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

[Sea Turtle]

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.

I agree with you on how it should be.

[Sea Turtle]

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.

Are you willing to briefly step though the differences in acceptance and rejection from a mental process? That might illuminate the idea more.

[Good_Egg]

You've probably come across the idea that "you can't prove a negative".

Selecting this idea, from all the others stored in one's head, isn't a conscious process - the subconscious mind throws it up as possibly relevant.

When we consider it, it's clear that it only applies to some sorts of negative statement. For example, I can prove that I didn't commit a crime, if I have an alibi.

But it does apply to propositions about existence in an infinite universe.

If the Loch Ness Monster existed, justification for the truth of the statement that it exists would be entirely possible - one unfaked photo would do. Seeing is believing, and all that.

I guess we all suspect that it doesn't. But justifying that negative belief requires what ? Familiarity with the results of comprehensive submarine surveys that show that the whole of the loch has been explored ? The finiteness of the area makes it possible to justifiably say "we've looked in all the places and found no monster". That exhaustive search by which absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.

So there is - for this particular type of statement - a real asymmetry between justifying a positive and justifying a negative.

[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.

Are you willing to briefly step though the differences in acceptance and rejection from a mental process? That might illuminate the idea more.

This is not my thread. It's a thread based on a strawman polemic. I can step through if you have a specific example, but we have little warent to generalise, and without the OP's co-operation I cannot adress the thread specifically.
Suffice it to say that you can think of your own examples where you have rejected or accpeted ideas, and mobilised other ideas in that process. But as you can imagine the field is diverse from a formal mathematical proof where the accetance and rejection might be the result of the same process, to a rejection or acceptance of a political, religious or social position where the content might be more emotionally logical.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

I accept the absolute truth of what you say — "accepting an idea is NOT the same as rejecting it". But it is the same logical process that leads to both. We subject a "maybe" to our logical consideration, and sometimes we have sufficient reason to reach a conclusion. And that conclusion might be acceptance or rejection. The same process leads to both conclusions. [Obviously, in any particular case, it does not lead to both acceptance and rejection, it leads to one or the other.]

Just as often, there is insufficient reason to reach a conclusion, so the idea must be returned to the "maybe" pile. In this case, there is no reason for acceptance or rejection, and to do either would be incorrect and illogical.

Can you describe why you think that, "The mental process that leads to acceptance is not the same as rejection"? Is this process not the consideration of a "maybe", according to logic and reason? One process leading to YES, MAYBE, or NO, according to the evidence?

[Pattern-chaser]

You've probably come across the idea that "you can't prove a negative".

Selecting this idea, from all the others stored in one's head, isn't a conscious process - the subconscious mind throws it up as possibly relevant.

When we consider it, it's clear that it only applies to some sorts of negative statement. For example, I can prove that I didn't commit a crime, if I have an alibi.

Agreed. But here, the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". This topic is considering philosophical investigation, in a context of logic and reason, where the criterion for acceptance or rejection is rather more demanding/rigorous. So I don't disagree with what you say, but I do observe that the two standards of judgement exist here, and we could be misled if we confused one with the other.

But it does apply to propositions about existence in an infinite universe.

If the Loch Ness Monster existed, justification for the truth of the statement that it exists would be entirely possible - one unfaked photo would do. Seeing is believing, and all that.

I guess we all suspect that it doesn't. But justifying that negative belief requires what ? Familiarity with the results of comprehensive submarine surveys that show that the whole of the loch has been explored ? The finiteness of the area makes it possible to justifiably say "we've looked in all the places and found no monster". That exhaustive search by which absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.

So there is - for this particular type of statement - a real asymmetry between justifying a positive and justifying a negative.

Yes, and yet either conclusion seemed to flow from consideration of all available evidence, and weighing it using logic and reason. One process that can lead to acceptance or rejection, depending on the nature, quantity, and quality of the evidence. In that way, they are the same, yes?

I wonder if the asymmetry you refer to actually applies to the evidence available in a specific case, and not to the process of applying logic and reason to that evidence, which remains the same?

[Sadiarahman]

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...

[Pattern-chaser]

...But as you can imagine the field is diverse from a formal mathematical proof where the accetance and rejection might be the result of the same process, to a rejection or acceptance of a political, religious or social position where the content might be more emotionally logical.

Ah, now this is a possible reason for misunderstanding. I thought my OP made it clear that I was (and am) wondering about argument conducted (only) according to logic and reason, and I placed it here, in the Scientific part of the forum, where such qualities take pride of place.

Political, religious and social arguments do not operate by the same rules. They may incorporate logic, and even reason too, but they will also include other factors that this topic was never intended to apply to.

[Sculptor1]

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.

I accept the absolute truth of what you say — "accepting an idea is NOT the same as rejecting it". But it is the same logical process that leads to both. We subject a "maybe" to our logical consideration, and sometimes we have sufficient reason to reach a conclusion. And that conclusion might be acceptance or rejection. The same process leads to both conclusions. [Obviously, in any particular case, it does not lead to both acceptance and rejection, it leads to one or the other.]

Please refer to the post I directed to Turtle above.

Yu may deal with the problem of generalisation if you wish.
However since you seem to think that acceptance and rejection are the same, it begs the question why are you asking?
If you reject the responses of other people because you already know, then what is the thread about?
Eventually you are going to have to give in an offer an example.

Just as often, there is insufficient reason to reach a conclusion, so the idea must be returned to the "maybe" pile. In this case, there is no reason for acceptance or rejection, and to do either would be incorrect and illogical.

Can you describe why you think that, "The mental process that leads to acceptance is not the same as rejection"? Is this process not the consideration of a "maybe", according to logic and reason? One process leading to YES, MAYBE, or NO, according to the evidence?

You are lacking evidence for the entire thread. Until you furnish that evidence we are all just thrashing about in the dark.
ie who the hell is this objection of your directed at?

[Sculptor1]

...But as you can imagine the field is diverse from a formal mathematical proof where the accetance and rejection might be the result of the same process, to a rejection or acceptance of a political, religious or social position where the content might be more emotionally logical.

Ah, now this is a possible reason for misunderstanding. I thought my OP made it clear that I was (and am) wondering about argument conducted (only) according to logic and reason, and I placed it here, in the Scientific part of the forum, where such qualities take pride of place.

There is no such animal as an emotionless argment not even a mathematical one. And that does not just apply to Neural typicals.

Political, religious and social arguments do not operate by the same rules. They may incorporate logic, and even reason too, but they will also include other factors that this topic was never intended to apply to.

SO you are rejecting Political, religious and social arguments as "illogical". Is that right. And now you seem to be claiming that purely and unemotional arguments of maths and logic are rejectable or acceptible unreasonably?
That is pretty funny
I can't wait to see the actual example of your lifetime's experoence with such failings of others.... Or do you also fall into this catagory?

[Pattern-chaser]

...who the hell is this objection of your directed at?

Those who feel that acceptance of an idea requires sufficient reason — with which we all agree, I think? — but that an idea may be rejected without the same level of rigour, often on the basis of belief, opinion or 'feeling'. N.B. I refer only to questions that may be adequately dealt with using only logical and reasoned argument.

[Pattern-chaser]

Political, religious and social arguments do not operate by the same rules. They may incorporate logic, and even reason too, but they will also include other factors that this topic was never intended to apply to.

SO you are rejecting Political, religious and social arguments as "illogical". Is that right?

No.

If you read my words, above, you will see that I acknowledge that such arguments may incorporate logic and reason, but also take other factors and influences into account. And those other factors often do not conform to the dictates of logic and reason, such as 'revealed knowledge' possibly from a divine source, the dogma resulting from a political ideology, or uncritical regard for the outpourings of an internet influencer.

1. I do not "reject" such arguments, but only admit that my focus in this topic does not 'do them justice'. The rules they are governed by include these other factors as well as logic and reason, in varying proportions.

2. I do not assert that these arguments are "illogical", if that is a complete, stand-alone', statement. I observe that they are sometimes logical, to some extent...

[Sculptor1]

...who the hell is this objection of your directed at?

Those who feel that acceptance of an idea requires sufficient reason — with which we all agree, I think? — but that an idea may be rejected without the same level of rigour, often on the basis of belief, opinion or 'feeling'. N.B. I refer only to questions that may be adequately dealt with using only logical and reasoned argument.

Is there any other?
Even the most moral questions, it is claimed, are rationalised.

[Sculptor1]

1. I do not "reject" such arguments, but only admit that my focus in this topic does not 'do them justice'. The rules they are governed by include these other factors as well as logic and reason, in varying proportions.

2. I do not assert that these arguments are "illogical", if that is a complete, stand-alone', statement. I observe that they are sometimes logical, to some extent...

You will have to give an example.

[Sy Borg]

There's much logic being liberally used in fields like science and engineering. Just about everything else, though, is driven by personality, power networks and manipulation. So, in a sense, I'm not sure that logic much matters.

Half of a nation approves of a bloke who tried to destroy the Constitution that they claim to value most of all - and he drew over a weather map with a Sharpie pen in a failed attempt not to appear imbecilic. This man has exponentially more influence than the most logical and dispassionate thinkers in the world.

In most of life, a good story with a basic affectation of logic defeats actual logic almost every time. "Justifications" often need only to be very surface level to be effective, eg.

Claimant: X is true because of Y
Responder: Y is not true
Claimant: Yes it is.
Responder: Prove it.
Claimant: Prove it isn't.
Responder: Y is false due to Z.
Claimant: Z is wrong.
Responder: Z has been verified by ...

At this stage, most of the public has tuned out and perceives a "he said, she said" situation, so they make decisions based on donkey sense, charm, trickery and self-interest. This flim-flammery appears to be highly effective in the public arena, as it has probably worked for thousands of years.

It is arguably why we are all, ultimately, up the creek without a paddle ...