Is belief/non-belief a morally culpable state?

[Hvizsgyak]

The only advantage in denying impartial and thorough investigation, goes to the powerful whose only means of power is to control the narrative. You will be told what is true and must accept it. Most people willingly comply.

A very good example of what you said is the belief in the Theory of Evolution. Here we have a bunch of scientists who have put together this theory and the world (not really adept in biology and genetics) are forced to believe the theory (through it being taught in science classes at schools). Thank goodness there are scientists who are now coming forward and exposing the holes in the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

That makes sense. Putting the powerful to the side for a moment. Let's pretend we're genuinely interested in the truth or at least well founded beliefs. When does one know if they've made a thorough investigation?

It is tough to say because in this age of fakery that is extremely hard to spot, it might be years or decades before the real truth comes out.

 

[zippy2006]

I'd agree with that. If we reject evidence because it doesn't align with our pre determined position then yes, we're not being intellectually honest.

Right.

If someone has a position on vaccines/climate change/immigration/miracles etc then there's a tendency for them to accept authorities that agree with them and reject those that don't.

Sure, but that is selection bias rather than argument from authority. The person is being believed primarily because they agree, not because they are an authority.

You gave the example of someone who, when confronted with a claim or quotation, says, "Who said it?" That's not selection bias; that's argument from authority. They want to know if the claim came from what they consider to be a reliable source.

 

[Fervent]

I think you're misunderstanding what I said, my bad. I underscored the key qualifier below

This is what I said:
childeye 2 said:
If I say yes, would you believe me?

Yes, I do think people must question their beliefs on this forum whenever correction is taking place.

Apart from that, I still don't see why entertaining/considering the possibility of being mistaken is not the same as thinking one's beliefs are false. Are you implying a negative connotation of insincerity when you say 'entertaining'?

It's the difference between something being possible and something being actual. It's possible to question our own beliefs without believing them to be false.

This was the circular reasoning I was referring to ---> "And constantly questioning isn't exactly a productive exercise, since if someone truly engages with it they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".

Premise ---> If they engage in the constant questioning, it is not exactly productive because
conclusion ---> they will end up paralyzed unable to believe anything

Premise---> They will end up paralyzed unable to believe anything because
Conclusion ---> they engaged in the constant questioning that is not exactly productive

That's not my reasoning, the paralysis arrises because if we honestly question everything we end up facing a trilemma of inadequate grounds for justification. We either accept something as true dogmatically, resort to circcular reasoning, or find ourselves facing an infinite regress of questions.

The Truth is simple. It's the lies that are complex and harder to see through. Hence if we ask 'Why' for the sake of clarity, it's productive. But if we ask 'Why' for the sake of obscurity, it's unproductive.

I fail to see how our motives in assknig "why" would alter the productivity of the act.

Clarity/obscurity
Productive/unproductive
Sanity/insanity


Okay, my bad. It's really a simple point I'm trying to make ---> Facts of reality are learned and not imagined.

Considering the varying positions on what "reality" entails, I don't think being learned is an adequate ground.

Reality dictates what is factually true and factually meaningful. Facts can and should override convictions based on beliefs. For example, if I stick my hand in boiling water because I believe it will feel good, I will nonetheless experience pain even though I believed otherwise. That is a fact of reality and therefore I did not imagine it. Moreover, it is meaningful to me because I have learned not to stick my hand in boiling water.

The issue here is that our apprehension of reality is not direct, it is through perception and experience. Notions of factuality often exceed what can truly be established, because all investigations begin with assumptions.

Light carries information, darkness doesn't.
Facts can be observed. Observable facts are observed because photons/Light carry information to our eyes about the objects they hit. Our brains then interpret that information into meaningful knowledge. Conversely, we cannot see those same objects in the darkness. So, for example we might run into a table or chair in the darkness that otherwise we would have walked around when the Light was on. But the chair or table don't disappear from reality just because the Light is off. The simple point is that reality dictates what is factual, and reality is not created in our imaginations.

Word salad.

"Therefore, if I am correct in believing that reality dictates what is factually meaningful, then it would be wrong to believe reality is meaningless"

You seem to be using "meaningful" in two different ways and conflating those meanings.

.

The summation above shows why it's wrong to believe that reality is meaningless, so as to contest the belief that "they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".

Except your escape relies on a dogmatic(axiomatic) basis that stops the questioning process arbitrarily.

It's not an opinion; it's an axiom. The same as ---> "Facts of reality are learned and not imagined", and also --->"The truth precedes a lie in existence". <--- Do you see how these two axioms share a commonality

You say its an axiom, but I'm not persuaded that any self-evident truths exist. So your calling it an axiom is simply adopting one of the three inadequate prongs of the trilemma.

?

"Whatever is Eternal existed before whatever is false". = Whatever is infinitely True existed before whatever is false.

The reason why infinite is being applied is (1) the question "Why" is infinitely regressive (2) somethings are only temporarily true (3) Facts of reality are learned and therefore they exist apart from our ignorance.


The infinite regressive argument is not a solution. Why? Because 'by definition', no one is able to prove that that which exists Eternal, actually exists Eternal. The summation is One must either trust or distrust.

The circular argument is not a solution, because it's a logical fallacy.

That leaves only one possibility, we must have axioms to reason upon for logic to exist.

That doesn't matter since reality dictates what is factually true, not human beings. And it can be observed that Love/compassion is of the highest value in humanity.

What we believe to be true will manifests emotions accordingly. And it's an observable fact that it is reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent. Sanity/insanity

The dogmatic/axiomatic solution is not a solution because there are no universally accepted self-evident truths. So invoking axioms as a solution is failing to follow the questioning process to the end.

 

[The Righterzpen]

A very good example of what you said is the belief in the Theory of Evolution. Here we have a bunch of scientists who have put together this theory and the world (not really adept in biology and genetics) are forced to believe the theory (through it being taught in science classes at schools). Thank goodness there are scientists who are now coming forward and exposing the holes in the Theory of Evolution.

Which this is relative to the OP question of moral obligation to investigate truth. Darwinian theory of evolution can only be "true" in a universe where absolute truth that's knowable doesn't actually exist. To admit that absolute truth (or even truth in general) is knowable, even if not known absolutely; is to ultimately concede to the reality of intelligent design. As truth actually can not exist in a random universe.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I think you're misunderstanding what I said, my bad. I underscored the key qualifier below

This is what I said:
childeye 2 said:
If I say yes, would you believe me?

Yes, I do think people must question their beliefs on this forum whenever correction is taking place.

Apart from that, I still don't see why entertaining/considering the possibility of being mistaken is not the same as thinking one's beliefs are false. Are you implying a negative connotation of insincerity when you say 'entertaining'?


This was the circular reasoning I was referring to ---> "And constantly questioning isn't exactly a productive exercise, since if someone truly engages with it they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".

Premise ---> If they engage in the constant questioning, it is not exactly productive because
conclusion ---> they will end up paralyzed unable to believe anything

Premise---> They will end up paralyzed unable to believe anything because
Conclusion ---> they engaged in the constant questioning that is not exactly productive

The Truth is simple. It's the lies that are complex and harder to see through. Hence if we ask 'Why' for the sake of clarity, it's productive. But if we ask 'Why' for the sake of obscurity, it's unproductive.

Clarity/obscurity
Productive/unproductive
Sanity/insanity


Okay, my bad. It's really a simple point I'm trying to make ---> Facts of reality are learned and not imagined.

Reality dictates what is factually true and factually meaningful. Facts can and should override convictions based on beliefs. For example, if I stick my hand in boiling water because I believe it will feel good, I will nonetheless experience pain even though I believed otherwise. That is a fact of reality and therefore I did not imagine it. Moreover, it is meaningful to me because I have learned not to stick my hand in boiling water.

Light carries information, darkness doesn't.
Facts can be observed. Observable facts are observed because photons/Light carry information to our eyes about the objects they hit. Our brains then interpret that information into meaningful knowledge. Conversely, we cannot see those same objects in the darkness. So, for example we might run into a table or chair in the darkness that otherwise we would have walked around when the Light was on. But the chair or table don't disappear from reality just because the Light is off. The simple point is that reality dictates what is factual, and reality is not created in our imaginations.

"Therefore, if I am correct in believing that reality dictates what is factually meaningful, then it would be wrong to believe reality is meaningless".

The summation above shows why it's wrong to believe that reality is meaningless, so as to contest the belief that "they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".


It's not an opinion; it's an axiom. The same as ---> "Facts of reality are learned and not imagined", and also --->"The truth precedes a lie in existence". <--- Do you see how these two axioms share a commonality?

"Whatever is Eternal existed before whatever is false". = Whatever is infinitely True existed before whatever is false.

The reason why infinite is being applied is (1) the question "Why" is infinitely regressive (2) somethings are only temporarily true (3) Facts of reality are learned and therefore they exist apart from our ignorance.


The infinite regressive argument is not a solution. Why? Because 'by definition', no one is able to prove that that which exists Eternal, actually exists Eternal. The summation is One must either trust or distrust.

The circular argument is not a solution, because it's a logical fallacy.

That leaves only one possibility, we must have axioms to reason upon for logic to exist.

That doesn't matter since reality dictates what is factually true, not human beings. And it can be observed that Love/compassion is of the highest value in humanity.

What we believe to be true will manifests emotions accordingly. And it's an observable fact that it is reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent. Sanity/insanity

I understand what you are saying here. And you are correct that either a person is operating on an axiom that absolute truth exists and is at least partially knowable; or they are operating on an axiom of... let's call it random chance.

And I'm not aware; if there are any axioms besides these two. To my knowledge; truth is either real and findable or it's not and ultimately nothing else (we do, believe or think of as purpose) matters.

Interesting statement on "light carries information and darkness doesn't".
Your statement is perimeter(ed) in scientific method defining reality in what is observable and/or testable. A lie here being defined as something that's not real ultimately not being observable or testable because it isn't real; although the consequences of the lie may be very real! (Interesting philosophical paradigm; but also speaks truth that lies (that aren't real in and of themselves) have consequences. Which the idea of darkness not carrying information, being predicated in application that darkness twists the truth; may indeed be true! (Thus what darkness "declares" is not true.

We often say "lies often carry aspects of truth". Yet thinking about it in a different perspective; is that actually true? (That's a good question.) Which again goes back to: if absolute truth is real and at least partially knowable; then in reality, what is a lie, by definition actually isn't carrying aspects of truth. And is this the framing for the statement "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Interesting!

 

[timothyu]

We’ve been fooling ourselves since the Garden that our way of self-interest is what we were meant to be and follow. The world is built upon this principle and teaches each new generation to follow the lie. Even Christianity failed . As a matter of fact it is the ultimate example of what you speak, believing a religion that abandoned the Kingdom to rejoin the world of man

in this age of fakery

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, but that is selection bias rather than argument from authority. The person is being believed primarily because they agree, not because they are an authority.

I'm talking about using an authority figure to back up an erroneous claim. Or at least one that you might hold. So it's: 'Climate change is junk because this guy says so and he's a scientist'.

You gave the example of someone who, when confronted with a claim or quotation, says, "Who said it?" That's not selection bias; that's argument from authority. They want to know if the claim came from what they consider to be a reliable source.

A 'reliable source' is simply one that agrees with you. Or more specifically someone that you support. So if you ask someone if increasing spending on X is a good idea, the person will want to know who suggested it rather than make a decision based on the merits of the proposal. They may be a Trump supporter and it was an Obama policy. Or vice versa.

 

[childeye 2]

It's the difference between something being possible and something being actual. It's possible to question our own beliefs without believing them to be false.

I see two statements above.
The first statement compares a belief with a fact, articulating a belief as 'something possible' vs something actual (factual). <-- this statement speaks to clarity.

The second statement compares two beliefs (two possibilities) therefore neither are definitively actual/factual.

So, this is how I see it. Something actual is already factual even if it isn't realized, therefore it qualifies as an 'unrealized' fact. Whereas something possible is also potentially false as well as possibly true. In a left/right dichotomy the objective Truth is calculated in the abstract center. It's used to reason upon two subjective opposing yet equally valid points of view. Wherefore in a left/right dichotomy it's possible to question our own beliefs on one hand without necessarily compromising our beliefs on the other hand.

That's not my reasoning, the paralysis arises because if we honestly question everything we end up facing a trilemma of inadequate grounds for justification. We either accept something as true dogmatically, resort to circcular reasoning, or find ourselves facing an infinite regress of questions. ,

Okay, this is worded differently, but it's still carrying the same circular thought. You're claiming that if we honestly question everything, we end up facing inadequate grounds for justification (inadequate grounds for a just conclusion). <--- I've already proven this theory is not true ---> "It's an observable fact that it is reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent."

We either accept something as true dogmatically, resort to circcular reasoning, or find ourselves facing an infinite regress of questions. <--- Apart from the circular reasoning, this statement is true. Why? Because by definition, it's not possible to prove that that which is Eternal is actually Eternal.

I fail to see how our motives in assknig "why" would alter the productivity of the act.

If we don't question slander, it is wickedness. If we question slander, it is faithfulness.
Defending negative prejudice is cynicism, defending positive prejudice is grace.
Negative prejudice violates Love others as oneself, positive prejudice doesn't.

As an aside Please note: "...the paralysis arises because if we honestly question everything..." <--- You said 'everything' rather than 'something'. When we claim 'everything' we're denoting an absolute.

Considering the varying positions on what "reality" entails, I don't think being learned is an adequate ground.

Well yes, "reality" is a difficult term to qualify. But that doesn't mean observable facts appear according to our opinions. On the contrary what we believe to be true manifests emotions accordingly.

The issue here is that our apprehension of reality is not direct, it is through perception and experience. Notions of factuality often exceed what can truly be established, because all investigations begin with assumptions.

That's why terms like realized and unrealized exist.

Word salad.

The simple point is that reality dictates what is factual, and reality is not created in our imaginations.

You seem to be using "meaningful" in two different ways and conflating those meanings.

To be clear, I'm qualifying meaningful as the opposite of meaningless, and I'm qualifying meaningless with this ---> "they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".

Except your escape relies on a dogmatic(axiomatic) basis that stops the questioning process arbitrarily.

Since I use True dichotomies to reason upon, they're not arbitrary constructs. Hence it was easy to conclude ---> it's reasonable to presume someone is innocent till proven guilty and unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent. <--- This is not an arbitrary construct.

You say its an axiom, but I'm not persuaded that any self-evident truths exist. So your calling it an axiom is simply adopting one of the three inadequate prongs of the trilemma.

It's not that complicated. I look down and see my toes and it's self-evident that I have toes. Similarly, it's self-evident to me that you exist since I'm here responding to your correspondence. Since I'm corresponding with you, I can know it's false to conclude that you don't exist.

We use axioms to reason upon.
These are basic axioms ---> somethings are true --->somethings are false.
They form this positive/negative dichotomy ---> True/False

The dogmatic/axiomatic solution is not a solution because there are no universally accepted self-evident truths.

This is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. --->There are no universally self-evident Truths because the dogmatic solution is no solution.

So invoking axioms as a solution is failing to follow the questioning process to the end.

Not true, the axiom that no one can prove that which is Eternal, means we must either trust or distrust in that which is Eternal ---> Trust/distrust <--- True dichotomy.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm talking about using an authority figure to back up an erroneous claim. Or at least one that you might hold. So it's: 'Climate change is junk because this guy says so and he's a scientist'.

A 'reliable source' is simply one that agrees with you. Or more specifically someone that you support. So if you ask someone if increasing spending on X is a good idea, the person will want to know who suggested it rather than make a decision based on the merits of the proposal. They may be a Trump supporter and it was an Obama policy. Or vice versa.

An ad hominem attack is attacking the messenger for the purpose of dodging the substantive argument. I guess one could dodge the substantive argument by idolizing the messenger.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I believe the Las Vegas Raiders are going all the way to the Superbowl this year.

Undefeated, baby!

 

[Fervent]

I see two statements above.
The first statement compares a belief with a fact, articulating a belief as 'something possible' vs something actual (factual). <-- this statement speaks to clarity.

It speaks to the main issue, since being wrong about a belief would require it to actually not be the case that our belief is true. So recognizing the possibility that our beliefs are mistaken is different from believing we are wrong.

The second statement compares two beliefs (two possibilities) therefore neither are definitively actual/factual.

beliefs are not "possibilities", they are positions about the truth or falsity of a state of affairs. For them to be wrong, it must actually be the case that what we believe is false.

So, this is how I see it. Something actual is already factual even if it isn't realized, therefore it qualifies as an 'unrealized' fact. Whereas something possible is also potentially false as well as possibly true. In a left/right dichotomy the objective Truth is calculated in the abstract center. It's used to reason upon two subjective opposing yet equally valid points of view. Wherefore in a left/right dichotomy it's possible to question our own beliefs on one hand without necessarily compromising our beliefs on the other hand.

If it is unrealized, it's a possibility and not a fact. I'm not sure what you're on about with the rest of this paragraph.

Okay, this is worded differently, but it's still carrying the same circular thought. You're claiming that if we honestly question everything, we end up facing inadequate grounds for justification (inadequate grounds for a just conclusion). <--- I've already proven this theory is not true ---> "It's an observable fact that it is reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent."

You haven't' proven it untrue, you've adopted one of the three prongs of the trilemma(dogmatic/axiomatic) and ran with it. You've stopped the questioning at something you think is self-evident rendering it immune to questioning.

We either accept something as true dogmatically, resort to circcular reasoning, or find ourselves facing an infinite regress of questions. <--- Apart from the circular reasoning, this statement is true. Why? Because by definition, it's not possible to prove that that which is Eternal is actually Eternal.

It's not about definitions, it's an open problem in epistemics from a thought experiment about a man trying to lift himself and his horse out of the mud by pulling on his hair.

If we don't question slander, it is wickedness. If we question slander, it is faithfulness.
Defending negative prejudice is cynicism, defending positive prejudice is grace.
Negative prejudice violates Love others as oneself, positive prejudice doesn't.

As an aside Please note: "...the paralysis arises because if we honestly question everything..." <--- You said 'everything' rather than 'something'. When we claim 'everything' we're denoting an absolute.

I have no idea what you're on about with the first part of this, and the second seems to miss the issue at hand. I'm not asserting an absolute, I'm recognizing a live problem in epistemics. Questioning everything means not taking anything as self-evident, because as soon as we assert something as self-evident we cannot question it.

Well yes, "reality" is a difficult term to qualify. But that doesn't mean observable facts appear according to our opinions. On the contrary what we believe to be true manifests emotions accordingly.

The issue is, "facts" tend to more often be common agreements not to question them rather than indisputably true statements.

That's why terms like realized and unrealized exist.

The simple point is that reality dictates what is factual, and reality is not created in our imaginations.

Sure, but the key issue there is that we don't apprehend reality directly. We have senses that are interpreted. by our brains. For example, what we see is inverted and corrected by our brains rather than the raw image our eyes detect. And our perceptions are highly dependent on our beliefs and the language we use, for example speakers of languages with more words for different colors are able to perceive subtler variations of color than those with fewer color words. Reality isn't created in our imagination, but we do not apprehend it naively.

To be clear, I'm qualifying meaningful as the opposite of meaningless, and I'm qualifying meaningless with this ---> "they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".

yeah, but you used two different sense of "meaning", one being carrying a definition and the other denoting purposeful

Since I use True dichotomies to reason upon, they're not arbitrary constructs. Hence it was easy to conclude ---> it's reasonable to presume someone is innocent till proven guilty and unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent. <--- This is not an arbitrary construct.

How was it determined that it was reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty?

It's not that complicated. I look down and see my toes and it's self-evident that I have toes. Similarly, it's self-evident to me that you exist since I'm here responding to your correspondence. Since I'm corresponding with you, I can know it's false to conclude that you don't exist.

To the first, you're conflating two distinct situations. Certainly, it would be foolish to question things immediately present to us. But if we're to question everything, we must entertain skeptical hypotheses such as the question of whether we were created in this very moment with false memories implanted in us. Or that what we "see" is a simulation and not reality. Or that the "person" we're conversing with on the internet is not in fact a person but is an AI chat bot. Claiming somehting is self-evident is simply taking skeptical inquiry off the table, and fails as a solution for Munchaussen's trilemma

We use axioms to reason upon.
These are basic axioms ---> somethings are true --->somethings are false.
They form this positive/negative dichotomy ---> True/False

Those aren't axioms, that's a tautological statement. Which while trivially true tell us nothing about reality, only about what we mean by the words we use.

This is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. --->There are no universally self-evident Truths because the dogmatic solution is no solution.

Nope, there are no unversally recognized self evident truths because no one has proposed something that everyone agrees upon. Claiming something is self-evident isn't a solution to Munchaussen's trilemma, it's simply refusing to subject whatever is supposedly self-evident to skeptical inquiry.

Not true, the axiom that no one can prove something is Eternal means we must either trust or distrust. ---> Trust/distrust <--- True dichotomy.

I'm not sure you understand what the word "axiom" means.

 

[zippy2006]

A 'reliable source' is simply one that agrees with you.

No, a reliable source is not someone who agrees with you. The dictionary is your friend here.

 

[Bradskii]

No, a reliable source is not someone who agrees with you.

Which is precisely why I used scare quotes around 'reliable source'.

 

[zippy2006]

Which is precisely why I used scare quotes around 'reliable source'.

Try to make your argument using the real meaning of words, instead of false meanings. That way you might end up with a real argument. If all you are saying is that some people lie when they say the words "reliable source," then I don't think that even really counts as an argument at all.

 

[Bradskii]

Try to make your argument using the real meaning of words, instead of false meanings

I was quoting a term that you used:

They want to know if the claim came from what they consider to be a reliable source.

I pointed out that 'a reliable source' used by some people in this context simply means a source that agrees with them. Hence the scare quotes, because they aren't using it in the way it should be used. I thought I was quite clear.

 

[childeye 2]

It speaks to the main issue, since being wrong about a belief would require it to actually not be the case that our belief is true. So recognizing the possibility that our beliefs are mistaken is different from believing we are wrong.

Okay, I get what you're saying. The original question has morphed in meaning for me more than once which created some misunderstanding for me as pertains to the true intent of the question. As I recall, this was the final version:

2PhiloVoid said:
Let's make it simpler here: Does anyone on this forum hold a belief that they know is false?

This was my reply:
childeye 2 said:
You may as well ask me if I'm a mind reader. As far as I can see, your question proposes a scenario that is not possible, unless someone is lying to themselves.

beliefs are not "possibilities", they are positions about the truth or falsity of a state of affairs. For them to be wrong, it must actually be the case that what we believe is false.

If it is unrealized, it's a possibility and not a fact. I'm not sure what you're on about with the rest of this paragraph.

I think you're misunderstanding me so we may be saying the same thing in different ways.

You haven't' proven it untrue, you've adopted one of the three prongs of the trilemma(dogmatic/axiomatic) and ran with it. You've stopped the questioning at something you think is self-evident rendering it immune to questioning.

I never said I don't use axiomatic statements or premises as a basis to conduct semantic analysis. I did comment on why it was the only viable solution of the three. I don't know why you think a premise is immune to questioning. I certainly don't think so. I'm just establishing a workable coherent premise. You can question any axiomatic statements I've used or perhaps you may even see ways to improve upon them.

It's not about definitions, it's an open problem in epistemics from a thought experiment about a man trying to lift himself and his horse out of the mud by pulling on his hair.

I get that it's a problem in epistemics. Like I said, apart from "resorting to the circular reasoning" (a logical fallacy doesn't qualify as a solution), it's a true statement. What statement? Your statement in italics below.

childeye 2 said:

Fervent: We either accept something as true dogmatically, resort to circcular reasoning, or find ourselves facing an infinite regress of questions. <--- Childeye responds: Apart from the circular reasoning, this statement is true. Why? Because by definition, it's not possible to prove that that which is Eternal is actually Eternal.

Because by definition, ---> it's not possible to prove that that which is Eternal is actually Eternal. <--- So Fervent, do you understand that this is the reason why I see the question 'Why?' as infinitely regressive?


I know you're interested in the Munchhausen trilemma but try to consider that for me the issue began with overcoming confirmation bias, as well as responding to a query about how we can see our epistemic faults.

I have no idea what you're on about with the first part of this,

Fervent said:
I fail to see how our motives in assknig "why" would alter the productivity of the act. <--- I took this as an invite to show how motives in asking "why" would alter the productivity of the act.

Therefore, I pointed out how in the case of slander it's productive to question the slanderer as to Why he/she believes what he/she states., and alternatively, that we shouldn't question Why someone would show Grace to others because that would be unproductive.

If we don't question slander, it is wickedness. If we question slander, it is faithfulness.
Defending negative prejudice is cynicism, defending positive prejudice is grace.
Negative prejudice violates Love others as oneself, positive prejudice doesn't.

and the second seems to miss the issue at hand. I'm not asserting an absolute, I'm recognizing a live problem in epistemics. Questioning everything means not taking anything as self-evident, because as soon as we assert something as self-evident we cannot question it.

But you're resorting to a circular argument when you say we must question everything so as to not take anything as self-evident. And just because we assert something as self-evident doesn't mean we can't question it or rather check it. It's just there to establish something to reason upon.

To do subjective semantic analysis, one needs to examine the beginnings and predictable conclusions of contrary propositions using deductive and inductive reasoning so as to arrive at a truth value through comparison. Hence, we can check a claim of Truth similarly to checking one's addition by using subtraction, or in subjective analysis, similar to calculating longitude and latitude with the compass rose.

The issue is, "facts" tend to more often be common agreements not to question them rather than indisputably true statements.

Light allows us to see seems indisputable to me. It wouldn't matter if half the population of the world disagrees.

Sure, but the key issue there is that we don't apprehend reality directly. We have senses that are interpreted. by our brains. For example, what we see is inverted and corrected by our brains rather than the raw image our eyes detect. And our perceptions are highly dependent on our beliefs and the language we use, for example speakers of languages with more words for different colors are able to perceive subtler variations of color than those with fewer color words. Reality isn't created in our imagination, but we do not apprehend it naively.

We are part of reality, but I get your point.

yeah, but you used two different sense of "meaning", one being carrying a definition and the other denoting purposeful

Overall, a purposeful existence would experience something meaningful.

How was it determined that it was reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty?

Love others as I would want to be loved.

To the first, you're conflating two distinct situations. Certainly, it would be foolish to question things immediately present to us. But if we're to question everything, we must entertain skeptical hypotheses such as the question of whether we were created in this very moment with false memories implanted in us. Or that what we "see" is a simulation and not reality. Or that the "person" we're conversing with on the internet is not in fact a person but is an AI chat bot. Claiming somehting is self-evident is simply taking skeptical inquiry off the table, and fails as a solution for Munchaussen's trilemma

To fill in the blank with 'something' is true/false, is to have created a sound semantical structure so as to examine positives and negative directions in thought and thereby discover what is true/false, as well as establish well founded beliefs. It's more productive than just regressively asking why/why not, because deception is based on turning negatives into positives, positives into negatives, or making them appear the same so that no one can tell the difference. <---Is all this word salad to you?

Those aren't axioms, that's a tautological statement. Which while trivially true tell us nothing about reality, only about what we mean by the words we use.

Semantics are about the sentiments that words carry, insights into the human condition and reasons for behavior (which we experience in reality). When examining sentiments people express in a moral/immoral paradigm, a statement like "something is true/false" is referencing beliefs and unbelief that manifest things like despair, doublemindedness, faith, cynicism, grace, carnal vanity, and generally reveal positive and negative connotations, as well as objective and subjective perspectives. <--- If this is word salad to you, you can ask for clarity.

Nope, there are no unversally recognized self evident truths because no one has proposed something that everyone agrees upon. Claiming something is self-evident isn't a solution to Munchaussen's trilemma, it's simply refusing to subject whatever is supposedly self-evident to skeptical inquiry.

I'm not refusing to subject any premise I use to skeptical inquiry; I would welcome any possible improvements. I must ask, do you think it's possible to project bias onto others? And how is this below not circular reasoning?

There are no universally self-evident Truths because the Dogmatic solution is no solution.
The Dogmatic solution is no solution because there are no universally self-evident Truths.

I'm not sure you understand what the word "axiom" means.

See this statement: "No one can prove something is Eternal means we must either trust or distrust".

I know it's rough around the edges but in a quick subjective semantic analysis, I would guess some people will say it's a proposition designed to postulate that something/Someone is Eternal. While others will say it's the foundational self-evident Truth for the necessity of Faith.

axiom​

noun​

ax·i·om ˈak-sē-əm

Synonyms of axiom
1
: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate sense 1
one of the axioms of the theory of evolution


2
: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have"


3
: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit

 

[childeye 2]

I understand what you are saying here. And you are correct that either a person is operating on an axiom that absolute truth exists and is at least partially knowable; or they are operating on an axiom of... let's call it random chance.

And I'm not aware; if there are any axioms besides these two. To my knowledge; truth is either real and findable or it's not and ultimately nothing else (we do, believe or think of as purpose) matters.

Interesting statement on "light carries information and darkness doesn't".
Your statement is perimeter(ed) in scientific method defining reality in what is observable and/or testable. A lie here being defined as something that's not real ultimately not being observable or testable because it isn't real; although the consequences of the lie may be very real! (Interesting philosophical paradigm; but also speaks truth that lies (that aren't real in and of themselves) have consequences. Which the idea of darkness not carrying information, being predicated in application that darkness twists the truth; may indeed be true! (Thus what darkness "declares" is not true.

We often say "lies often carry aspects of truth". Yet thinking about it in a different perspective; is that actually true? (That's a good question.) Which again goes back to: if absolute truth is real and at least partially knowable; then in reality, what is a lie, by definition actually isn't carrying aspects of truth. And is this the framing for the statement "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Interesting!

Much thanks for this response Righterzpen. It's very comforting to a person when they're understood.

You've hit the nail on the head while also expounding upon some things I've put forth. I'd just add it's all about whether we carry a tyrant or servant image of the Eternal in our hearts.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Much thanks for this response Righterzpen. It's very comforting to a person when they're understood.

You've hit the nail on the head while also expounding upon some things I've put forth. I'd just add it's all about whether we carry a tyrant or servant image of the Eternal in our hearts.

Yeah, I was formerly engaged with someone on this forum who saw the Eternal as a tyrant. And of course if one has a faulty view; they are not going to seek help either.

 

[zippy2006]

I was quoting a term that you used

...And then equivocated by putting the term in scare quotes and erecting an alternative strawman-meaning. You are a good example of what the OP is asking about.

I pointed out that 'a reliable source' used by some people in this context simply means a source that agrees with them.

Again, that's not what a reliable source means, and that's not what someone means when they say the word "reliable source." You are engaged in a form of fallacious reasoning called hostile interpretation. "They say 'reliable source,' but they don't really think the source is reliable." That's sophistry. Again, this is why your arguments are never valid. You need to learn to use words accurately rather than misusing words to make fallacious arguments.

The Republican really does think Trump is reliable. The Democrat really does think Biden is reliable. You need to take that fact/evidence into account rather than suppressing it. You need to recognize that an argument from authority is valid, that it is used all the time, and that not everyone who uses an argument from authority is lying. The notion that every argument from authority is a lie is a conspiracy theory.