Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 12:41 pmmy 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.
This seems to be a valid argument but your proposed logical implication, that it requires to uplift the demand for justification to reject claims to the same level as is used to accept claims, may not have the practical effect of 'keeping an open mind for anything'.
The reason is, as was mentioned by Thomyum2, is that justification is itself based on belief and thus when posing that justification is to have a quality beyond belief, i.e. is something to expect as a finality in the world, it will result in the propagation of dogma.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 8th, 2023, 9:50 amIf 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.
Are you familiar with Russell's
teapot argument?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
"
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a 
China teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
If it cannot be dismissed that a teapot is flying around near Mars, why should one be obligated to consider it a possibility?
I tend to agree with Sculptor1 on this and his question seemed valid:
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 4:52 amIf 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.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 12:41 pmMy answer to this is simple — please don't trivialise this discussion. Thanks.
Sculptor1 was right about the flat-earth theory example.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 9th, 2023, 10:46 amThe 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.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 9th, 2023, 2:08 pmThis is false.
...
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.
AI: "
The myth that people in the Middle Ages believed in a flat Earth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings. Historians have debunked this myth, stating that educated people in Columbus's time, including Columbus himself, knew that the Earth was round. In conclusion, the belief in a flat Earth was not universal, and the idea that people in the Middle Ages predominantly thought the Earth was flat is a modern delusion. Columbus and his contemporaries, as well as the ancients, knew that the world was round.
The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient times, with Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras and Aristotle providing evidence for a round Earth around 500 BC. By the 5th century BC, it was widely accepted that the Earth was a sphere."
"
The myth of the flat Earth, or the flat-Earth error, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
With regard the concept
justification to be based on belief and not on 'intrinsic real' (objective reality):
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 7:38 amBy "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.
This is questionable in my opinion. With your argument, in the face of a generic perceiver that is to receive wisdom on behalf of 'what to do?', the idea is put forward as apparently
unquestionable, that justification beyond belief - knowledge of a fixating kind - is ought to be obtained.
It would naturally
propagate dogma by the simple fact that one is to subject to a higher judgement external to ones belief and that higher judgement is naturally to be within the control of a body, an authority, such as a Church organ or a 'scientific establishment' that acts 'on behalf' of that presumable non-belief worthy higher judgement, because who is he/she to know it better?
The reply of Thomyum2 is interesting in this regard:
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 4:12 pmIn 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.
It is related to the belief that scientific facts are other than truth claims, or the dogmatic belief in
uniformitarianism, the belief that the facts of science are valid outside the scope of time.
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 4:12 pmI 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:
William James wrote: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.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 11th, 2023, 10:43 amIt 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.
It seems that you seek 'closure' in language, with that language being referred to as 'logic and reason'.
The founder of Institute of Arts and Ideas
Hilary Lawson wrote a book about Closure theory that might be applicable.
"
For over 2000 years our culture has believed in the possibility of a single true account of the world."
https://iai.tv/video/hilary-lawson-on-closure (video)
Closure theory ... "
the theory describes our method of using language to close off the unlimited source of info directly in front of and all around us."
https://www.amazon.com/Closure-Story-Ev ... 0415136504
It has been my opinion that the pursuit of closure is a moral one (the essence of ethics) but it is not in the
achievement of closure that one finds its true value.
The truth of science is just a facet of 'the good' as William James mentioned in the quote provided by Tomyum2, and morality and other aspects might be equally worthy of consideration from diverse perspectives.
Besides that the idea of justification beyond belief propagates dogma, the pursuit of Closure seeks
exclusion and therefore can result in violence.
What once has been perceived as good, is put in front of the charier as it were, and that is where the war begins...
Bertrand Russell described it in an essay that he called ‘Philosophers and
Pigs’.
It seems the essence of virtue is persecution, and it has given me a disgust of all ethical notions. In private, Russell referred to the essay as ‘Philosophers and Pigs’.
https://aeon.co/essays/philosophy-at-wa ... l-analysis
Therefore your idea put forward as unquestionable that
justification - a qualitative knowledge different from belief - is
ought to be obtained seems to be a basis to propagate dogma and fixation, because what else are people to do when they are held a
carrot in front of them that poses that justification beyond belief it to be attained as a greater good, and one is better to adhere to what the dogma about that justified truth is telling them, because who are they to 'know it better' than [fill in your authority here]...
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 10th, 2023, 4:12 pmI'm reminded of a favorite quote from William James here:
William James wrote: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.
Scientific truth belongs to morality and it is dogmatic to argue that it stands separate from morality, i.e. that it has a quality 'beyond belief' or 'beyond time'.
teapot argument?
China teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Pigs’.
carrot in front of them that poses that justification beyond belief it to be attained as a greater good, and one is better to adhere to what the dogma about that justified truth is telling them, because who are they to 'know it better' than [fill in your authority here]...
balloon, tell me why you might want to not dismiss that out of hand!