Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

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....

This is realm of example I wanted to quiz.
Not necesaarily a practical example like uniocorns or flat earth - but the persons you are claiming reject things "outside their beliefs".
1)
It seems to me that people who thrive on "belief" rarely have any sort of justification, and logic rarely comes into it.
Further any attempts at reason and logic to back up such beliefs are most often post hoc., or ad hoc if quizzed. People who select beliefs can just as easily reject other ideas which conflict even when those new ideas have evience to support them.

Now you can attack this POV if you want, but only on generalised terms. But that is your problem since you are only making a generalised case yourself.
2)
Another case might be that a body of knowledge established over millenia comes across a new idea that, without evidence, flies against the established knowledge. Surely, on the face of it, we have no requirement to consider such an idea since without justification why would we reject the current body of knowelge that is serving us well?
If I tell you that the moon is a balloon, tell me why you might want to not dismiss that out of hand!
I'll wait for your answer.
In science any new idea can be considered, and the justification is whether or not it "saves the appearances". This test is what was applied to Copurnicus and Galileo with their heliocentric hypothesis.
Why was it rejected out of hand?
The answer is because of people in paragraph 1. The Roman Catholic church had staked its entire reputation on the idea that the geocentric universe was divinely insipred and selected by the church fathers through the hotline to God himself. In truth they had merely borrowed the system devised by Aristotle (ironically a Pagan), and had decided that his scheme was the truth.
Copurnicus died soon after his bomb shell, so avoided action by the church. But also his scheme, although correct in the position of the sun in realtion to the earth did not so well save the appearences since the system of epicycles needed for it to work was more clumsy than the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian system. So if you want a justification there is was.

But in this case the science has proven robust. When Kepler though of elippses rather than perfect divine circles the whole scheme was simplifed. Later mathematically modelled by Newton Kepler was crucial since his "IDEA" alone made everything work, and predicted the empirical data. In the same way einstein's maths predicted the "bending of light" around a large mass "Eddington observation".

Finding this knowledge is about hard work. Moon's made of cheese, cosmic fairles, and spherically challenged worlds dreamt up by people sitting on the toilet researchng with their mobile device does not match the efforts made by such people.

In general there is no way to answer this question, since the degree of justifications between a person interested in science; a person interested in god; or a person whose entire knoweldge base it the interweeb are vastly different.

But you mention "philosopers". Maybe you can give your own example?

[Pattern-chaser]

Thoughtful post. Thanks.

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.

Yes and no. I propose a model of reason/logic, not a model of the human mind. I think we all know that humans can employ logic and reasoning, but also that we don't do it all the time. Some humans rarely do it at all. And not all thought/thinking is logical or reasoned; some is just trivial, or aimed at entertainment. Other styles are culturally-based. And so on. There are many styles or forms of thinking, and all of them probably have value.

Having said that, I think my proposed model — if indeed it is a model that I am proposing? — might be better described using two 'piles', one for possibilities, the maybe pile, and another for those ideas that have been usefully and meaningfully judged, and thereby accepted or rejected with justification.

By "justification", I mean to refer to reaching a justified conclusion, which is to say a sufficient or 'good enough' reason for reaching that conclusion. And the justification I refer to here is a logical and reasoned one. Not moral, legal, or cultural, or any other shade of justification. I refer to logical argument, and to logically-derived and justified conclusions. Does the logic/reason of this argument justify our conclusion? If it doesn't, then our conclusion is unsafe. And if we can't rely on our conclusions, they are of no value that I can see.

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 ?

Yes, that's pretty much the question I'm asking. It seems to me that this judgement is based wholly on logic and reason, and I see no reason why that logic or reason should be different depending on whether the idea is accepted or rejected. The logic is the same in both cases. The idea is examined, by any and all means available, and if the evidence is sufficient, then a justified conclusion can be reached: accept or reject; true or false; etc.

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

[...]

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.

The 'slush' or 'maybe' pile is near-infinite in size. Most ideas in that pile will never be considered. So selecting an idea from that pile for consideration is a difficult task. I don't think it has anything to do with judging the idea. The selection of an idea from the maybe pile is (I think) quite distinct from considering it. [And judgement can only follow if the consideration justifies a definite conclusion.] Surely the consideration must follow the selection? Two different operations, that have different aims. Consideration is a reasoned and logical operation, while selection is more, er, whimsical?

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

Your idea that "truth gets in the way of logic" is an unusual one. I think some clarification would help? What do you mean by that?

[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....

This is realm of example I wanted to quiz.
Not necesaarily a practical example like uniocorns or flat earth - but the persons you are claiming reject things "outside their beliefs".
1)
It seems to me that people who thrive on "belief" rarely have any sort of justification, and logic rarely comes into it.
Further any attempts at reason and logic to back up such beliefs are most often post hoc., or ad hoc if quizzed. People who select beliefs can just as easily reject other ideas which conflict even when those new ideas have evience to support them.

That would have been my expectation. But when I have encountered such attitudes, I have found them in people who are otherwise wholly devoted to an exclusively-scientific approach to life, the universe, and everything. Often, if I remember correctly (unlikely?), they are whining about ideas that can't be tested or falsified, usually because there is little or no accompanying evidence. But that does not prevent serious consideration, but only definite conclusions. And if ideas like this are to be rejected out of hand, that puts paid to all of metaphysics, ethics & morals, religion, and so on. IMO, all of these can reward some serious consideration, although no firm conclusions are possible.

And my central point remains — the criteria for accepting and rejecting an idea are logically the same. To accept a lower standard to reject an idea makes no (logical) sense.

If I tell you that the moon is a balloon, tell me why you might want to not dismiss that out of hand!
I'll wait for your answer.

My answer to this is simple — please don't trivialise this discussion. Thanks.

[Sculptor1]

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....

This is realm of example I wanted to quiz.
Not necesaarily a practical example like uniocorns or flat earth - but the persons you are claiming reject things "outside their beliefs".
1)
It seems to me that people who thrive on "belief" rarely have any sort of justification, and logic rarely comes into it.
Further any attempts at reason and logic to back up such beliefs are most often post hoc., or ad hoc if quizzed. People who select beliefs can just as easily reject other ideas which conflict even when those new ideas have evience to support them.

That would have been my expectation. But when I have encountered such attitudes, I have found them in people who are otherwise wholly devoted to an exclusively-scientific approach to life, the universe, and everything. Often, if I remember correctly (unlikely?), they are whining about ideas that can't be tested or falsified, usually because there is little or no accompanying evidence. But that does not prevent serious consideration, but only definite conclusions. And if ideas like this are to be rejected out of hand, that puts paid to all of metaphysics, ethics & morals, religion, and so on. IMO, all of these can reward some serious consideration, although no firm conclusions are possible.

Yes, yes, yes. All very well with your cheap polemic, but those strawmen of which you speak - what of them. What are you looking for? DO you want to have a world full of UFOs and Bugbears?
Upo to you!
But you are really not interesting in having your question answered. You seem only too keen to have a moan.

And my central point remains — the criteria for accepting and rejecting an idea are logically the same. To accept a lower standard to reject an idea makes no (logical) sense.

If I tell you that the moon is a balloon, tell me why you might want to not dismiss that out of hand!
I'll wait for your answer.

My answer to this is simple — please don't trivialise this discussion. Thanks.

If you do not want a trivial discussion then have the courage to answer the question and to read my whole post.

But since you won't here's your answer.
All those nasty scientists are not better than religious nuts?
Is that what you are looking for?
Or maybe you should consider that value of these unnamed alternative views, again unnamed.
Until they are names then I can only assume you have been disappointed by some amusing ideas of your own that you have invented.
If you think they are worthy of consideration - are better than "the moon is a balooin" then lets hear them!
Until then youll just have to accept your unease and confusion.

[Lara John]

Logic is the systematic study of valid reasoning and inference, typically involving the use of formal rules and structures to arrive at conclusions based on given premises.

[Thomyum2]

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.

Hello Pattern-chaser, long time no see. Thanks for your OP - I think you've posed a thought-provoking question, for me at least.

May I suggest a little bit different take on the question? In thinking about how to answer here, I happened to pull up the Wikipedia entry on 'justification' and find it defined there as "the property of belief that qualifies it as knowledge rather than mere opinion." I find it interesting in that justification doesn't really distinguish between truth and falsehood as much as it does between whether or not we qualify some specific belief as being 'knowledge'. I'm not sure though that there is a really clear boundary between 'knowledge' and 'opinion' as this appears to me to be a somewhat subjective distinction.

That said, in relation to your post here, it is to beliefs that justification applies, and not to logical arguments, so I think there might be a bit of a category error in the question here. Understood in this way, logic itself is really one form of justification, and probably one of many. We justify beliefs by other means - e.g. personal experience, reliance on credible sources or testimonies, common sense, etc. - in addition to logic, which is a specific kind of justification, i.e. conclusions that have been derived by sound reasoning from self-evident or true premises. However, it's worth noting that even the soundest logical conclusions are not always accepted. So what 'justifies' a belief for one person may not justify it for another - again leading back to the idea that this is, at least in part, a subjective matter. One person may say they know something, and another may counter by saying no, that's just your opinion.

I actually think you were on the right track in responding to JackDaydream above when you asked if there is a moral element to justification, and I do think that's the case as it is such an individual and personal determination, almost like a moral decision, like deciding a right from a wrong, but just with different criteria and faculties involved. Deciding that something is justified is a kind of a value judgement, just as it's a value judgement to hold that a logical argument is sound, or that a premise is true.

I'm reminded of a favorite quote from William James here:

Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Logic is the systematic study of valid reasoning and inference, typically involving the use of formal rules and structures to arrive at conclusions based on given premises.

Sure, but let me ask this, and I mean no offense by the question, are you a bot?

That's not rhetorical. I'm really asking.

[Lara John]

"A problem with logic" generally refers to a situation or issue in which there is a flaw, contradiction, or inconsistency in the reasoning or arguments being presented. It suggests that there might be a breakdown in the logical structure of a statement, argument, or thought process, leading to confusion, errors, or incorrect conclusions.

[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.

Your idea that "truth gets in the way of logic" is an unusual one. I think some clarification would help? What do you mean by that?

I see it as a very common pattern. Because of how we feel about truth, it is difficult to see this.

I have been party to more than one discussion where another person eventually will say, "but it is the truth". The idea is that because they tell it is truth, I should accept it also as "fact".

At an extreme, some religions will insist that any member accept the ideas as truth and will even admit that no logic can prove or arrive as the same idea as that truth. yet any disagreement will rest a final decision based on that truth. Science has the same behaviors about truth as does most any social situation.

After a person commits an idea as truth, they defend it. At that point, logic usually will be ignored in favor of emotion to defend truth.

[Pattern-chaser]

Logic is the systematic study of valid reasoning and inference, typically involving the use of formal rules and structures to arrive at conclusions based on given premises.

Sure, but let me ask this, and I mean no offense by the question, are you a bot?

That's not rhetorical. I'm really asking.

And here is the apparent reply to your post:

"A problem with logic" generally refers to a situation or issue in which there is a flaw, contradiction, or inconsistency in the reasoning or arguments being presented. It suggests that there might be a breakdown in the logical structure of a statement, argument, or thought process, leading to confusion, errors, or incorrect conclusions.

It's starting to look as though your suspicions are correct, Scott. The nature of my "problem with logic" is fairly well explained in my post, but this new member is taking a short phrase in isolation. Nothing 'joined-up'. A bot, or an AI-fuelled human, perhaps?

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, yes, yes. All very well with your cheap polemic, but those strawmen of which you speak - what of them. What are you looking for? DO you want to have a world full of UFOs and Bugbears?
Upo to you!
But you are really not interesting in having your question answered. You seem only too keen to have a moan.

My question is a simple one. There are those who believe that the logical criteria for accepting and rejecting an idea are not the same. They require much more stringent standards to accepting an idea than they do to reject it. Often, their rejections seem arbitrary, perhaps based more in emotion and belief than in logic and reason? I think the logical rigour attached to acceptance and rejection should be the same. My question is to those who casually reject ideas they don't like — what is the logical reason for this?

[Pattern-chaser]

Hello Pattern-chaser, long time no see. Thanks for your OP - I think you've posed a thought-provoking question, for me at least.

May I suggest a little bit different take on the question? In thinking about how to answer here, I happened to pull up the Wikipedia entry on 'justification' and find it defined there as "the property of belief that qualifies it as knowledge rather than mere opinion." I find it interesting in that justification doesn't really distinguish between truth and falsehood as much as it does between whether or not we qualify some specific belief as being 'knowledge'. I'm not sure though that there is a really clear boundary between 'knowledge' and 'opinion' as this appears to me to be a somewhat subjective distinction.

It seems my choice of word — "justification" — was a poor one. By "justification", I mean to refer to having a good and sufficient reason to reach a definite conclusion. A conclusive reason, if you will. [Based in logic and reason, not on opinion and emotional belief.]

My question is based solely in logic and reason, and it is this, why do some thinkers reject ideas for little or no (logical) reason, while those same thinkers require significant justification to accept an idea? What is the logical justification for these different standards?

[Pattern-chaser]

I have been party to more than one discussion where another person eventually will say, "but it is the truth". The idea is that because they tell it is truth, I should accept it also as "fact".

I think this is a common problem, simple to solve. The error here is that someone presents as true and factual that which is mere opinion. This is common among humans, who sometimes exaggerate their own justifications, hoping to add authority to their outpourings. I'm sure there are other reasons too. Even among philosophers, who should know better, it is not uncommon.

But this doesn't justify saying that logic is eclipsed by truth. It is only a simple and incorrect, groundless assertion. It asserts 'truth' when there is no sufficient reason to accept it as such.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, yes, yes. All very well with your cheap polemic, but those strawmen of which you speak - what of them. What are you looking for? DO you want to have a world full of UFOs and Bugbears?
Upo to you!
But you are really not interesting in having your question answered. You seem only too keen to have a moan.

My question is a simple one. There are those who believe that the logical criteria for accepting and rejecting an idea are not the same. They require much more stringent standards to accepting an idea than they do to reject it. Often, their rejections seem arbitrary, perhaps based more in emotion and belief than in logic and reason? I think the logical rigour attached to acceptance and rejection should be the same. My question is to those who casually reject ideas they don't like — what is the logical reason for this?

It's an interesting claim based, it seems, wholly on your personal experience which none here on this Forum are qualified to judge.
Without an example, it's just hot air.
Now, there is a big problem prima facie with your problem. And that is that accepting an idea is NOT the same as rejecting it ,and so the two cannot be compared quantifyably one with the other,
The mental process that leads to acceptance is not the same as rejection.