feelings about the next statement should be the object of discussion.

"Note the request for retorts. Something that is only done by those that are not ignoring the possibility of error."

It can be a just a polite gesture or whatever.  It can be also a task thrown on us - like "do you see a paradox here?" Shouldn't concentrate on people and their possible state of mind but only look at the statement that was presented us as a task.

Where? In the OP. In the statement.
Do the feelings matter? Yes, they are context about whether the belief is believed absolutely (a contradiction) or believed (consistent).
You are the one that are questioning the contextual verbal shorthand used. You are the one that made delving into the context necessary for the discussion.
If you desire to take the statement out of context and thus lose important information then I can't stop you. However I will warn you one last time that some of the context is required to clarify the consistency of the statement.

"Note that the discussion continues to talk about doubt and skepticism. It should be assumed that someone that is skeptical would be skeptical about skepticism."

Doesn't matter how it continues. The problematic statement was already thrown up.  Skeptics are usually skeptical about skepticism? What makes them skeptics then? How they differ from non-skeptics that are skeptical about skepticism?

If one does not apply the principles of skepticism to a subset of ideas, then one is being arbitrary in their usage. A skeptic is not arbitrary in their usage. A skeptic would not not apply the principles of skepticism to skepticism.

"Believing absolutely (aka not considering the possibility of error) is neither nonsense nor a contradiction. It describes ignoring the possibility of error. This is possible to do. Since it is possible to do, a term describing it is no nonsense. Even if you don't ignore the possibility for error there exist those that do. In fact there are those that take pride in ignoring doubt even when faced with evidence. It can be misused to label those that do not ignore the possibility of error as fools. However all terms can be misapplied so the possibility of misapplication is not a legitimate critique. You claim that it is only used as Ad Hominem. This is not so. I have been using the term yet have not yet labeled anyone with it. Obviously it has a use beyond calling people fools."

Something that I wanted to add and why I started this post: Yes, it is possible to ignore the possibility of error, but only then if you are aware of that possibility of error. Then you can forget about it for a while. If you don't know that there is a possibility of error, then you can't ignore it. Now, usually I can believe in something (know the possibility of error) and know something (don't know the possibility of error, I hold that my belief is quite necessarily true). "Absolute belief" is something I don't meet in relation to myself, because it is impossible to know (as believer) and not to know (as a knower, since my belief is absolute) the possibility of error at the same time. From where its meaning and usage comes from? It can come from only from the others who have the perspective to myself and my beliefs which I don't have. Only they can see that I am stupid or make errors and believe in something absolutely that is not true. I can perceive myself only as thinking and knowing, but for them my thinking may be stupidity and knowing is "absolute believing". Of course I can try to see myself as others do, like "stupid" for example, but this remains an empty word for me, because I don't have that necessary distance from myself as others do. Of course I can see others "stupid" in the same way as they see me. But I can't see much non-contradictory usage of the "absolute belief" which doesn't refer to my (or their) foolishness or errenousness, because it is something that reduces my (or their) knowing to believing. This fool-making process gives life to this phenomenon, because it is hard to see how it can exist in itself, without it.

I have been using ignore to symbolize a concept that would not require knowing the possibility of error. If you have a better word to describe this concept I am trying to communicate, please let me know and mentally substitute it.

If you hold a belief to be necessarily true when it is not then it is not knowledge. Learning of the possibility of error would not change knowledge to belief. Rather it would change your perspective of your belief from thinking it was knowledge to noticing it was not knowledge.

Additionally one can believe an idea, know of the possibility of error and still ignore that possibility. Take a debater that is not willing to consider the opposing position. They have a belief (their position). They know of the possibility of error (there is a 2nd position). They still ignore the possibility (they do not consider the opposing position). A person in this position would be able to use the statement as a reminder to not ignore the other position. Note that this usage is neither Ad Hominem nor contradictory.

[pervepic]

Paradox remains a paradox, no matter anybody feels about it. It has its clear form. Learn to see the difference between relevant and irrelevant context.

Then, learn to see what paradox is. If you are saying that skeptics are skeptical about skepticism, then you just throw out the most classical self-contradiction.

Then, learn to see that there are almost no necessary truths (and knowledge) in this world except analytical. Scientific truths and knowledge has changed a lot through the history. If we define "knowledge" too strictly then it's gonna be empty of meaning. Mostly even scientific truths (and knowledge) are not even strictly necessary truths, because nothing guarantees their necessity - it is possible that things are different tomorrow.  Anomalies are never excluded. Causality is a matter of interpretation. Read more and write less, that would change too limited understanding.

Try to get rid of misreadings. I didn't say that believing and some ignoring of possibilities of error are contradictory, but I said that believing absolutely is contradictory.

End of discussion from my side, because there is nothing to discuss. Good luck!



I

[OldTrees]

I do not expect you to respond. However I will defend my claims and myself.

"Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere."

If someone questioned all ideas except the idea of questioning all ideas then they would not be self consistent. Aka the blind skeptic
If someone questioned all ideas they would be self consistent. Aka the rational skeptic

I made honest effort to try to understand your points. When I first voiced my confusion you responded with "Dream on." as if my being confused was ridiculous and absurd. Perhaps you were not as clear as you think. I will try harder "to get rid of misreadings". You should try harder "to dispel confusion and communicate to your audience".

[memimemi]

Synthesis:

You've both forgotten that there is a more reasonable reading of 'skepticism.'  The Scientific Method is a good example - all truths are conditional; evidence must be present, and independently verified; all data accepted as facts must be falsifiable (a la Popper); and all truths accepted must pass a strict application of Occam's Razor.

This, I think, is not only a median position in what is quickly devolving into an argument, but also a generally acceptable definition of the Skeptic's position. 

In the case of logic and incompleteness (whence started all this jazz), a rational skeptic's position (if I may consider myself such) is that all proofs within any given logic system must pass the standard tests of truth (consistency, etc); any Knowledge based solely on logic is necessarily incomplete - hence the need for physical evidence when applying facts to truths about reality.

Note that any self-referential system (including our own minds!) requires the application of an outside system to answer questions/prove many (an infinite number of, in fact) points about itself.

Belief, on the other hand, is also not enough for knowledge, unless OldTrees is not yet satisfied on that point.

So, what do we have left for a solid and sure epistemology, before we bicker about its applications?