debate

[dreadwoe]

aww i thought i sounded smart, but everything I say just comes out wrong.

[microman362]

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?

First of all, I'd like to thank you for starting this thread. Debate is always fun! Okay, not always, but it usually is. But without further ado...

I think what you are describing here is radical skepticism. Wikipedia sums it up nicely: "Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified."

One can prove that believing in something is *not* foolish by proving the all-inclusive opposite to be false, by proving that radical skepticism is foolish.

Radical skepticism is psychologically impossible!

David Hume, who was and is one of the most famous skeptics, wrote that "[a] true sceptic will be diffident in his philosophical doubts, as well as of his philosophical conviction; and will never refuse any innocent satisfaction, which offers itself, upon account of either of them." I rather like the way Oliver A. Johnson describes Hume's view in this passage from Skepticism and Cognitivism: A Study in the Foundations of Knowledge:

But Hume finds the pursuit of philosophy, entered on with such pleasure, leading him into problems for which he can find no answers, until in despair he admits, "I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, inviron'd with the deepest darkness."³⁹ Just as reason betrays him and he finds himself sinking into melancholy, nature comes to his aid. He suddenly loses interest in philosophical issues and feels an urge to thrust disputation from his mind, returning to relaxation and amusement. "I dine, I play a game of back-gammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends."⁴⁰ And so the pendulum of Hume's life swings to and fro.

To believe in radical skepticism is to deny one's psychology. Psychology rebels against radical skepticism. Hume loses interest in philosophical issues when he starts following the questions radical skepticism poses for him. He cannot deny himself day-to-day satisfactions. He chooses to play backgammon because, through inductive reasoning (the enemy of skepticism), his inner self knows that it will be pleasing to him. His inner self rebels against his outer skepticism. If denying one's own self in the name of being a super-skeptic is not foolish, I do not know what is.

TL;DR:

Spoiler for Hidden:

Believing something to be absolutely true is not foolish, because believing nothing to be absolutely true is foolish.

Edit: Changed the subject of my post to "Psychology Argument" :3

[microman362]

It seemed natural to split the two arguments between posts so that it isn't just one behemoth.

A second reason why radical skepticism is foolish is practicality. Inductive reasoning says that "Because gravity pulled me back down the last 5,000 times I jumped, it will pull me back down if I jump one more time.". Radical skepticism says that one should be skeptical, that one should not use inductive reasoning to firmly believe that you will come back if you jump one more time.

Using the same framework as last time of proving that absolute belief is not foolish because the only alternative is foolish (as per the law of excluded middle), I will prove that, well... absolute belief is not foolish.

This time, we should look at practicality. I promise this post will be shorter than the last one. Radical skepticism is foolish because it argues that one should never absolutely believe in something. So where does it become useful? What good has come of radical skepticism? What benefit? All radical skepticism has served as is a test of philosophers, a game of "Let's see if we can beat the ultimate skeptic and prove that at least one thing is true!" But that is no reason to believe in radical skepticism. Radical skepticism is not practical at all, because you will constantly live in fear that all results can potentially be random. There is no certainty that the sun will rise the next day. It isn't practical at all to believe in such a thing and why believe in something that serves no practical purpose? If no results come of the belief, there is no reason to believe.

The question is not "How can radical skepticism be foolish?", but rather, "How can't radical skepticism be foolish?"

[RootRanger]

I think what you are describing here is radical skepticism. Wikipedia sums it up nicely: "Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified."

I do not believe that I am absolutely certain that there are no absolute truths. I merely believe that the possibility that one can not know any absolute truth is more likely than the possibility that one can know an absolute truth.

Spoiler for Hidden:

One can prove that believing in something is *not* foolish by proving the all-inclusive opposite to be false, by proving that radical skepticism is foolish.

Radical skepticism is psychologically impossible!

David Hume, who was and is one of the most famous skeptics, wrote that "[a] true sceptic will be diffident in his philosophical doubts, as well as of his philosophical conviction; and will never refuse any innocent satisfaction, which offers itself, upon account of either of them." I rather like the way Oliver A. Johnson describes Hume's view in this passage from Skepticism and Cognitivism: A Study in the Foundations of Knowledge:

But Hume finds the pursuit of philosophy, entered on with such pleasure, leading him into problems for which he can find no answers, until in despair he admits, "I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, inviron'd with the deepest darkness."³⁹ Just as reason betrays him and he finds himself sinking into melancholy, nature comes to his aid. He suddenly loses interest in philosophical issues and feels an urge to thrust disputation from his mind, returning to relaxation and amusement. "I dine, I play a game of back-gammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends."⁴⁰ And so the pendulum of Hume's life swings to and fro.

To believe in radical skepticism is to deny one's psychology. Psychology rebels against radical skepticism. Hume loses interest in philosophical issues when he starts following the questions radical skepticism poses for him. He cannot deny himself day-to-day satisfactions. He chooses to play backgammon because, through inductive reasoning (the enemy of skepticism), his inner self knows that it will be pleasing to him. His inner self rebels against his outer skepticism. If denying one's own self in the name of being a super-skeptic is not foolish, I do not know what is.

I would need for you to clarify the definition of "Radical Skeptic." Does a radical skeptic not believe in absolute truths, or does a radical skeptic not believe in knowledge ? The argument is about the former, but what I have read and what you have argued makes me believe radical skepticism is defined as the latter.

So where does it become useful? What good has come of radical skepticism? What benefit? All radical skepticism has served as is a test of philosophers, a game of "Let's see if we can beat the ultimate skeptic and prove that at least one thing is true!" But that is no reason to believe in radical skepticism. Radical skepticism is not practical at all, because you will constantly live in fear that all results can potentially be random. There is no certainty that the sun will rise the next day. It isn't practical at all to believe in such a thing and why believe in something that serves no practical purpose? If no results come of the belief, there is no reason to believe.

Convenience is not the same as truth.

My life would be greatly improved if I believed that there was a magic chocolate god that would give me eternally delicious life after I died, but that's simply not logical.

[OldTrees]

It appears that the wikipedia summary of Radical skepticism (as presented by microman) is defined by the following assertion.
"I know doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and therefore no knowledge (justified true belief) exists."

This assertion is self contradicting. (It uses a claim of knowledge to claim knowledge does not exist.)


This is of course different from the statement
"I believe doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and therefore I do not believe knowledge (justified true belief) exists."

[RootRanger]

The question would be whether or not knowledge implies absolute certainty. In my opinion, it does not.

[OldTrees]

The question would be whether or not knowledge implies absolute certainty. In my opinion, it does not.

You see a white fluffy shape half behind a tree in a sheep pasture. You say "There is a sheep behind that tree." There was a sheep behind the tree. However the white fluffy shape is a blanket about to be hung out to dry. Did you know a sheep was behind the tree?

I say no. There was no causal link between your true belief and the absolute truth it is making a claim about.

The way I solve this problem is by requiring a belief to be inherently* true before it is knowledge.
*By inherently I mean the belief could not have been false. This is a stricter requirement than requiring the belief be true.

[memimemi]

The question would be whether or not knowledge implies absolute certainty. In my opinion, it does not.

You see a white fluffy shape half behind a tree in a sheep pasture. You say "There is a sheep behind that tree." There was a sheep behind the tree. However the white fluffy shape is a blanket about to be hung out to dry. Did you know a sheep was behind the tree?

I say no. There was no causal link between your true belief and the absolute truth it is making a claim about.

The way I solve this problem is by requiring a belief to be inherently* true before it is knowledge.
*By inherently I mean the belief could not have been false. This is a stricter requirement than requiring the belief be true.

Necro, I know, but I'd like to throw in, here.  OldTrees, your logic seems to be based on Russel and Whitehead; correct me if I'm wrong.  If so, though, how do you deal with statements (logic strings) which truthfully assert their own unprovability (a la Gödel)?

"This statement could be false," in your above description of 'inherently true,' is both inherently true, and due to it's formulation, also not true enough to be knowledge.  There are an infinite number of other such formulations which bring uncertainty to ANY formalized logic system powerful enough to describe its own veracity.

Though I agree that belief =/= evidence for NOR against truth values, I don't see how your epistemology can hold up to skeptical inquiry.

[OldTrees]

The question would be whether or not knowledge implies absolute certainty. In my opinion, it does not.

You see a white fluffy shape half behind a tree in a sheep pasture. You say "There is a sheep behind that tree." There was a sheep behind the tree. However the white fluffy shape is a blanket about to be hung out to dry. Did you know a sheep was behind the tree?

I say no. There was no causal link between your true belief and the absolute truth it is making a claim about.

The way I solve this problem is by requiring a belief to be inherently* true before it is knowledge.
*By inherently I mean the belief could not have been false. This is a stricter requirement than requiring the belief be true.

Necro, I know, but I'd like to throw in, here.  OldTrees, your logic seems to be based on Russel and Whitehead; correct me if I'm wrong.  If so, though, how do you deal with statements (logic strings) which truthfully assert their own unprovability (a la Gödel)?

"This statement could be false," in your above description of 'inherently true,' is both inherently true, and due to it's formulation, also not true enough to be knowledge.  There are an infinite number of other such formulations which bring uncertainty to ANY formalized logic system powerful enough to describe its own veracity.

Though I agree that belief =/= evidence for NOR against truth values, I don't see how your epistemology can hold up to skeptical inquiry.

I am afraid I am much more of an amateur in this field. I don't know of Russel or Whitehead by name.

@Unproveable statement that truthfully claims it is unproveable. [Unknowable]
I have 2 statements. Both claim to be unproveable. One is true the other is false.
I can learn the false claim is false by proving it is false. If it were not false I would not be able to prove it false. Therefore my belief it the false claim being false is true and would not exist if the claim were not false. This belief would be knowledge.
I cannot differentiate the true claim from a yet unproven false claim. Therefore if I believed the true claim were true then I would believe it were true regardless of whether it was true or not. Since I could have the same belief from the same premises and be incorrect, the belief is not knowledge.

@"This statement could be false"
Was this a typo? I initially wrote "Inherently true means a belief that could not have been false." The beliefs that the statement "This statement could be false" being true or false both can be false. Since the beliefs could be false they are not knowledge.

Usually knowledge is defined as justified belief that happens to be true. I find issue with the coincidence of "happens to" rather than the stronger link of "must".

[pervepic]

"Believing absolutely that something is true is foolish"

Not sure what this sentence means. First, it is a self-contradiction. Secondly, it is too vague. When knowledge is often defined as "true belief" then also "knowing absolutely that something is true is foolish", which  is contradiction again. But if knowing is not "true belief" then what it is? Shouldn't believing and knowing be related with the truth as things really are? If not, how we can define them? And if we think that believing absolutely something is stupid because there is no absolute truth, then that opinion presents itself as absolute truth. If not, then there is or can exist an absolute truth sometimes. Further, not sure what "believing absolutely" means, because mental act (believing) can't be so overwhelming that it exhaust itself in believing; there should be also a consciousness about believing, which is not believing but awareness of believing. And if we understand "believing" as "just  believing" and not (absolute) knowing then this sentence is just a trivial tautology. Finally, "foolish". What that means really? Who is fool? A person who doesn't know how things really are.

[OldTrees]

"Believing absolutely that something is true is foolish"

Not sure what this sentence means. First, it is a self-contradiction. Secondly, it is too vague. When knowledge is often defined as "true belief" then also "knowing absolutely that something is true is foolish", which  is contradiction again. But if knowing is not "true belief" then what it is? Shouldn't believing and knowing be related with the truth as things really are? If not, how we can define them? And if we think that believing absolutely something is stupid because there is no absolute truth, then that opinion presents itself as absolute truth. If not, then there is or can exist an absolute truth sometimes. Further, not sure what "believing absolutely" means, because mental act (believing) can't be so overwhelming that it exhaust itself in believing; there should be also a consciousness about believing, which is not believing but awareness of believing. And if we understand "believing" as "just  believing" and not (absolute) knowing then this sentence is just a trivial tautology. Finally, "foolish". What that means really? Who is fool? A person who doesn't know how things really are.

Believing absolutely that the earth is flat is foolish. (Not a contradiction)
The statement is about belief not true belief or justified true belief.
True belief is not the usually definition of knowledge. The usual definition is justified true belief.
JTB knowledge definition does not provide certainty that the belief you consider to be knowledge is even true.
The statement does not claim absolute truth does not exist. It claims that thinking you belief the absolute truth without considering your capacity for being wrong is foolish.
Believing absolutely means you don't consider the fact that you can be wrong.
No one knows how things really are. A fool in this context is someone that forgets that they can be wrong.

[pervepic]

Believing absolutely that the earth is flat is foolish. (Not a contradiction)
Yes, but "believing absolutely that something is true" is in a way a contradiction like "everything is relative" is. Saw the difference? This sentence tries to be absolute itself.

The statement is about belief not true belief or justified true belief.
That's why it is either trivial or vague (or both) and need explanations through the concepts that stand near to it.

True belief is not the usually definition of knowledge. The usual definition is justified true belief.
I didn't say that the belief is a definition of knowledge. True belief can be true even without anybody's justifcation. That doesn't matter too much anyway.

JTB knowledge definition does not provide certainty that the belief you consider to be knowledge is even true.
No definition can provide that something is true except analytical definitons. So?

The statement does not claim absolute truth does not exist. It claims that thinking you belief the absolute truth without considering your capacity for being wrong is foolish.
Yeah I saw what it claims. I just offered a way to interpret this. Another way to understand belief here is as "not knowledge" indeed and then it follows that my believing can be right or wrong. That's the analytical triviality of this sentence. Fool is somebody who messes up knowledge and belief, but that usually happens from the point of view of others. But a believer must knows that he believes (as I mentined), otherwise he doesn't and can't believe.

Believing absolutely means you don't consider the fact that you can be wrong.
That's is close to knowing, isn't it? Believing absolutely is either a knowledge or just a nonsense, because "believing" pretty much means that that I can be right or wrong, right? But if "believing absolutely" is a knowledge or close to it, then it relates to truth traditionally. 1 plus 1 is 2, I believe that I can't be wrong; am I foolish now?

No one knows how things really are.
Hod do you know that? Seems that you know how things are 

A fool in this context is someone that forgets that they can be wrong.
Context is pretty much missing here, in this sole sentence we spoke about.