How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

When I said one thing and you insisted it was the other.

I restate things in my own words to make sure I understand it. Please don't think of it as me trying to tell you what your beliefs are.

Look, here you are doing the same thing again, even though I have explained the difference and clarified more than once now. It might be helpful to take in the clarification rather than insisting that I initially had said something that lead to a misunderstanding?

If the criteria are not rational and are not irrational, then what are they? I'm not aware of a third alternative.

I can relate to your frustration.

I´m sorry - I am doing the best I can.

I never meant to imply otherwise.

No. I am saying that something needs to be presented as an argument before it can be called an "argument from...".

In the context of this kind of discussion, an argument is a term for any reason or justification for having a particular opinion. So if you say, "I hold this opinion because of such-and-such," then whatever you say instead of "such-and-such" is your argument.

Except that this was not what I was saying nor meant to say.

But in post 623, didn't you say that if the whole world believed something, then you'd be more likely to consider that viewpoint?

Rest assured that I´ve been trying very hard. I can´t do any better.

I do appreciate your efforts.

Maybe the problem is that I am merely describing something, and you keep misunderstanding it as being an argument for it?

As I said before, when it comes to debates and discussions like this, an argument is simply a term for a reason that you believe a particular thing. It does not mean an aggressive attempt to convince another person that you are right.

 

[Kylie]

No.

So you think that if some engineer at Ford new that on a particular day the vehicle in question would be involved in a fatal accident, then he wouldn't do a single thing to prevent it?

 

[quatona]

I restate things in my own words to make sure I understand it. Please don't think of it as me trying to tell you what your beliefs are.

Fair enough.
I would, however, appreciate it, if you could manage to accept when I tell you that your paraphrasing does not represent what I meant to say.

If the criteria are not rational and are not irrational, then what are they? I'm not aware of a third alternative.

I have been trying to point out the difference between "the application of irrational criteria" and the "inconsistent application of rational criteria" (the latter being what I think I am doing). I think the difference should be obvious, and I don´t know how to explain it any better, sorry.

In the context of this kind of discussion, an argument is a term for any reason or justification for having a particular opinion. So if you say, "I hold this opinion because of such-and-such," then whatever you say instead of "such-and-such" is your argument.

I think this is not a very useful definition of "argument" - but I think I am flexible enough to work with definitions that aren´t mine.
[Example: If I told you that I jump on a chair and starting crying hysterically when I see a mouse because I am afraid of mice, this isn´t an attempt at justifying my behaviour (as rational or advisable or whatever). It´s not an argument, even by your definition. I am just describing my behaviour and its cause.]
Anyway, I think here lies the cause for our misunderstandings: I am not trying to justify anything, I am merely describing how I do it. I am not claiming that this is the best or even only a good way of doing it, nor that it is rationally justifiable (we might get there at some point, though). I am not discussing with you, even less debating. I am just answering your question "How do you do it?".

But in post 623, didn't you say that if the whole world believed something, then you'd be more likely to consider that viewpoint?

No, IIRC I said it had significance to me (and I added: probably more significance than the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claim itself). IOW, the fact that 7 billion people believing in being able to turn into squirrels would be part of my reality, and I would have to find a way of dealing with that.
On another note, growing up in such a world is likely to make me believe the same before I even have started to cognitively develop an epistemology, and thus it will likely function as some sort of "default belief". (That´s why e.g. people in Western Europe are likely to be Christians rather than holding other religious beliefs.)

 

[AV1611VET]

So you think that if some engineer at Ford new that on a particular day the vehicle in question would be involved in a fatal accident, then he wouldn't do a single thing to prevent it?

He might blow a whistle, but if he wants to keep his job ...

I'm curious if you think Ford Motor Company is responsible for every person who ever died in an automobile accident.

 

[quatona]

He might blow a whistle, but if he wants to keep his job ...

I'm curious if you think Ford Motor Company is responsible for every person who ever died in an automobile accident.

Not Ford Company but scientists, of course.

 

[Kylie]

Fair enough.
I would, however, appreciate it, if you could manage to accept when I tell you that your paraphrasing does not represent what I meant to say.

Okay. In such cases, can you do the rephrasing yourself then?

I have been trying to point out the difference between "the application of irrational criteria" and the "inconsistent application of rational criteria" (the latter being what I think I am doing). I think the difference should be obvious, and I don´t know how to explain it any better, sorry.

Why would you want to do it inconsistently?

I think this is not a very useful definition of "argument" - but I think I am flexible enough to work with definitions that aren´t mine.
[Example: If I told you that I jump on a chair and starting crying hysterically when I see a mouse because I am afraid of mice, this isn´t an attempt at justifying my behaviour (as rational or advisable or whatever). It´s not an argument, even by your definition. I am just describing my behaviour and its cause.]
Anyway, I think here lies the cause for our misunderstandings: I am not trying to justify anything, I am merely describing how I do it. I am not claiming that this is the best or even only a good way of doing it, nor that it is rationally justifiable (we might get there at some point, though). I am not discussing with you, even less debating. I am just answering your question "How do you do it?".

Perhaps a better definition of argument as used here is the one I got from Google when I asked it to define argument. Specifically the second one...

No, IIRC I said it had significance to me (and I added: probably more significance than the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claim itself). IOW, the fact that 7 billion people believing in being able to turn into squirrels would be part of my reality, and I would have to find a way of dealing with that.

I would be more interested in finding out if their belief was based on fact or not.

On another note, growing up in such a world is likely to make me believe the same before I even have started to cognitively develop an epistemology, and thus it will likely function as some sort of "default belief". (That´s why e.g. people in Western Europe are likely to be Christians rather than holding other religious beliefs.)

Using your example, that would suggest that a person's location has much more of an effect on their religious belief than the actual validity of that belief, yes?

 

[Kylie]

He might blow a whistle, but if he wants to keep his job ...

I'm curious if you think Ford Motor Company is responsible for every person who ever died in an automobile accident.

Wow, you really love twisting the topic.

In any case, if you are aware of some event that will result in a loss of life, and you have the ability to stop it, but you don't, are you not at least partially responsible?

 

[AV1611VET]

In any case, if you are aware of some event that will result in a loss of life, and you have the ability to stop it, but you don't, are you not at least partially responsible?

Only if it falls within the confines of the duty-to-rescue laws.

 

[Kylie]

Only if it falls within the confines of the duty-to-rescue laws.

Wow, that's pretty heartless, AV.

 

[quatona]

Okay. In such cases, can you do the rephrasing yourself then?

I´ve been trying to, all the time.

Why would you want to do it inconsistently?

What makes you think that I want to do it inconsistently?

(Once we get to the point of having an argument, I´ll argue from the stance that I can´t see how a consistent approach can not be had, though. )

Perhaps a better definition of argument as used here is the one I got from Google when I asked it to define argument. Specifically the second one...

View attachment 210354

Thank you - both definitions (1 or 2) are fine with me. Under both definitions I wasn´t having an argument.

I would be more interested in finding out if their belief was based on fact or not.

"More interested" in this than in what? (I´m asking because I didn´t say anything about my interest - I talked about the significance of widely held beliefs: They are, in fact, part of reality. For that to be the case, I don´t even have to be interested in them.)

Speaking of interests - personally I am pretty indifferent and apathetic about entities whose existence or non-existence wouldn´t make any practical difference.

On another note, the tricky thing about basic beliefs instilled in us naturally from very early on is that we mightn´t even be aware that they are beliefs.

Using your example, that would suggest that a person's location has much more of an effect on their religious belief than the actual validity of that belief, yes?

Not sure about the "much more" (and I would replace "location" by "environment"), but, yes: I am saying that this is a significant factor, statistically speaking.

 

[Kylie]

What makes you think that I want to do it inconsistently?

I'm, confused then...

Are you applying irrational criteria consistently, or are you applying rational criteria inconsistently?

(Once we get to the point of having an argument, I´ll argue from the stance that I can´t see how a consistent approach can not be had, though. )

Remember - in the context of this thread, an argument is simply your rationalisiation for holding a certain point of view.

Thank you - both definitions (1 or 2) are fine with me. Under both definitions I wasn´t having an argument.

If you are telling me why you hold your point of view, then you are most certainly presenting an argument under definition 2.

"More interested" in this than in what? (I´m asking because I didn´t say anything about my interest - I talked about the significance of widely held beliefs: They are, in fact, part of reality. For that to be the case, I don´t even have to be interested in them.)

More interested in finding out if the beliefs are valid than trying to come to terms with the fact that they have beliefs.

Not sure about the "much more" (and I would replace "location" by "environment"), but, yes: I am saying that this is a significant factor, statistically speaking.

Then in this we are agreed.

 

[quatona]

I'm, confused then...

Are you applying irrational criteria consistently, or are you applying rational criteria inconsistently?

The latter. (Not sure my criteria are always rational either, though - but here I was talking about the latter.)

Remember - in the context of this thread, an argument is simply your rationalisiation for holding a certain point of view.

I didn´t rationalize. I didn´t even describe a point of view. I described how I think factually I go about it.

If you are telling me why you hold your point of view, then you are most certainly presenting an argument under definition 2.

And which point of view would that be? That, upon self-examination, I have come to the conclusion that I apply criteria inconsistently? Are you disagreeing with me and submit that I apply them consistently?

More interested in finding out if the beliefs are valid than trying to come to terms with the fact that they have beliefs.

Ok. To me, however, widely held beliefs usually have more impact on my reality than e.g. the existence or non-existence of an irrelevant supposedly "supernatural" entity. IOW, Gods don´t tend to show up, but believers do.

Then in this we are agreed.

So where do we disagree?

 

[Kylie]

The latter. (Not sure my criteria are always rational either, though - but here I was talking about the latter.)

So if your criteria are applied inconsistently, and may even be irrational, how can you ever be sure what you get from them is factual?

And which point of view would that be? That, upon self-examination, I have come to the conclusion that I apply criteria inconsistently? Are you disagreeing with me and submit that I apply them consistently?

Whichever point of view you hold. Are you saying you have no points of view at all?

Ok. To me, however, widely held beliefs usually have more impact on my reality than e.g. the existence or non-existence of an irrelevant supposedly "supernatural" entity. IOW, Gods don´t tend to show up, but believers do.

True.

But I am talking about how to find out about the truth of the universe. Not about how to deal with believers.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[quatona]

So if your criteria are applied inconsistently, and may even be irrational, how can you ever be sure what you get from them is factual?

I can´t. (That´s not much of a concern, to me)
A lot seems to be trial and error, and an important criterium is "it works", for me.

Whichever point of view you hold. Are you saying you have no points of view at all?

Before we move on to my viewpoints - would it be asked too much to first settle that "I don´t seem to apply...consistently" isn´t a viewpoint or argument, by the definition you provided (because that was the actual point of the misunderstanding)?

But I am talking about how to find out about the truth of the universe. Not about how to deal with believers.

Ok. The thread question, however, was: How do you decide if something is factual. To me, the existence of believers is somewhat obviously factual.
As for "the truth of the universe": metaphysics, to me, is a field of creativity rather than of epistemology. I think it requires a different approach than, say, the question what time or temperature it is.

 

[Kylie]

I can´t. (That´s not much of a concern, to me)

So you don't care that you can't rely on your conclusions?

A lot seems to be trial and error, and an important criterium is "it works", for me.

But how do you know it works if by your own admission you can't be sure that your conclusions are factual?

As for "the truth of the universe": metaphysics, to me, is a field of creativity rather than of epistemology. I think it requires a different approach than, say, the question what time or temperature it is.

But isn't "temperature" part of how the universe works? How can you then claim how the universe works requires a different approach?

 

[quatona]

So you don't care that you can't rely on your conclusions?

I take that as a given. I have yet to be presented an epistemological framework that doesn´t rest on some basic assumption.
Depending on the issue at hand, it sometimes bothers me more or less, and sometimes doesn´t.

But how do you know it works if by your own admission you can't be sure that your conclusions are factual?

It´s the other way round: If it works, I tend to take it as factual.

But isn't "temperature" part of how the universe works? How can you then claim how the universe works requires a different approach?

I may have misunderstood you. When you said "the truth of the universe" I wasn´t thinking of statements like "It´s 15° outside" (you know, I am easily intimidated by big words ). So, yeah, as long as our considerations remain within the framework of our models of the physical processes within the universe, the good ol´ scientific method is all we need.

 

[Ophiolite]

So you don't care that you can't rely on your conclusions?

I've followed your discussion with quatona with interest. I find myself quite closely aligned with quatona's thinking, as far as I can tell.

In response to your question here, I do rely on my conclusions, but I am aware that they may be totally wrong. One has to work with something and so those axioms, methdologies, perspectives that have generally worked for me in the past I continue to use, perhaps making the occassional small modification.

So, I absolutely rely on my conclusions, but I simultaneously accept that they could be seriously flawed. Do I care that this it the case? Of course I do, but I also care that I can no longer run 10k in 40 minutes, or climb a 17,000' peak. However, if you can't alter the situation you should move on.

 

[quatona]

I've followed your discussion with quatona with interest. I find myself quite closely aligned with quatona's thinking, as far as I can tell.

In response to your question here, I do rely on my conclusions, but I am aware that they may be totally wrong. One has to work with something and so those axioms, methdologies, perspectives that have generally worked for me in the past I continue to use, perhaps making the occassional small modification.

So, I absolutely rely on my conclusions, but I simultaneously accept that they could be seriously flawed. Do I care that this it the case? Of course I do, but I also care that I can no longer run 10k in 40 minutes, or climb a 17,000' peak. However, if you can't alter the situation you should move on.

Yes, it seems like we are pretty close here.
However, let me expand a little. I am not sure why I´d question reality as it presents itself to me, without having a good reason to do so - and even less, if the insight that it is false would make little to no difference.
These basic epistemological questions usually come up through trying to enlarge the frame of reference. In the end, it will be extreme questions like "What if I´m just a brain in a vat, or a virtual person in a virtual reality?". Yes, what to it? My current reality will remain my reality: being hit on the head in this virtual reality still hurts, having sex is still a great thing, and the laws of (virtual) nature are still as reliable.
All my findings in my reality still apply (within the frame of this reality), and the "really real" world is inaccesible to my experience.
Thus, this knowledge about there being a greater frame of reference that renders my reality "false" would be useless for any intent or purpose.

 

[Halbhh]

So then this implies two criteria:

1. It must be, in principle at least, able to be proven false.
2. It must withstand any and all attempts to prove it false.

Would you agree with this?

ah, so you have the correct basis to then begin to search for what you don't know, knowing that if it is real, it will pan out, even before you see it. Like searching for gold nuggets, before you find any. Like that. Proof is in the outcome. Before you know the outcome, you on 'faith' that something may be there, even that there is a something, and it's somewhere, even if you don't know where yet. You try though you haven't found it and don't see it yet.

How?

He said --

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Put in more scientific terms, to find some things you'd often have to seek. "Sprites" are a good example. Some claimed this fantastical sounding thing of lighting going vertically upwards from the tops of the highest thunderstorm up into....what? up into space? Fantastical sounding. When scientists decided to try to find it at first they failed. They tried and failed. Falsified?.....well, if they were too impatient and not trying hard enough, then sure, falsified. But, today, you can read the wiki on sprites if you like, because they kept on seeking what sounded fantastical, and they could not find right off the bat.

Now that I've found, having the evidence so repeatedly, it would be tantamount to denying that the sun isn't there such as during a cloudy day for me to deny at this point that the Something is very real. It turns out the person Who said "Love your neighbor as yourself" knew what He was talking about.

 

[Kylie]

I take that as a given. I have yet to be presented an epistemological framework that doesn´t rest on some basic assumption.

Do you agree that it's generally best to have as few assumptions as possible?

Depending on the issue at hand, it sometimes bothers me more or less, and sometimes doesn´t.

And is this random? What is it about the issue that determines how much it bothers you?

It´s the other way round: If it works, I tend to take it as factual.

Do you ever take something that you think works and try to see if it doesn't work?

I may have misunderstood you. When you said "the truth of the universe" I wasn´t thinking of statements like "It´s 15° outside" (you know, I am easily intimidated by big words ). So, yeah, as long as our considerations remain within the framework of our models of the physical processes within the universe, the good ol´ scientific method is all we need.

When I say things like "the truth of the universe", I am talking about the fundamental laws which govern the way the universe works. Things like quantum mechanics. The process with which we figured out quantum mechanics is the same sort of thing which we used to figure out temperature - following the scientific method by making observations about the universe, forming a hypothesis, then attempting to support or disprove that hypothesis.