Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Pattern-chaser]

I've posted this in the Scientific part of the forum because it concerns reason and logic, which are core values for science. Oh, and by "logic", I mean to refer here to the discipline that allows us to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. [Not formal logic, or Boolean logic, or...]

There are many ideas that we subject to serious and considered thought. Some can be easily dismissed. For example, the idea that the Earth is flat — we have loads of solid evidence that it cannot be so, so it is correct to discard it as a possibility. The bit I want to focus on, here, is that we dismissed flat-Earth justifiably. I.e. we had a clear and conclusive reason to reject it — justification.

It is my contention that argument according to reason and logic requires justification for any and every step we take. I hope this is not too contentious a claim?

If an idea we are considering cannot be dismissed, as we did for the flat-Earth theory, then we must consider it to be a possibility. We don't have to believe it or accept it, but only consider it possible, if we have no justification for dismissing it.

We now get to my problem "with logic". There are some philosophers, and others too, of course, who will casually dismiss an idea that doesn't conform to their views and beliefs, but which cannot be disproved, and thereby dismissed. These are people who will require detailed and in-depth support — justification — for any idea that is to be tentatively accepted. And yet they will dismiss a different idea without a second thought, and without justification.

So, is it permissible to dismiss possibilities without justification? If you think so, what is the logical justification for doing so?

Thank you for reading. Thank you even more for responding.

[JackDaydream]

I've posted this in the Scientific part of the forum because it concerns reason and logic, which are core values for science. Oh, and by "logic", I mean to refer here to the discipline that allows us to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. [Not formal logic, or Boolean logic, or...]

There are many ideas that we subject to serious and considered thought. Some can be easily dismissed. For example, the idea that the Earth is flat — we have loads of solid evidence that it cannot be so, so it is correct to discard it as a possibility. The bit I want to focus on, here, is that we dismissed flat-Earth justifiably. I.e. we had a clear and conclusive reason to reject it — justification.

It is my contention that argument according to reason and logic requires justification for any and every step we take. I hope this is not too contentious a claim?

If an idea we are considering cannot be dismissed, as we did for the flat-Earth theory, then we must consider it to be a possibility. We don't have to believe it or accept it, but only consider it possible, if we have no justification for dismissing it.

We now get to my problem "with logic". There are some philosophers, and others too, of course, who will casually dismiss an idea that doesn't conform to their views and beliefs, but which cannot be disproved, and thereby dismissed. These are people who will require detailed and in-depth support — justification — for any idea that is to be tentatively accepted. And yet they will dismiss a different idea without a second thought, and without justification.

So, is it permissible to dismiss possibilities without justification? If you think so, what is the logical justification for doing so?

Thank you for reading. Thank you even more for responding.

Justification is important and logic is likely to be an integral part. However, it may be not simply about logic but also about language. When I have read many kinds of arguments both in books and in reports it seems that it is not always just about stages of logic but playfulness with words. It may be that this is part of logic or the logical imagination. However, the ability to articulate one's justifications may vary and it can also be asked to what extent is the spoken form of justification always the true basis of one's thoughts or feelings, or an attempt to formulate them into the most socially accepted way? For example, when I have been writing reports or even writing college assignments, especially on science based courses. There were often clear guidelines for accepted formulas for argument, as opposed to independent thought. This felt stifling. It may also be that people learn ways of arguments which may mask a lot of less conscious aspects of the genuine aspects of justification, especially leaving out the emotional basis of thought and judgments, sometimes in the guise of scientific objectivity.

[Sea Turtle]

Interesting topic.

I observe the same things that you describe as part of human character.

The idea of truth gets in the way of logic. Truth gets used as a persuasion tool, and intentionally blocks logic. We use emotion in some cases very much on purpose to insist truth. The truth that is really an individual choice, and more based on emotion than facts.

I believe that most of us except perhaps the most stoic trained philosophers will at some time join in the truth game.

It is one of the parts of the human condition I only understand as an old man already. Humans are driven by feeling, not logic. And of course that is not logical at all.

Winning the hearts of people will allow them to be persuaded much faster than all the facts into infinity.

[Gee]

Interesting topic.

I observe the same things that you describe as part of human character.

The idea of truth gets in the way of logic. Truth gets used as a persuasion tool, and intentionally blocks logic. We use emotion in some cases very much on purpose to insist truth. The truth that is really an individual choice, and more based on emotion than facts.

When you state that "truth gets in the way of logic", you seem to be a little confused. If truth needs to be set aside in order for logic to function, then lies are necessary for logic. Is this what you are saying? Are you a bot?

Gee

[Good_Egg]

There are some philosophers, and others too, of course, who will casually dismiss an idea that doesn't conform to their views and beliefs, but which cannot be disproved, and thereby dismissed. These are people who will require detailed and in-depth support — justification — for any idea that is to be tentatively accepted. And yet they will dismiss a different idea without a second thought, and without justification.

So, is it permissible to dismiss possibilities without justification? If you think so, what is the logical justification for doing so?

You'll have come across Occam's Razor - the idea that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one that should be accepted. You can say "tentatively accepted" - accepted pending the discovery of more facts that would prove ( I.e. conclusively justify) or disprove it.

That's what you might call a meta-idea - an idea about ideas.

There seems to me a similar principle which I don't know the accepted label for. This is the meta-idea that some ideas are philosophical dead-ends. They lead nowhere, because they undermine the very possibility of knowledge. The idea that we're all in the Matrix and all this is an illusion. Or that only I exist and everything else is a figment of my imagination. Or that the Illuminati have a mind-control device which makes you think whatever you're thinking.

I might not go quite as far as Popper in asserting falsifiability as a criterion for truth. But there is good reason to hesitate before accepting an idea which is immune to disproof.

So yes, I do tend to think that there are ideas that should be (tentatively, I.e. pending more information) discarded without evidence.

But not "casually"; we should be serious about truth.

[Good_Egg]

There are some philosophers, and others too, of course, who will casually dismiss an idea that doesn't conform to their views and beliefs, but which cannot be disproved, and thereby dismissed. These are people who will require detailed and in-depth support — justification — for any idea that is to be tentatively accepted. And yet they will dismiss a different idea without a second thought, and without justification.

So, is it permissible to dismiss possibilities without justification? If you think so, what is the logical justification for doing so?

You'll have come across Occam's Razor - the idea that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one that should be accepted. You can say "tentatively accepted" - accepted pending the discovery of more facts that would prove ( I.e. conclusively justify) or disprove it.

That's what you might call a meta-idea - an idea about ideas.

There seems to me a similar principle which I don't know the accepted label for. This is the meta-idea that some ideas are philosophical dead-ends. They lead nowhere, because they undermine the very possibility of knowledge. The idea that we're all in the Matrix and all this is an illusion. Or that only I exist and everything else is a figment of my imagination. Or that the Illuminati have a mind-control device which makes you think whatever you're thinking.

I might not go quite as far as Popper in asserting falsifiability as a criterion for truth. But there is good reason to hesitate before accepting an idea which is immune to disproof.

So yes, I do tend to think that there are ideas that should be (tentatively, I.e. pending more information) discarded without evidence.

But not "casually"; we should be serious about truth.

[Sculptor1]

I've posted this in the Scientific part of the forum because it concerns reason and logic, which are core values for science. Oh, and by "logic", I mean to refer here to the discipline that allows us to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. [Not formal logic, or Boolean logic, or...]

There are many ideas that we subject to serious and considered thought. Some can be easily dismissed. For example, the idea that the Earth is flat — we have loads of solid evidence that it cannot be so, so it is correct to discard it as a possibility. The bit I want to focus on, here, is that we dismissed flat-Earth justifiably. I.e. we had a clear and conclusive reason to reject it — justification.

It is my contention that argument according to reason and logic requires justification for any and every step we take. I hope this is not too contentious a claim?

If an idea we are considering cannot be dismissed, as we did for the flat-Earth theory, then we must consider it to be a possibility. We don't have to believe it or accept it, but only consider it possible, if we have no justification for dismissing it.

We now get to my problem "with logic". There are some philosophers, and others too, of course, who will casually dismiss an idea that doesn't conform to their views and beliefs, but which cannot be disproved, and thereby dismissed. These are people who will require detailed and in-depth support — justification — for any idea that is to be tentatively accepted. And yet they will dismiss a different idea without a second thought, and without justification.

So, is it permissible to dismiss possibilities without justification? If you think so, what is the logical justification for doing so?

Thank you for reading. Thank you even more for responding.

You use a poor example.
We have every reason to dismiss flat earth for reasons of evidence.
Have you got a better example?
And don't say unicorns.

[Pattern-chaser]

Justification is important and logic is likely to be an integral part. However, it may be not simply about logic but also about language. When I have read many kinds of arguments both in books and in reports it seems that it is not always just about stages of logic but playfulness with words. It may be that this is part of logic or the logical imagination. However, the ability to articulate one's justifications may vary and it can also be asked to what extent is the spoken form of justification always the true basis of one's thoughts or feelings, or an attempt to formulate them into the most socially accepted way? For example, when I have been writing reports or even writing college assignments, especially on science based courses. There were often clear guidelines for accepted formulas for argument, as opposed to independent thought. This felt stifling. It may also be that people learn ways of arguments which may mask a lot of less conscious aspects of the genuine aspects of justification, especially leaving out the emotional basis of thought and judgments, sometimes in the guise of scientific objectivity.

Thanks for the response, Jack. I'm confused, and I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It looks as though you are considering "justification" as a sort of moral thing? It was and is my intention to consider here arguments on the basis of logic and reason. To that extent, I am aiming (roughly) at something "in the guise of scientific objectivity". I am using the term "justification" to refer to reaching a decision/conclusion with good reason. And not only "good reason", but a reason — or reasons — that is good enough to justify () reaching a conclusion, according to the dictates and standards of logic and reason.

N.B. I am aware, as we all are, that humans are capable of logical thought and behaviour, but we do not always use logic to decide on our own conclusions or actions. Fair enough, and true enough too. But I'm focussing here only on the logical aspects, on argument carried out according to logic and reason. The vagaries of human motivation are a sort of overlay to what I'm talking about here.

Have I understood you correctly, or have I missed the point(s) you are making?

[JackDaydream]

Justification is important and logic is likely to be an integral part. However, it may be not simply about logic but also about language. When I have read many kinds of arguments both in books and in reports it seems that it is not always just about stages of logic but playfulness with words. It may be that this is part of logic or the logical imagination. However, the ability to articulate one's justifications may vary and it can also be asked to what extent is the spoken form of justification always the true basis of one's thoughts or feelings, or an attempt to formulate them into the most socially accepted way? For example, when I have been writing reports or even writing college assignments, especially on science based courses. There were often clear guidelines for accepted formulas for argument, as opposed to independent thought. This felt stifling. It may also be that people learn ways of arguments which may mask a lot of less conscious aspects of the genuine aspects of justification, especially leaving out the emotional basis of thought and judgments, sometimes in the guise of scientific objectivity.

Thanks for the response, Jack. I'm confused, and I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It looks as though you are considering "justification" as a sort of moral thing? It was and is my intention to consider here arguments on the basis of logic and reason. To that extent, I am aiming (roughly) at something "in the guise of scientific objectivity". I am using the term "justification" to refer to reaching a decision/conclusion with good reason. And not only "good reason", but a reason — or reasons — that is good enough to justify () reaching a conclusion, according to the dictates and standards of logic and reason.

N.B. I am aware, as we all are, that humans are capable of logical thought and behaviour, but we do not always use logic to decide on our own conclusions or actions. Fair enough, and true enough too. But I'm focussing here only on the logical aspects, on argument carried out according to logic and reason. The vagaries of human motivation are a sort of overlay to what I'm talking about here.

Have I understood you correctly, or have I missed the point(s) you are making?

I am not sure if your thread and my answer are coming from cross purposes, so I will clarify what I meant. I am arguing that logic, especially in the sciences is not 'neutral' or value free. It is about how logic is used, including evidence- based research.

The logic underlying evidence-based research is used as a basis for medicine and policy-making and the formulation of understanding. I hope that I have not misunderstood the purpose of your thread, as being about logic, mainly in science and how concepts and theories are developed, mainly in a claim towards the spirit of objectivity.

[Pattern-chaser]

There are some philosophers, and others too, of course, who will casually dismiss an idea that doesn't conform to their views and beliefs, but which cannot be disproved, and thereby dismissed. These are people who will require detailed and in-depth support — justification — for any idea that is to be tentatively accepted. And yet they will dismiss a different idea without a second thought, and without justification.

So, is it permissible to dismiss possibilities without justification? If you think so, what is the logical justification for doing so?

You'll have come across Occam's Razor - the idea that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one that should be accepted. You can say "tentatively accepted" - accepted pending the discovery of more facts that would prove ( I.e. conclusively justify) or disprove it.

That's what you might call a meta-idea - an idea about ideas.

OK, that seems fair enough.

There seems to me a similar principle which I don't know the accepted label for. This is the meta-idea that some ideas are philosophical dead-ends. They lead nowhere, because they undermine the very possibility of knowledge. The idea that we're all in the Matrix and all this is an illusion. Or that only I exist and everything else is a figment of my imagination. Or that the Illuminati have a mind-control device which makes you think whatever you're thinking.

Ah, now this is a different issue, one that I wasn't really aiming at, but OK. I think I detect an assumption in what you say, that an idea that cannot be tested, or otherwise confirmed (or denied), is a "philosophical dead-end". I would dispute this, as I have many times in the past, but that's not what I'm trying to investigate here.

I'm wondering why some thinkers will accept an idea — tentatively, until more evidence emerges, or whatever, as science does — only if there is good reason to do so — a justification — and yet they will reject an idea based on intuition or a hunch, or arbitrarily. It seems to me that the justification for accepting an idea, however tentatively, should have the same logical 'strength' as the justification for rejecting that same idea. The logic doesn't change in either case. Acceptance and rejection are both conclusions, and I think serious thinkers must have a good reason for reaching either one.

I might not go quite as far as Popper in asserting falsifiability as a criterion for truth. But there is good reason to hesitate before accepting an idea which is immune to disproof.

Yes, indeed. We should neither accept nor reject an idea unless we have sufficient reason to do so. If we take solipsism as an example, it cannot be demonstrated to be true. It can't be demonstrated to be false either. So we should surely conclude that it is possible, but that we can go no further than that, because we don't have the evidence to reach a more precise and justified conclusion. Solipsism must (always?) remain on the 'possible' pile.

So yes, I do tend to think that there are ideas that should be (tentatively, I.e. pending more information) discarded without evidence.

But not "casually"; we should be serious about truth.

OK, so what is the justification for "discarding" such ideas? The logical justification?

[Pattern-chaser]

You use a poor example.
We have every reason to dismiss flat earth for reasons of evidence.

Yes, as I said (so that you wouldn't need to say what you just said),

There are many ideas that we subject to serious and considered thought. Some can be easily dismissed. For example, the idea that the Earth is flat — we have loads of solid evidence that it cannot be so, so it is correct to discard it as a possibility.

I'm fairly sure I made it clear that, while some ideas can be quickly and correctly rejected, like flat-earth-ism, there are others that cannot, and it's those others that I'm trying to consider and discuss.

Have you got a better example?
And don't say unicorns.

The best example I can think of is a historical one. In the days when flat-earth was universally accepted, the possibility that the Earth could be round was universally rejected, without consideration. This also was done, in your words, "for reasons of evidence". A contemporary view says that they failed to look at any evidence that did not fit with the consensus, but at the time most people didn't realise this. They encountered the idea, and rejected it immediately, without justification.

If you don't care for that example, we might consider something closer to unicorns, the supposed 'Loch Ness monster'. It is (just barely) possible that such a creature exists. Searches have failed to find it, but those searches cannot be guaranteed to have searched every crevice on the bottom of a very deep lake. It's just possible that it exists. But there are those who will reject that possibility, and they do so without justification, it seems.

I'm sure there must be better examples, but I can't think of any at the moment.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am not sure if your thread and my answer are coming from cross purposes, so I will clarify what I meant. I am arguing that logic, especially in the sciences is not 'neutral' or value free. It is about how logic is used, including evidence- based research.

The logic underlying evidence-based research is used as a basis for medicine and policy-making and the formulation of understanding. I hope that I have not misunderstood the purpose of your thread, as being about logic, mainly in science and how concepts and theories are developed, mainly in a claim towards the spirit of objectivity.

Yes, you are right to conclude that this topic is one that can be fully understood from within the detached and impartial viewpoint of a (stereotypical) scientist. Logic is logic. How (and for what purpose) it is used is another matter.

I've posted this in the Scientific part of the forum because it concerns reason and logic, which are core values for science. Oh, and by "logic", I mean to refer here to the discipline that allows us to confirm the validity of the form/structure of a logical argument. [Not formal logic, or Boolean logic, or...]

I'm trying to find out if anyone defends the idea of rejecting a 'possibility' based on nothing but a hunch. It seems some do, but I await some confirmation of that...

[Sculptor1]

You use a poor example.
We have every reason to dismiss flat earth for reasons of evidence.

Yes, as I said (so that you wouldn't need to say what you just said),

There are many ideas that we subject to serious and considered thought. Some can be easily dismissed. For example, the idea that the Earth is flat — we have loads of solid evidence that it cannot be so, so it is correct to discard it as a possibility.

I'm fairly sure I made it clear that, while some ideas can be quickly and correctly rejected, like flat-earth-ism, there are others that cannot, and it's those others that I'm trying to consider and discuss.

Have you got a better example?
And don't say unicorns.

The best example I can think of is a historical one. In the days when flat-earth was universally accepted, the possibility that the Earth could be round was universally rejected, without consideration.

This is false.

This also was done, in your words, "for reasons of evidence". A contemporary view says that they failed to look at any evidence that did not fit with the consensus, but at the time most people didn't realise this. They encountered the idea, and rejected it immediately, without justification.

If you don't care for that example, we might consider something closer to unicorns, the supposed 'Loch Ness monster'. It is (just barely) possible that such a creature exists. Searches have failed to find it, but those searches cannot be guaranteed to have searched every crevice on the bottom of a very deep lake. It's just possible that it exists. But there are those who will reject that possibility, and they do so without justification, it seems.

I'm sure there must be better examples, but I can't think of any at the moment.

There was never a time when the earth was universally thought flat.
As far as the evidence goes its more of a modern delusion.
Columbus and his contemporaries knew the world was round, as did the ancients.

[Sea Turtle]

Interesting topic.

I observe the same things that you describe as part of human character.

The idea of truth gets in the way of logic. Truth gets used as a persuasion tool, and intentionally blocks logic. We use emotion in some cases very much on purpose to insist truth. The truth that is really an individual choice, and more based on emotion than facts.

When you state that "truth gets in the way of logic", you seem to be a little confused. If truth needs to be set aside in order for logic to function, then lies are necessary for logic. Is this what you are saying? Are you a bot?

Gee

Are you a bot, is a comment designed to get an emotional response. It is an accusation that usually would activate defense and then comments or actions that may not be thought out. So no thank you to that one. Also, you seem to be confused, is another emotional charged accusation.

Truth is an individual choice, one persons truth is not true for another. On the topic, logic is usually a terrible tool to convince others. If they give in, they will almost always have some bad feeling about it. Logic is a great tool and very useful, its just does not equal truth and usually does not create teamwork.

You made two emotional appeals to discredit me, instead of investigation with logic. haha.

[Good_Egg]

Seems like you're putting forward a model of the human mind in which it is organised in terms of 3 categories of ideas:
- those you assert as true
- those you assert as false
- those on which you withhold judgment for lack of evidence.
And in this model a newly-encountered idea automatically goes into the "maybe" pile unless there's a justification for moving it to the accepted or rejected pile.

And you're asking a question about the symmetry of acceptance and rejection. Do/should the same criteria, the same standards of justification, apply to movement in both directions ?

I'd question that underlying model. What are the alternatives ?

We're told that publishers have a "slush pile" of unsolicited manuscripts. That they don't bother sending out rejection letters, but have in effect only two piles - one for authors they're actively working with and a slush pile.

If the mind worked like this, there would be only ideas in use, forming part of our active model of the world, and ideas that we know of but aren't using. In this model, the idea of the Loch Ness Monster is never actually denied, just stored unused on our mental slush pile against the day when we happen to see some strange footprints in the vicinity of the Great Glen...

Not sure that's an adequate model either. We do occasionally act to deny or debunk an idea. But maybe only for a reason ? if someone else is using it to urge us to do something we don't want to do ?

I guess I see the asymmetry as the other way round from the way you have it. Ideas are taken out of the slush pile if they offer some explanatory power, which is a weaker test than justification by evidence. But to go on record as denying that an idea is true does require justification.

Maybe my glass is half-full...