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

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

Er, no I don't, and I won't. I offered a simple and clear response (above) to your observation (not above; why did you elide it?). What more do you want?

[Pattern-chaser]

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 ...

Yes, I suppose this is where RL 'logic' brings us. To a point where people will arbitrarily accept or reject anything, on the flimsiest of grounds, or none at all. It is sad, but of course it isn't philosophy, and people are quite content to proclaim 'truths' and 'lies' according to how they feel at the time. More, no-one thinks this is odd, or in any way wrong. We philosophers might argue with this, but if we did, no-one would believe us; hardly anyone would even listen; they'd 'tune out' long before they became aware of what was being said to them. Self-centred, creative, and selective, deafness. Can we live a modern life without it? It's a little like doublethink, and just as vital. Is Kanye (?) really greater than God? <buries head in hands>

[LuckyR]

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 ...

Yes, I suppose this is where RL 'logic' brings us. To a point where people will arbitrarily accept or reject anything, on the flimsiest of grounds, or none at all. It is sad, but of course it isn't philosophy, and people are quite content to proclaim 'truths' and 'lies' according to how they feel at the time. More, no-one thinks this is odd, or in any way wrong. We philosophers might argue with this, but if we did, no-one would believe us; hardly anyone would even listen; they'd 'tune out' long before they became aware of what was being said to them. Self-centred, creative, and selective, deafness. Can we live a modern life without it? It's a little like doublethink, and just as vital. Is Kanye (?) really greater than God? <buries head in hands>

Exactly. In the Post Truth era conclusions are arrived at first, then "evidence" is cherry-picked to support the predetermined "conclusion".

[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.

Er, no I don't, and I won't. I offered a simple and clear response (above) to your observation (not above; why did you elide it?). What more do you want?

Okay - then here is my answer.
Your thread is rubbish, since it is wholly a result of your imagination; not reality.
People are not as you say. They have exactly the same standards to accept a new idea as they do to reject one.
The entire thread is an exercise in futility, and is just a refection on your internal angst rather than a feature of other people's failings as you seem to be claining. As without an example it is just your fertile imagination.

[Sculptor1]

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 ...

Yes, I suppose this is where RL 'logic' brings us. To a point where people will arbitrarily accept or reject anything, on the flimsiest of grounds, or none at all. It is sad, but of course it isn't philosophy, and people are quite content to proclaim 'truths' and 'lies' according to how they feel at the time. More, no-one thinks this is odd, or in any way wrong. We philosophers might argue with this, but if we did, no-one would believe us; hardly anyone would even listen; they'd 'tune out' long before they became aware of what was being said to them. Self-centred, creative, and selective, deafness. Can we live a modern life without it? It's a little like doublethink, and just as vital. Is Kanye (?) really greater than God? <buries head in hands>

Exactly. In the Post Truth era conclusions are arrived at first, then "evidence" is cherry-picked to support the predetermined "conclusion".

Is this your personal method?

[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 ...

Yes, I suppose this is where RL 'logic' brings us. To a point where people will arbitrarily accept or reject anything, on the flimsiest of grounds, or none at all. It is sad, but of course it isn't philosophy, and people are quite content to proclaim 'truths' and 'lies' according to how they feel at the time. More, no-one thinks this is odd, or in any way wrong. We philosophers might argue with this, but if we did, no-one would believe us; hardly anyone would even listen; they'd 'tune out' long before they became aware of what was being said to them. Self-centred, creative, and selective, deafness. Can we live a modern life without it? It's a little like doublethink, and just as vital. Is Kanye (?) really greater than God? <buries head in hands>

It appears to always have been so. The Greeks and Romans lied, manipulated and propagandised all the time. Arabs, Chinese and Indians too. For instance, what was actually so bad about the Canaanites? The poor b's were battered through the Bible before the Israelites killed them off or drove them into caves. "History" was written by the winners. A popular fiction.

Today ... many people get busy and distracted - rooting, having babies, raising children, trying to find a place to live, etc. They don't have the time or training to parse the easy games politicians play. This is IMO the strongest argument against democracy. Yet, when we put the theory aside, somehow democracy works a whole lot better than having some narcissist quasi-divine ruler who is too pig-headed and insecure to take advice from his or her betters. The nest is smarter than the individual ants.

So, in a sense, angst seems a suboptimal response to the fact that everyone's lives have been basically built upon an enormous festering pile of BS. It has always been so and, absurdly, somehow it works. Rotting remains becomes soil, and the soil is productive.

When you look at human history, and the astonishing conga line of psychopaths, sadists, idiots, lunatics, perverts, scumbags and criminals who have lead humanity from grass huts to space stations, all one can do is wonder how the hell that happened, and how we didn't wipe ourselves out long ago.

Even much-maligned science, which tries its best to play it straight, is ultimately the art of being less wrong than yesterday. Almost none of it is true and its main asset is that it's at least more reliable than unsubstantiated claims. In 10,000 years, if humanity hasn't done itself in, those descendants will look back on our science as we look back on the early efforts of the Greeks - a mix of brilliant insights and absurd blind alleys, and not quite true.

Meanwhile, corporations have taken on a quasi-feudal role, some with their own fiefs, some competing like the Atreides and Harkonnens. Of course, as winners, each has their own brand of propaganda as they compete to exert the most effective manipulation on their target audiences. My expectations seem to be lowering by the year.

[Thomyum2]

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?

Perhaps it would be helpful here to remember the distinction between what is true and what is provable - isn't dismissing something as unproven different from dismissing it as false, and would there be different standards in either of these cases? In other words, isn't sufficient reason to conclude a different thing from sufficient reason to believe?

Logic and reason can only prove, they cannot demonstrate truth unconditionally - they can only derive a true statement from premises that are already accepted or assumed to be true. So in theory at least, to dismiss a conclusion as unproven only requires either identifying a premise as incorrect or an argument as containing a fallacy. It's a lower standard than actually proving a conclusion to be false.

But even if this is the case, I still think your observation that some philosophers dismiss conclusions without 'justification' is largely correct - many won't even take the time to really try to clearly point out where their objections lie. However, speaking from my own experience in engaging in these kinds of logical arguments with other people, it is often easier to recognize that a conclusion is false than it is to understand where exactly the error is in the premises or the reasoning. This is especially true in language, where there can be ambiguity in definitions and hidden assumptions in the way arguments are worded. So perhaps it is due to a poor understanding of philosophical arguments (or even just laziness) that leads some to dismiss things without being able to articulate where the problem really lies with the argument. Then again, I've also encountered spurious assertions that are to my mind so clearly false, yet are put forward by philosophers who are so recalcitrant that it can sometimes seem a fruitless waste of time to try to demonstrate that there is a problem in their proofs, so sometimes dismissal is the only way out when there is no hope of reaching a mutual understanding. After all, we all have to choose our battles in life.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your thread is rubbish, since it is wholly a result of your imagination; not reality.
People are not as you say. They have exactly the same standards to accept a new idea as they do to reject one.
The entire thread is an exercise in futility, and is just a refection on your internal angst rather than a feature of other people's failings as you seem to be claining. As without an example it is just your fertile imagination.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm even sorrier that you have seen fit to post such words. Does it really benefit anyone to rubbish a topic? After all, you offer nothing constructive, but only insults intended (as far as I can see) to demean? If you don't approve, maybe just shut up? It's a thought...

[Good_Egg]

Pattern-chaser , I have to say I'm a little confused about where you see the issue.

We know that some people make some decisions based on emotion and story rather than on evidence and logic.

And you've agreed that within the process of evidence and logic, it may be easier to justify a positive than a negative or vice versa.

And of course you know that, logically, rejecting a proposition is identical to accepting its converse. Accepting the idea that the LNM exists is rejecting the idea that it doesn't.

So is the problem you see one that is within the process of logical reasoning from evidence - as the title suggests - or merely the observation that such a process is too little used ?

Where's the beef ?

[Sculptor1]

Your thread is rubbish, since it is wholly a result of your imagination; not reality.
People are not as you say. They have exactly the same standards to accept a new idea as they do to reject one.
The entire thread is an exercise in futility, and is just a refection on your internal angst rather than a feature of other people's failings as you seem to be claining. As without an example it is just your fertile imagination.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm even sorrier that you have seen fit to post such words. Does it really benefit anyone to rubbish a topic? After all, you offer nothing constructive, but only insults intended (as far as I can see) to demean? If you don't approve, maybe just shut up? It's a thought...

I have offered several useful contributions. So do not pretend that you have not read them.

I have yet another from this morning's reading...

I was reading Chris Van Tulleen's "Ultra Provessed People", Cornerstone, 2023, p234

In it the author talks about using rats and mice for assessing the safety of food additives. He reflects that, as rats are not human, a negative result showing no adverse effect from the additive is no reason to assume that the additive would be safe in humans. If your main concern is human safety the safety of a rat would not be enough.
However were the rats to be harmed that may well be enough to reject the substance as safe. Rats are more likely to be resilient than humans as they live and grow with the full force of selective pressure, whereas humans do not. And human health is a respect long years way beyind the reproductive life cycle which is of significance to evolution.

The absence of a problem in rodents does not make a substance safe in humans.
Now I suppose you would complain that rejecting the claims of safety would not be on the same "logical" basis as acceptance, citing "PROBLEM OF LOGIC" in being able to accept, prefering to reject.


And yet there are perfectly logical reasons why we would continue to reject an unknown substance for inclusion into our diet.

But if you look at the problem from another direction every rejection is an aceptance of something else. Those reserving judgement on the safety of the substance are also ACCEPTING the value of scrutiny.
Acceptance and rejection in ALL things is a two sided coin.


Sadly, in reality (a concept people seem too scared to face), there is precisou little testing on novel additives, as since 2016 there have bee over 750 new ones that have had zero scrutiny. It seems that food manufacturers are only too willing to ACCEPT then as safe without regulation or scrutiny, which pretty much flies against your assertion in the thread.
Now I ask you. Is it more or less "logical", to reject the avalanche of novel food additives? Or am I suffering from a "problem of logic" by refusing to accept them?


This is not the first example I have furnished.
Yet you continue to remain mute and contribution nothing to what is, without examples, an empty headed verbal exchange of nothing.

[Pattern-chaser]

Perhaps it would be helpful here to remember the distinction between what is true and what is provable - isn't dismissing something as unproven different from dismissing it as false, and would there be different standards in either of these cases? In other words, isn't sufficient reason to conclude a different thing from sufficient reason to believe?

Hmm. I think it's worth taking a simple analogy, already used in this topic. Let's imagine that ideas are placed in 3 piles. The biggest — near-infinite? — pile holds all the possibilities; the 'maybes'. The next-biggest holds the rejected ideas, and the smallest pile of all, the accepted ones. In the context of your words, above, I would say that we don't "dismiss" an idea if we leave it on the maybe pile, or return it there following inconclusive consideration. We dismiss an idea if we reject it. It's just words, I know, but it does contribute to confusion.

As for proof, and ideas being "unproven", well that's a big question to dive into. That's why I've referred here to ideas being accepted (or rejected) if there is sufficient reason; conclusive reason. And the difference between "unproven" and "false"? My interpretation of those terms is that an unproven (or 'undisproven') idea still belongs on the maybe pile, while a false one goes onto the rejected pile.

Reason to "believe"? I suppose I must offer the obvious response: if we accept it, we surely believe it. If we have yet to accept it, then perhaps belief is premature?

Logic and reason can only prove, they cannot demonstrate truth unconditionally - they can only derive a true statement from premises that are already accepted or assumed to be true. So in theory at least, to dismiss a conclusion as unproven only requires either identifying a premise as incorrect or an argument as containing a fallacy. It's a lower standard than actually proving a conclusion to be false.

Ah, now you seem to be conflating "unproven" and disproven? If we are able to show that the premises offered are incorrect, then the argument, as it stands, must be rejected. To me, that's not unproven, that disproven, for sure. And I don't see the standard as being lower. If the argument is rejected because of incorrect premises, or accepted because its premises are correct, it's the same logical operation. The same "standard", yes?

But even if this is the case, I still think your observation that some philosophers dismiss conclusions without 'justification' is largely correct - many won't even take the time to really try to clearly point out where their objections lie. However, speaking from my own experience in engaging in these kinds of logical arguments with other people, it is often easier to recognize that a conclusion is false than it is to understand where exactly the error is in the premises or the reasoning. This is especially true in language, where there can be ambiguity in definitions and hidden assumptions in the way arguments are worded. So perhaps it is due to a poor understanding of philosophical arguments (or even just laziness) that leads some to dismiss things without being able to articulate where the problem really lies with the argument. Then again, I've also encountered spurious assertions that are to my mind so clearly false, yet are put forward by philosophers who are so recalcitrant that it can sometimes seem a fruitless waste of time to try to demonstrate that there is a problem in their proofs, so sometimes dismissal is the only way out when there is no hope of reaching a mutual understanding. After all, we all have to choose our battles in life.

I can't disagree with this. I created this topic in an attempt to understand the reject-it-out-of-hand thinkers, hoping that one or more of them might present their reasons, which would at least help my understanding of their position, even if it didn't lead to me agreeing with them. So far, I have seen no justification — no sufficient reason — for such behaviour. I live in hope, but I suspect that if anyone was going to offer such enlightenment, they might already have done so?

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser , I have to say I'm a little confused about where you see the issue.

I've stated and restated this a number of times. It seems I'm not doing it very well. But I can't think of a different way to say it. I have a problem with those who will reject an idea with far less reason than they will require to accept one.

And of course you know that, logically, rejecting a proposition is identical to accepting its converse. Accepting the idea that the LNM exists is rejecting the idea that it doesn't.

Yes, but this applies only in the context of binary thinking, where the "middle" is "excluded" by mandate. In network thinking, where the middle is explicitly included, your reasoning is invalid.

[LuckyR]

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 ...

Yes, I suppose this is where RL 'logic' brings us. To a point where people will arbitrarily accept or reject anything, on the flimsiest of grounds, or none at all. It is sad, but of course it isn't philosophy, and people are quite content to proclaim 'truths' and 'lies' according to how they feel at the time. More, no-one thinks this is odd, or in any way wrong. We philosophers might argue with this, but if we did, no-one would believe us; hardly anyone would even listen; they'd 'tune out' long before they became aware of what was being said to them. Self-centred, creative, and selective, deafness. Can we live a modern life without it? It's a little like doublethink, and just as vital. Is Kanye (?) really greater than God? <buries head in hands>

Exactly. In the Post Truth era conclusions are arrived at first, then "evidence" is cherry-picked to support the predetermined "conclusion".

Is this your personal method?

No. My worldview was developed before the Post Truth era

[Sculptor1]

Yes, I suppose this is where RL 'logic' brings us. To a point where people will arbitrarily accept or reject anything, on the flimsiest of grounds, or none at all. It is sad, but of course it isn't philosophy, and people are quite content to proclaim 'truths' and 'lies' according to how they feel at the time. More, no-one thinks this is odd, or in any way wrong. We philosophers might argue with this, but if we did, no-one would believe us; hardly anyone would even listen; they'd 'tune out' long before they became aware of what was being said to them. Self-centred, creative, and selective, deafness. Can we live a modern life without it? It's a little like doublethink, and just as vital. Is Kanye (?) really greater than God? <buries head in hands>

Exactly. In the Post Truth era conclusions are arrived at first, then "evidence" is cherry-picked to support the predetermined "conclusion".

Is this your personal method?

No. My worldview was developed before the Post Truth era

What you describe is over 2000 years of the history of religion.
There is no "post ruth era", its just the same old same old. Things increase in fashion, but its probably more about the waves and troughs of media.
And it is worth saying that no one really thinks any of this applies directly to us: it's always the other fool.

[Good_Egg]

I can't think of a different way to say it. I have a problem with those who will reject an idea with far less reason than they will require to accept one.

Taken at face value, your position sounds perfectly right and reasonable.

So we ask, "why would anyone do that ?". In order to understand why. Is it, as the title suggests, a problem with the structure of logic ? Is it just a common temptation not to use logic for particular decisions ? But without an example, our understanding has not increased.

We've talked about activities where a verdict of undecided or unproven has the same practical import as a verdict of rejection. The manuscript that the publisher is undecided about remains unpublished. The food additive whose safety is undetermined remains (we hope) unused.

And we know that admitting that one is wrong is a pain in the ego. Confirmation bias means that we accept ideas that fit our worldview much more easily than we accept ideas that threaten to overturn it. The standard of proof and standard of argument that a socialist/capitalist requires in order to accept that socialism/capitalism doesn't work is high. Whereas minimal plausibility is demanded of examples that it does...

But that doesn't seem to address the instances that you're thinking of. So we're left with agreeing with you that at face value such an inconsistency of standard of proof seems a mistake.