Elementary, my dear Watson...

[GrowingSmaller]

If there is a fictional figure famous for reasoning and insight it may well be Sherlock Homes, a creation of Arthur Conan Doyle. But Doyle himself believed in spiritualism, fairies and psychic powers.

Apparently Isaac Newton believed in alchemy and the existence of God.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that both were deluded.

Is the effect not dependent akin to cause? If the person does not think clearly in general, can there ever be clear understanding at the specific lebel even if the actual beliefs (in evolution, gravity etc) are true? Perhaps not.

If we take this skepticism to an extreme then Newton was right about gravity, but he did not actually know it. Or, to quote Doyle: "His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge" (quote from brainquote.com, quote not originally about Newton btw).

To put it another way, could a madman, who believes he is Moses reincarnate, and that the ghost of Mary speaks to him daily, ever know very much more than what is plainly in front of his nose (if even that)?

 

[The Paul]

Eh, we're not interested in Isaac Newton's beliefs because he was Isaac Newton. We're interested in particular among Isaac Newtons beliefs because he was able to demonstrate why he believed them and they turned out to be insightful and ultimately useful/predictive.

Anything else he might have believed... meh. It isn't more true because Isaac Newton believed it, and other things he believed don't become less true if it's ridiculous.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Eh, we're not interested in Isaac Newton's beliefs because he was Isaac Newton.

There is the ad hominem fallacy or genetic but I don't think I am commiting that, because a persons rationality is relevant to whether he knows things.

We're interested in particular among Isaac Newtons beliefs because he was able to demonstrate why he believed them and they turned out to be insightful and ultimately useful/predictive.

If a man has been digging in the hills, and comes with a cart load of fools gold, and one nugget or pure gold, and believes all are real, what do we say of him? That he knew the real gold from the fool's? No.

But if he was fool enought to believe in fools gold, how wise can he actually be in knowing real gold if he is such a fool?

Anything else he might have believed... meh.

Why? When we are assessing the reliability of a witness we have to look at his character as a knowing agent, do we not?

It isn't more true because Isaac Newton believed it

I agree with that. But "he believed it" is a stain on his character, is it not? So, is he in general a reliable witness (read: knowing agent)

if he actually believed this stuff (God, alchemy)? If I say in a court of law "2+2=5, 1+3=7, 3+5 =1 and

(Newtons law)" would I be regarded as a reliable epistemic agent?

Don't they say in America "three strikes and you're out"?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I think the key here is "If the person does not think clearly in general" I'd say that we most certainly do think clearly in general. It is merely a matter of not having all the information, or even possessing some information that is false.
The same go's for newton.

In the case of a complete madman, perhaps you are right though I do not quite understand what you would consider know or belief in this example.

 

[Beechwell]

If a man has been digging in the hills, and comes with a cart load of fools gold, and one nugget or pure gold, and believes all are real, what do we say of him? That he knew the real gold from the fool's? No.

Actually if the man's discovery of that single true gold nugget led to a huge gold rush and economic rise of the whole region, then people sure will say that he was a great man with a fine nose for gold, and all the fool's gold will be forgotten.

But directly to the OP: I don't think any human can think entirely clear, or entirely unreasonable. We are all somewhere in the middle. With differing degrees, sure, never entirely free of preconceived notions or convictions.
I know from myself that I can think reasonably well in several areas, but still make stupid mistakes and irrational decisions.

I think it is even probable that Newton's success in discovering pysical laws and his obsession with alchemy have a common root. Both must have required an enourmous andurance and confidence (dare I say "faith") in his ideas. Apparently there are even speculations that his theory of Gravitation was influenced by his alchemic studies.

The clear thinker, the dark magician, it's all interconnected. A completely rational mind probably wouldn't even be able to create or discover something new like Newton did; you need intuition for this, which is always vague and shrouded in darkness.

 

[Bushido216]

IT doesn't matter if newton knew about gravity or not. it's still true regardless. that your average turtle doesn't understand the inverse square doesn't mean it isn't the case.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think the key here is "If the person does not think clearly in general" I'd say that we most certainly do think clearly in general. It is merely a matter of not having all the information, or even possessing some information that is false.
The same go's for newton.

So its consisten to say someone knows even in that case, because we say that all the time.

In the case of a complete madman, perhaps you are right though I do not quite understand what you would consider know or belief in this example.

Well say a madman believes he is napoleon and that there are spies following him daily. He also believes the inverse square law. Is he, because he is so confused, incapable of knowing physical science truths? That would be because his standards of evidence and patterns of thought are in general unreliable, then even if applied properly that would possibly be more of freak good luck and coincidence than rationalised skill.

 

[The Paul]

Why? When we are assessing the reliability of a witness we have to look at his character as a knowing agent, do we not?

I guess, to be fair, if someone demonstrates competence or incompetence in a certain area we should be more inclined or less inclined to trust them within that area.

If Isaac Newton made some predictions about trajectories of falling or hurled objects, we would be inclined to trust his predictions.

If he made some predictions about the trajectories of objects hurtling through space a relativistic speeds, or the zeitgeist, I wouldn't be inclined to trust them any more than if they were made by any random stranger.

...so if we're talking about witnesses in the legal sense, we do try to qualify them in the relevant area. Show they are experts in some technical issue or that they are able and willing to reliably recall events.

But we don't demonstrate the moral character and cool headedness of a witness, then go on to ask him about his opinion on the work of a forensic team.

I agree with that. But "he believed it" is a stain on his character, is it not? So, is he in general a reliable witness (read: knowing agent)

It depends what he believed, and if its relevant. If Isaac Newton held racist or otherwise intolerant views (and by today's standards he probably did, like just about everyone else if you go back far enough) we may see it as a stain on his character, but we really don't consider in when evaluating his ideas about the laws of motion.

if he actually believed this stuff (God, alchemy)? If I say in a court of law "2+2=5, 1+3=7, 3+5 =1 and

(Newtons law)" would I be regarded as a reliable epistemic agent?

In practice you'd probably be regarded as a hostile witness, or in contempt of court, or something, since if you understand Newton's law you're just messing with us on the 2+2=5 stuff.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Paul I see that appeal to authority and false or unqualified authority are points to consider.

 

[Paradoxum]

1) You can't know many or any things 100%
2) Everyone believes incorrect things.
3) It depends what one means by belief in alchemy and belief that gravity exists.

It may be that those two things are believed in different ways. Perhaps his reason was biased only in certain areas, but not in other areas.

 

[quatona]

If there is a fictional figure famous for reasoning and insight it may well be Sherlock Homes, a creation of Arthur Conan Doyle. But Doyle himself believed in spiritualism, fairies and psychic powers.

Apparently Isaac Newton believed in alchemy and the existence of God.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that both were deluded.

Deluded concerning their reasonable/scientific discoveries or deluded concerning their private metaphysical beliefs?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Deluded concerning their reasonable/scientific discoveries or deluded concerning their private metaphysical beliefs?

I am not sure heio (ETA "his" please excuse typo) beliefs were private, but yeah his metaohysical and alchemical beliefs. What I am wondering is that if one cannot tell the difference between true science and false delusion, because one believes both to be true, then how reliable are one's internal discriminatory epistemic processes? Actually not that reliable.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It may be that those two things are believed in different ways. Perhaps his reason was biased only in certain areas, but not in other areas.

Maybe like two different modes of transportation. In one he used a sat nav, and in the other a ancient and dodgy map. But if he did not know the difference in reliability between the two, then how rationally developed was he?

 

[quatona]

I am not sure heio beliefs were private, but yeah his metaohysical and alchemical beliefs. What I am wondering is that if one cannot tell the difference between true science and false delusion, because one believes both to be true, then how reliable are one's internal discriminatory epistemic processes? Actually not that reliable.

I hope we all can tell the difference between doing your job as a scientist and your personal metaphysical convictions. As long as the latter is not pretended to be a product of the first, I fail to see any problem.
Metaphysical beliefs, choice of partner, calculations, preference in music and food all require different epistemic processes.
I pick my mechanic for his expertise in car mending - whether he beliefs in ghosts or the tooth fairy is completely irrelevant for this skill, provided he doesn´t explain away a mechanical problem in my car with reference to ghosts.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I hope we all can tell the difference between doing your job as a scientist and your personal metaphysical convictions. As long as the latter is not pretended to be a product of the first, I fail to see any problem.
Metaphysical beliefs, choice of partner, calculations, preference in music and food all require different epistemic processes.
I pick my mechanic for his expertise in car mending - whether he beliefs in ghosts or the tooth fairy is completely irrelevant for this skill, provided he doesn´t explain away a mechanical problem in my car with reference to ghosts.

But if one does not know the difference in reliability between the processes?

On the one hand we can say science led him to true beliefs, but on the other we can say he was not able to distinguish true from false. So how could he know science to be true if the overall process of appraisal he used to form his beliefs as a complete individual was not that reliable, and in fact led him into error (believing false things like alchemy and for the sake of argument God, to be true) as well as success? He could be compared to a judge who not only believed qualified authority but unqualified 'authority' too. Would a judge who took to heart expert testimony from an astrologer as well as an astronomer be regarded as adequatelty qualified for the job?

 

[quatona]

But if one does not know the difference in reliability between the processes?

Unless they publish their beliefs in ghosts as scientific result I see no reason to assume they do not know the difference.

 

[Paradoxum]

Maybe like two different modes of transportation. In one he used a sat nav, and in the other a ancient and dodgy map. But if he did not know the difference in reliability between the two, then how rationally developed was he?

No, I mean like, I assume morality is something real. Even though I know I can't prove it I am committed to saying evil is evil and good is good and that we should act to prevent the former and promote the latter. Or perhaps a better example is the belief in cause and effect. I can't prove it, but I assume that happenings are caused by other happenings.

I would say the above two things are different from my belief that evolution happened or that gravity exists.

 

[The Paul]

I am not sure heio (ETA "his" please excuse typo) beliefs were private, but yeah his metaohysical and alchemical beliefs. What I am wondering is that if one cannot tell the difference between true science and false delusion, because one believes both to be true, then how reliable are one's internal discriminatory epistemic processes? Actually not that reliable.

Well, it's not too difficult to take two beliefs, step back, and ask yourself if you apply the same criteria when evaluating the truth of them.

If you actually want to.

A lot of people don't. They may get too emotionally attached to something to be willing to evaluate it. It might a religion or it might be some curiously specific thing about the life cycles of mosquitos.

For yourself you can answer whether or not you're doing it. For someone else... well, it would help if we know exactly what Isaac Newton's beliefs regarding alchemy were, but I expect his musings there are a little more obscure.

 

[jayem]

To put it another way, could a madman, who believes he is Moses reincarnate, and that the ghost of Mary speaks to him daily, ever know very much more than what is plainly in front of his nose (if even that)?

Of course. Because different brain functions are involved. The famous mathematician John Nash had paranoid schizophrenia. He would hear voices, and believed he was targeted by a Communist conspiracy. Yet he could still do work in game theory that won him the Nobel Prize. Having a neurotransmitter disturbance that affects thinking in some areas, doesn't necessarily impair global brain functioning at all times. And likewise, having some erroneous ideas doesn't mean one is wrong about everything.

But I will say that this is a case-by-case determination. If it's important, the products of a crackpot's mind should be tested and verified. Just like anything else. He may be totally off the wall, but he may have discovered a gem of truth.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well, it's not too difficult to take two beliefs, step back, and ask yourself if you apply the same criteria when evaluating the truth of them.

If you actually want to.

Of course

Unless they publish their beliefs in ghosts as scientific result I see no reason to assume they do not know the difference.

I guess the case is pretty much solved. Unless someone wants to comment on Paradoxum's predicament.