Is belief/non-belief a morally culpable state?

zippy2006 said:

Did you even read what I wrote? Again:

Click to expand...

I did and I do. I did not respond because it seemed to me that your mind was made up and I was not going to be understood.

childeye 2 said:
For what it's worth, it appears to me that you're wanting to establish the objective meaning of "reliable" which connotes a positive meaning. And Bradski is applying a subjective meaning that is objectively going to appear as a negative. So, For what it's worth I'd say you're both right.

zippy2006 said:
No, I am just pointing to the meaning: the thing you will find in dictionaries. One can argue about whether a source is reliable, but both parties know what 'reliable' means.

childeye 2 said:
I think he means to express a negative connotation indicating that in this case the reliable source actually means spinning the narrative to what someone wants to hear.

zippy2006 said:
A dictionary definition is neither positive nor negative. It is just a definition. It expresses meaning.

childeye 2 said:
The dictionary gives the objective meaning of 'reliable' which denotes a 'good' thing (a positive). That's why when we look up the word 'unreliable' it denotes a 'bad' thing (a negative).

zippy2006 said:
Reliability is reliability. Whether it is good or bad depends on context. The reliable doctor is good; the reliable dictator is bad.

Click to expand...

'Reliable' is a descriptive word, so it will infer in the reverse when describing a negative noun. But, standing alone it does not carry a neutral connotation, it is positive.

I know the dictionary doesn't label the term 'reliable' as a positive or a negative. The dictionary must be objective though, and the objective meaning of the term standing alone denotes a positive.

Below the dictionary indicates that the objective meaning of reliable standing alone denotes a positive.



re·li·able
[rɪˈlʌɪəbl]
adjective
noun
reliable (adjective)

1. consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted:
   "a reliable source of information"
   

   Similar:​

   • dependable
     good
     well founded
     well grounded
     authentic
     definitive
     attested
     valid
     genuine
     from the horse's mouth
     sound
     true
     copper-bottomed
     trustworthy
     faithful
     devoted
     steady
     steadfast
     staunch
     unswerving
     unwavering
     constant
     loyal
     trusty
     dedicated
     committed
     unfailing
     infallible
     certain
     sure
     truthful
     honest
     safe
     fail-safe
     tried and tested
     well built
     reputable
     responsible
     established
     proven
     stable
     solid
     secure
     well engineered
     safe as houses
   • Opposite:
   • unreliable
     untrustworthy
     dodgy

Larniavc said:

I disagree with that.

Click to expand...

I find that anything else...oh, hang on. Was that sarcasm? Haven't had a caffeine fix this morning yet.

2PhiloVoid said:

I agree with you that it is possible your flat-earther may have been dishonest, but I think the social-psychological dynamics that Tali Shalot mentions in the following video (5 minutes) unfortunately have to be considered in the evaluation of our harboring expectations of another person's epistemic culpability here:

So, my earlier affirmation about the psychological presence of "locus of trust" plays a part in the extent/degree to which any one person is willing to adapt and/or adopt new information into his existing view of the world, even if that new information is in essence updated and completely accurate. Sometimes the locus of trust catalyzes a delusional state in a person; sometimes, though, that same relation with a trusted source simply causes a person to be hesitant to accept outside information, even though he or she intuits or understands that it is 'technically' correct.

Some of what I'm saying here should be already familiar to both of us since we both read (and trust) respective sources on neuro-science and psychology, or even evolutionary psychology. It also plays into how you prefer to listen to someone like Robert Sapolsky but I prefer to listen to someone like Malcolm A. Jeeves.

Click to expand...

I agree with the points made in the video. Interestingly, at the the very end, she points out the concept of common ground which was mentioned upstream. In the case of vaccines and autism, don't argue that the one doesn't cause the other as you'll just end up throwing stats at each other. Just show a mother a picture of a kid with a severe case of measles and say that we both don't want this to happen to her child.

o_mlly said:

We would expect mathematicians and experimental scientists to be able to resolve whatever disagreements confront them. We would think that concluding those differences to be irresolvable as scandalous and intolerable. We also think that they are morally obligated to sustain their efforts to settle their disputes until they finally succeed in doing so.

However, if those scientists determine that the constraints imposed by the scientific method make resolution in there realm impossible then they must accept the conclusions offered by other realms of inquiry.

Click to expand...

Very true. Bearing in mind that mathematicians can use proof as opposed to experimental scientists who can't. But if you have 98 scientists agree that in their opinion, the evidence points to one conclusion and 2 that say it points to an opposite conclusion, then which one are you going to go with?

This goes back to the flat earther in that I could prove to her satisfaction that a couple of claims that she made were wrong. So she ignored those and headed off in another direction.

Bradskii said:

Very true. Bearing in mind that mathematicians can use proof as opposed to experimental scientists who can't. But if you have 98 scientists agree that in their opinion, the evidence points to one conclusion and 2 that say it points to an opposite conclusion, then which one are you going to go with?

This goes back to the flat earther in that I could prove to her satisfaction that a couple of claims that she made were wrong. So she ignored those and headed off in another direction.

Click to expand...

There's the saying that wise men love instruction, but fools despise correction.

childeye 2 said:

There's the saying that wise men love instruction, but fools despise correction.

Click to expand...

Like those fools named Galileo and Copernicus?

The ad populism fallacy is often invoked by those whose prejudices or emotions inhibit their ability to examine the evidence and use critical thinking.

o_mlly said:

Like those fools named Galileo and Copernicus?

Click to expand...

childeye 2 said:
There's the saying that wise men love instruction, but fools despise correction.

I believe I get your point and that your question looks rhetorical. But I'd still like to answer the question as posed. First, I'd say no, that's not who I had in mind. As I see it, there is a nuance in the term wisdom that is more descriptive than knowledge. I believe the proverb is alluding to the foolishness of pride, as in feeling put down by others because others know more, or feeling lifted up when looking down upon others due their ignorance. Galileo or Copernicus certainly would have understood the proverb from their experiences and point of view, yet they still might not have been able to escape their own carnal vanity.

o_mlly said:

The ad populism fallacy is often invoked by those whose prejudices or emotions inhibit their ability to examine the evidence and use critical thinking.

Click to expand...

I understand what you mean. People who know how to think critically, and who also understand why they need to be cautious about what they accept/believe as true, would not resort to populism.

While you're here, I'd like to get your view on something. Are you able to see how the following dichotomy is parsing opposite sentiments relative to that which is Truth? --> Knowledge/ignorance
To me it's self-evident, but others have claimed they don't understand or comprehend it.

And by the way, I'm not asking because I embrace populism.

Bradskii said:

Very true. Bearing in mind that mathematicians can use proof as opposed to experimental scientists who can't. But if you have 98 scientists agree that in their opinion, the evidence points to one conclusion and 2 that say it points to an opposite conclusion, then which one are you going to go with?

This goes back to the flat earther in that I could prove to her satisfaction that a couple of claims that she made were wrong. So she ignored those and headed off in another direction.

Click to expand...

So, the epistemic questions that remain and which it seems you may not be recognizing are: What epistemological influences motivated her to ignore what you had to say and head off in another direction? Could it be she perceived that your new set of evidence(s) would require the relinquishing of her central personal religious concerns and her locus of trust?

2PhiloVoid said:

Could it be she perceived that your new set of evidence(s) would require the relinquishing of her central personal religious concerns and her locus of trust?

Click to expand...

In short...yes.

Bradskii said:

In short...yes.

Click to expand...

Yes. But my point is that sometimes one certain line of thought can be relearned and seen from other, perhaps more accurate vantage point (or even a scientific one) without at the same time having by any necessity to relinquish one's central sphere of personal concerns.

I'm going to guess that the flat-earther you spoke to sees her Christian faith and what she thinks is the truth of it as fully dependent upon the earth being 'flat.'

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes. But my point is that sometimes one certain line of thought can be relearned and seen from other, perhaps more accurate vantage point (or even a scientific one) without at the same time having by any necessity to relinquish one's central sphere of personal concerns.

I'm going to guess that the flat-earther you spoke to sees her Christian faith and what she thinks is the truth of it as fully dependent upon the earth being 'flat.'

Click to expand...

Yes. She has fundamentalist beliefs which she obviously considers to be more important than facing facts.

It will always be a mystery to me.

public hermit said:

What is the relation between belief and moral culpability? Is it wrong to believe/not-believe certain things?

Is it wrong to believe X if a more thorough investigation would show that X is false? In other words, do we have a moral obligation to do as thorough an investigation as possible before accepting the truth/falsity of X? If so, how would we know when our investigation is sufficiently thorough?

I assume the answer may differ depending on the belief in question. Beliefs that lead to right/wrong actions will clearly have a moral component. But what about beliefs regarding evolution or that the earth is flat/spherical?

Do we have a moral obligation to seek the truth? I'm not sure that we do. Is it wrong to believe what is false?

Please avoid theological subjects such as whether one is morally culpable for belief/non-belief in God since such subjects are not allowed in this forum. I know that's a big ask, but I believe we can do it! Maybe I'm wrong in so believing, i.e., such a belief is false, but is it morally wrong for me to so believe?

Click to expand...

I don't attach moral culpability to making honest mistakes. And not everyone is a scholar, so it is not reasonable to expect people to do extensive research. Finally, our minds are hardwired to tune out information that goes contrary to what we already think--confirmation bias is so strong that it's a wonder anyone ever changes their mind on anything.