Infinite Regress

[Illuminaughty]

1. For any given belief, a proof is required for that belief to be justified (assumed).


2. However, for every proof given, yet another proof is required for that proof to be justified; leading to vicious infinite regress of proofs.


3. An infinite regress of proofs provides no basis for justification since it is impossible to determine if every belief in the series is justified.
​

What do people make of this argument and can they find a way around it? Is there possibly a reason to deny the first assumption?

 

[Elioenai26]

1. For any given belief, a proof is required for that belief to be justified (assumed).


2. However, for every proof given, yet another proof is required for that proof to be justified; leading to vicious infinite regress of proofs.


3. An infinite regress of proofs provides no basis for justification since it is impossible to determine if every belief in the series is justified.

​

What do people make of this argument and can they find a way around it? Is there possibly a reason to deny the first assumption?

Yes indeed, there is a reason why this syllogism is fallacious, and it is because of premise (ii).

Richard Dawkins used the idea in premise (ii) to attempt to refute the idea that God is not a good explanation for the origin of the universe because you still have to have an explanation for God.

Dr. William Lane Craig simply and effectively shows why this principle is inept and fallacious at best.

Dr. William Lane Craig refutes Richard Dawkin's pseudo-logic - YouTube

Dr. William Lane Craig Responds to Dawkins Book - YouTube

 

[Illuminaughty]

Richard Dawkins used the idea in premise (ii) to attempt to refute the idea that God is not a good explanation for the origin of the universe because you still have to have an explanation for God.

Wouldn't you still have to prove that God exists and any proof you gave to do that would itself require another proof... and so on? You might not need an explanation for the creation of God but any of the proofs you provide in support of the theory "God exists" would themselves require more proofs ad infinitum. That certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of God existing but it might imply a lack of ability to prove it if he/she/it does.

 

[Gracchus]

What we don't see is any evidence for any "theological" assumption. Scientists observe the world then attempt to explain it. They test their hypotheses against reality. If the hypotheses don't conform to reality, they are rejected or recast.

Theologians posit "God" as an explanation, but then, so define "God" that the explanation is untestable. "Goddidit" can explain anything at all, but can't be tested by any observation.

The germ theory of disease helped us eradicate smallpox. The concept of disease as a trial or punishment from "God" was not at all helpful, nor can prayer be shown to have played a part.

"Goddidit" is not an explanation. If you could prove that some "God" made the world, you still couldn't produce evidence that he cares for it more than a dog cares for what he left on your lawn.

 

[quatona]

1. For any given belief, a proof is required for that belief to be justified (assumed).


2. However, for every proof given, yet another proof is required for that proof to be justified; leading to vicious infinite regress of proofs.


3. An infinite regress of proofs provides no basis for justification since it is impossible to determine if every belief in the series is justified.
​

What do people make of this argument and can they find a way around it?
Is there possibly a reason to deny the first assumption?

Since there hasn´t been a reason given for the first assumption I think it can be denied without giving a reason.
Anyway, it´s always a good idea to become aware of your most basic (axiomatic) beliefs.

 

[Leap]

1. For any given belief, a proof is required for that belief to be justified (assumed).

Imagine for a moment that I am a magistrate who you have been put before. Do I need a proof to presume your innocence, or do we take it as granted, on faith, that you are, until it is proven otherwise.



Faith, which is believing on trust without requiring evidence, is superior to doubt.

From my blog:
Faith is about trusting until given reason not to trust. It receives that which is given, without question or doubt. Treating people as innocent until they are proven guilty; with guilt proven by heresy, which means denying faith itself.

Doubt, conversely, is about distrusting until given reason to trust. It demands evidence, treating people as either fool or fraud, until and unless they offer evidence to support what they say. Guilty, of being fool or fraud and thus not deserving of trust, until proven innocent (ie: trustworthy) by evidence. Doubt is the spirit that underpins the key value of the modern world – modernity is rooted in doubt.

What then is in-keeping with faith? What would a “faith” person love as part of faith? Well, as faith is trusting until you have reason not to, so then those things that are in-keeping with faith will express that value also. They will be about receiving without challenging, and keeping until you have reason not to. They will be about loving something until and unless whatever it is itself contradicts such love by denying faith.

This means that conservatism is faith-ly, and by that I do not mean the politics that today so often claims to be “Conservative”. Conservatism is about receiving unchallenged, preserving, holding in trust, and then in time passing it on to someone else who will do the same. Inheriting, rather than procuring. Maintaining, rather than expanding. Traditional, rather than innovative. Cherishing – holding dear, preserving and sacrificing for, regardless of use to self – rather than consuming. And cyclic, passing on what was passed on, where the tree that drops a seed becomes a tree that drops a seed, rather than linear and ‘progressing’ away.

It also means that forthrightness is faith-ly. This is so because deviousness would entail calculation, and calculation, being about analysing and ‘improving’ something rather than simply trusting and running with what you receive, is alien to faith.

Finally, this also means that obedience is faith-ly, too, as obedience is trusting and accepting that which is asked of you.

So what of Doubt? If the fruits of faith are in-keeping with the spirit of faith, what fruits of doubt are in-keeping with the spirit of doubt? Well, doubt, being the opposite of faith (which doubt laughs at for its vulnerability and irrationality), is not about trusting until given reason not to. Instead, conversely, doubt is about distrusting until given reason to trust. It demands evidence, treating people as guilty until proven innocent. Nothing is taken on assertion or on word-of-honour, but instead the evidence is always to be required. Sometimes, doubt can lead to behaviour that appears on the surface to be “conservative”, “forthright” or “obedience”, but in truth it is only ever a contrived appearance of such.

Doubt, however, does not stop with the poisonous notion of “guilty until proven innocent”. There is something else lurking within its dismal and ruinous depths. Doubt turns upon itself as doubt, to not contradict itself, must itself also doubt doubting. Furthermore it must doubt the doubting of doubt. And so onwards through doubting the doubting of the doubting of doubt. It cannot at any point take Doubt on faith, as that would then deny doubt itself by contradicting its own essence of not trusting until given reason to. So instead, to be self-consistent, doubt must lead to an endless downward spiral of doubting that can never be satisfied, looking at doubt with doubting eyes, then looking at the doubting of doubt with doubting eyes; until eventually the doubter collapses in the despair of the bottomless pit that doubt conjures. What began in a desire for power ends up in the howling insanity of the unfathomable abyss of wretchedness as doubt gnaws even at its own self.

 

[The Engineer]

Imagine for a moment that I am a magistrate who you have been put before. Do I need a proof to presume your innocence, or do we take it as granted, on faith, that you are, until it is proven otherwise.

Several reasons dictate why we should always presume innocence. First, presuming innocence is regarded as less dangerous than presuming criminal behavior; second, innocence is regarded as the more common state in citizens, whereas criminal behavior is the exception, which is why it must be proven; third, it is known that proving innocence is impossible, as it is the absence of bad deeds. Absolute negatives are impossible to prove in a complex system.
That doesn't mean beliefs should should be accepted until proven otherwise.

Faith, which is believing on trust without requiring evidence, is superior to doubt.

I trust my parents; I have a reason to do so. I don't trust the CIA, on the other hand, not after MK-ULTRA. Having faith in them would be dangerous; why would I take anything they say for granted?
Having faith in the wrong persons can cause a lot of damage, which is why I disagree with you.

Faith is about trusting until given reason not to trust. It receives that which is given, without question or doubt. Treating people as innocent until they are proven guilty; with guilt proven by heresy, which means denying faith itself.

As I said, you don't need faith to presume innocence.

Doubt, conversely, is about distrusting until given reason to trust.

True.

It demands evidence, treating people as either fool or fraud, until and unless they offer evidence to support what they say.

The alternative would be to believe everything people tell you, and this obviously wouldn't work.

Guilty, of being fool or fraud and thus not deserving of trust, until proven innocent (ie: trustworthy) by evidence.

Presuming innocence has little to do with faith.

It also means that forthrightness is faith-ly. This is so because deviousness would entail calculation, and calculation, being about analysing and ‘improving’ something rather than simply trusting and running with what you receive, is alien to faith.

So taking everything at face value is better then thinking if it makes sense?

Finally, this also means that obedience is faith-ly, too, as obedience is trusting and accepting that which is asked of you.

Obedience can be damaging, too.

Nothing is taken on assertion or on word-of-honour, but instead the evidence is always to be required.

Few people are that doubtful.

Doubt, however, does not stop with the poisonous notion of “guilty until proven innocent”.

Already talked about that one.

There is something else lurking within its dismal and ruinous depths. Doubt turns upon itself as doubt, to not contradict itself, must itself also doubt doubting. Furthermore it must doubt the doubting of doubt. And so onwards through doubting the doubting of the doubting of doubt. It cannot at any point take Doubt on faith, as that would then deny doubt itself by contradicting its own essence of not trusting until given reason to. So instead, to be self-consistent, doubt must lead to an endless downward spiral of doubting that can never be satisfied, looking at doubt with doubting eyes, then looking at the doubting of doubt with doubting eyes; until eventually the doubter collapses in the despair of the bottomless pit that doubt conjures. What began in a desire for power ends up in the howling insanity of the unfathomable abyss of wretchedness as doubt gnaws even at its own self.

faithnotdoubt | remembering who we are

No one is completely doubtful, as I said. That would bring us nowhere. Being faithful in everyone, however, is just as bad.

 

[The Engineer]

Since there hasn´t been a reason given for the first assumption I think it can be denied without giving a reason.
Anyway, it´s always a good idea to become aware of your most basic (axiomatic) beliefs.

You want a reason? Okay.

If you deny the first assumption, this means that you must believe everything, all the time, without proof. This, on the other hand, means that all your beliefs would contradict themselves. You could not make any logical assertions anymore, because you would simultaneously believe the premise and the opposite premise of every argument.

That's why it's better to take the first assumption for granted.

Concerning the topic itself: I guess you always have to take something for granted, for the sake of the argument. That doesn't mean you must not justify your belief in this something, if it is questioned. I, for example, always took the burden of proof for granted, until I met someone who questioned it. So I justified the burden of proof with the argument I wrote above, and so far, it has worked.

Ideally, in a debate, you would eventually reach common ground with your intellectual opponent, then the problem infinite regress wouldn't be a problem anymore.

I'd say reaching this common ground happens far more often then some people think. After all, we're still all based on the same brain-template, so to speak.

 

[quatona]

You want a reason? Okay.

If you deny the first assumption, this means that you must believe everything, all the time, without proof.

Not sure how this follows. As far as I can see it merely means that I can believe something without having proof (and e.g. use other criteria than proof to divide that which I consider worth assuming from that which I don´t consider worth assuming).
"Proof" is a big word and needs to be used carefully.

 

[Leap]

Several reasons dictate why we should always presume innocence.

None of which change the fact that we still take innocence on the basis of an act of faith. If, for example, most people could be shown to be plotting something all of the time, would that mean we should switch to "guilty until proven innocent"? No. We take this stance not because of evidence but as an act of faith.

I trust my parents; I have a reason to do so. I don't trust the CIA, on the other hand, not after MK-ULTRA. Having faith in them would be dangerous; why would I take anything they say for granted?
Having faith in the wrong persons can cause a lot of damage, which is why I disagree with you.

Faith makes us vulnerable to betrayal, yes. But doubt is inherently poison.

The alternative would be to believe everything people tell you, and this obviously wouldn't work.

No, the alternative is to trust until faith itself is denied by what is said or done. If you read my blog it goes into a little more detail of what a faith-based society is...and thus denial of faith involves in practice. I'm not speaking of blind faith, that carries on believing regardless, but of simple faith, that believes until given cause not to.

Presuming innocence has little to do with faith.

Presuming innocence is itself an act of faith, because for all your words claiming its benefice the act itself of presumining innoncence still rests on faith in, rather than evidence of, innocence.

No one is completely doubtful, as I said. That would bring us nowhere. Being faithful in everyone, however, is just as bad.

You are mistaken here, and missing the key point, on both counts.

Doubt itself, being the requiring of evidence before you believe something, is literally an insane concept. To truly embrace it you would have to doubt doubt itself, and then also doubt the doubting of doubt, ad infinitum. Doubting could never lead you to embrace doubt because it would require evidence and thus pre-suppose its own correctness and by doing so deny itself. And faith could never lead you to embrace doubt because that would contradict both faith and doubt.

 

[Elioenai26]

Wouldn't you still have to prove that God exists and any proof you gave to do that would itself require another proof... and so on? You might not need an explanation for the creation of God but any of the proofs you provide in support of the theory "God exists" would themselves require more proofs ad inifitum. That certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of God existing but it might imply a lack of ability to prove it if he/she/it does.

Did you watch the two videos?

Philosopher's of science recognize that in order to recognize an explanation (x) as the best explanation for a given set of data, you don't have to have an explanation for the explanation (x)!

This should seem evident but evidently it isnt.

In fact, if scientists did adopt this principle of explaining explanations, then this would lead to the infinite regress of explanations you mention, which would completely render any scientific endeavor futile!

So thankfully, we do not have to have an explanation of the explanation that we know best makes sense of the available data.

 

[The Engineer]

Not sure how this follows. As far as I can see it merely means that I can believe something without having proof

First of all, I doubt you can actually choose what to believe. But even if you can, this would mean that you would choose to do so completely arbitrarily, which is, essentially, denial of logic.

(and e.g. use other criteria than proof to divide that which I consider worth assuming from that which I don´t consider worth assuming).

Which criteria, for example? How do you consider something worth assuming? Based on which potential truth you like more? Again, denial of logic.

 

[The Engineer]

None of which change the fact that we still take innocence on the basis of an act of faith. If, for example, most people could be shown to be plotting something all of the time, would that mean we should switch to "guilty until proven innocent"? No. We take this stance not because of evidence but as an act of faith.

Just because someone is plotting a crime doesn't mean he will commit it. The presumption of innocence would still stay, as thoughtcrime itself is not a recognized crime.
Innocence is the absence of guilt. An absence can't be absolutely proven, any such attempt would be futile. That's why courts do not try to prove innocence, but guilt. Guilt can be proven; innocence can't be proven.

Faith makes us vulnerable to betrayal, yes. But doubt is inherently poison.

Reasonable doubt isn't.

No, the alternative is to trust until faith itself is denied by what is said or done. If you read my blog it goes into a little more detail of what a faith-based society is...and thus denial of faith involves in practice. I'm not speaking of blind faith, that carries on believing regardless, but of simple faith, that believes until given cause not to.

If so, then I have faith, too. I just have been given reason not to have faith in corporations, philosophies, people, governments and pretty much everything else anymore.
The difference between you and me, based on your argument, is simply that I have a reason not to have faith, but you don't.

Presuming innocence is itself an act of faith, because for all your words claiming its benefice the act itself of presumining innoncence still rests on faith in, rather than evidence of, innocence.

Innocence is absence. Absence can't be proven. I said so already.

You are mistaken here, and missing the key point, on both counts.

Certainly not.

Doubt itself, being the requiring of evidence before you believe something, is literally an insane concept.

It's not. I've already explained why logic without the burden of proof would defeat itself.

To truly embrace it you would have to doubt doubt itself, and then also doubt the doubting of doubt, ad infinitum.

The problem is, no one embraces this concept. Your point is moot.
Sooner or later, you hit a point where this whole evidence thing won't work anymore. Let's say this point is the burden of proof. You don't have concrete evidence which suggests you should accept the concept of the burden of proof, but you should do so anyway, because the alternative would make logical thought impossible.
You could say we have faith in the burden of proof, but this faith is nothing like the faith you propagate.

Doubting could never lead you to embrace doubt because it would require evidence and thus pre-suppose its own correctness and by doing so deny itself. And faith could never lead you to embrace doubt because that would contradict both faith and doubt.

Explained above.

 

[quatona]

None of which change the fact that we still take innocence on the basis of an act of faith. If, for example, most people could be shown to be plotting something all of the time, would that mean we should switch to "guilty until proven innocent"? No. We take this stance not because of evidence but as an act of faith.



Faith makes us vulnerable to betrayal, yes. But doubt is inherently poison.



No, the alternative is to trust until faith itself is denied by what is said or done. If you read my blog it goes into a little more detail of what a faith-based society is...and thus denial of faith involves in practice. I'm not speaking of blind faith, that carries on believing regardless, but of simple faith, that believes until given cause not to.



Presuming innocence is itself an act of faith, because for all your words claiming its benefice the act itself of presumining innoncence still rests on faith in, rather than evidence of, innocence.

It seems to me that you use of "innocent until proven guilty" (i.e. faith as opposed to doubt) accurately represents how it´s used in practice. In fact, it´s a technical approach that says nothing about the assumptions or preconceptions. E.g. the attorney may be completely convinced that the person is guilty (i.e. has no faith in his innoncence, and is extremely doubtful about it) yet operates technically from the maxime "innoncent until proven guilty".
If "innocent until proven guilty" would indeed mean what you assert it means (faith and no doubt in the innocence) nobody would stand before court, in the first place. It is doubt in their innocence that gets them there.

 

[Leap]

Just because someone is plotting a crime doesn't mean he will commit it. The presumption of innocence would still stay, as thoughtcrime itself is not a recognized crime.
Innocence is the absence of guilt. An absence can't be absolutely proven, any such attempt would be futile. That's why courts do not try to prove innocence, but guilt. Guilt can be proven; innocence can't be proven.

Innocence is not the absence of guilt. It is the presence of harmlessness and trustworthiness. Declaring someone innocent is declaring a positive state of trustworthiness, rather than declaring a negative one of nothing beyond absence of guilt.

Reasonable doubt isn't.

Doubt, the requiring of evidence before belief is forthcoming, IS.

The problem is, no one embraces this concept. Your point is moot.

Sorry, no, you are wrong here. Doubt, the requiring of evidence before belief is forthcoming, is the basis of science and modernity.

 

[Leap]

It seems to me that you use of "innocent until proven guilty" (i.e. faith as opposed to doubt) accurately represents how it´s used in practice. In fact, it´s a technical approach that says nothing about the assumptions or preconceptions. E.g. the attorney may be completely convinced that the person is guilty (i.e. has no faith in his innoncence, and is extremely doubtful about it) yet operates technically from the maxime "innoncent until proven guilty".
If "innocent until proven guilty" would indeed mean what you assert it means (faith and no doubt in the innocence) nobody would stand before court, in the first place. It is doubt in their innocence that gets them there.

No, people end up in court on the basis of both sides being innocent/trustworthy and a conflict thus arising that requires both be treated as honest.

 

[quatona]

First of all, I doubt you can actually choose what to believe.

Ok - depending on what exactly we mean by "choose" I may or not may agree with you. But that seems to be more a problem of the topic in general than my considerations in particular: If we work from the assumption that we can´t choose what to believe the discussion what means and methods to use for choosing is obsolete, no?

But even if you can, this would mean that you would choose to do so completely arbitrarily, which is, essentially, denial of logic.

I´m sorry but I still don´t see how "not demanding proof" equals "complete arbitrariness". It seems to me that in most every field the validity of assumptions is investigated by means of criteria that do not qualify as "proof".

Which criteria, for example? How do you consider something worth assuming? Based on which potential truth you like more? Again, denial of logic.

Not sure why you ask when you immediately give the most uncharitable answer yourself and tackle your own answer.
Depending on the subject for instance evidence, patterns, probabilities can be sufficient reason to acquire a belief. Particularly since *proof* is in most cases hard or not at all available. E.g. science hardly ever deals with proof but merely with the best currently available explanation.

 

[quatona]

No, people end up in court on the basis of both sides being innocent/trustworthy and a conflict thus arising that requires both be treated as honest.

What do you mean - "both sides", e.g. in case of a charge of murder? Who is the other side?

 

[grasping the after wind]

First of all, I doubt you can actually choose what to believe. But even if you can, this would mean that you would choose to do so completely arbitrarily, which is, essentially, denial of logic.

I think you are 180 degrees off here. There is no way one can function unless one chooses what they will absolutely believe. The fact that most of these choices are not consious ones does not change that. Choosing to believe in logic is an example.

Which criteria, for example? How do you consider something worth assuming? Based on which potential truth you like more? Again, denial of logic.

Yes, that is, but why would one assume that logic is the way to resolve conflicts in people's perceptions of reality if one did not first believe in logic because they assumed that logic was efficacious and not merely a fallacious construct built upon faulty or incomplete sensory information.There are numerous assumptions that we must agree to make in order to have a meaningful exchange of ideas. If one party is working on a set of assumptions that contradict the assumptions of the other party they will each inevitably view the other as less intelligent, less open minded and probably willfully hostile to reasonable discourse.

 

[Leap]

What do you mean - "both sides", e.g. in case of a charge of murder? Who is the other side?

The prosecution and the defence. If both sides are to be treated as innocent/trustworthy, they go to court. If only one side was so treated you would not have a trial - either the accused would be treated as not innocent or the prosecution would be treated as innocent. We take both sides in faith and then discard the one who denies faith (by faithless behaviour).