Infinite Regress

[quatona]

In practice I would agree. That doesn't necessarily mean they are true it just means they appear to be useful though. A tool that has proven itself useful on a certain number of occasions.

I´m willing to take the position of "All I want from my assumptions is their usefulness. I don´t care about their truth (whatever that might mean)." for the sake of the argument.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here's a little point for you.

Doubting doubts.
That is, it does not believe until given evidence.
But why does it believe in doubting then?

Because it has evidence that this approach works well in distinguishing facts from fiction.

 

[Leap]

Because it has evidence that this approach works well in distinguishing facts from fiction.

And if you read the rest of the quote (the bit that you did not include) you will see how this is self-contradictory.

 

[The Engineer]

And if you read the rest of the quote (the bit that you did not include) you will see how this is self-contradictory.

I think everyone here understood what you meant. In case you didn't notice, the problem that you addressed is exactly what this thread deals with.

By the way, I already explained to you why this isn't self-contradictory:

No one is a doubter. This is just a position you invented so that you can argue against it. Skepticism is based around the notion that questioning and doubting your beliefs leads you to the truth (this belief would also be questioned, of course, but that doesn't mean questioning it wouldn't lead to the result that it's true, or must be presumed as true); it doesn't mean you worship doubt.

Just because you must question your doubt doesn't mean you won't get results from this questioning.

Let's say you arrived at the point where you ask yourself whether your experiences are reliable, or not. You have two options: One, you can assume your experiences are reliable; two, you can assume that they deceive you.
You don't know which assumption is right; you can't know which one is right. However, choosing the first assumption would be better in almost every way I can think off, because the second one makes every assumption you could ever make invalid.

It's the same with many other philosophical problems, and it's the reason why your notion of doubting makes no sense.

 

[Leap]

Let's say you arrived at the point where you ask yourself whether your experiences are reliable, or not. You have two options: One, you can assume your experiences are reliable; two, you can assume that they deceive you.
You don't know which assumption is right; you can't know which one is right. However, choosing the first assumption would be better in almost every way I can think off, because the second one makes every assumption you could ever make invalid.

You cannot require evidence for belief until you yourself believe that evidence is required for belief. Self evident, really.

But in order to believe that evidence is required for belief, you must either have:
1, come to such a view as an act of faith, and in doing so contradict the whole principle of needing evidence
or
2, Come to that conclusion on the basis of evidence, which is impossible because you cannot have believed that evidence was necessary until after you come to that belief.

 

[quatona]

You cannot require evidence for belief until you yourself believe that evidence is required for belief. Self evident, really.

But in order to believe that evidence is required for belief, you must either have:
1, come to such a view as an act of faith, and in doing so contradict the whole principle of needing evidence
or
2, Come to that conclusion on the basis of evidence, which is impossible because you cannot have believed that evidence was necessary until after you come to that belief.

Good old sophisms....

 

[The Engineer]

You cannot require evidence for belief until you yourself believe that evidence is required for belief. Self evident, really.

But in order to believe that evidence is required for belief, you must either have:
1, come to such a view as an act of faith, and in doing so contradict the whole principle of needing evidence
or
2, Come to that conclusion on the basis of evidence, which is impossible because you cannot have believed that evidence was necessary until after you come to that belief.

Look, it doesn't always boil down to having evidence, okay? I just tried to tell you that!

I told you before why the burden of proof is a necessity of logic, and I think I told you why we need logic, too.

You must assume the burden of proof because otherwise, you would have no objective standard with which you could measure the validity of arguments.

I'd be glad if you could stop repeating yourself and actually answer to what I write.

 

[Leap]

I'd be glad if you could stop repeating yourself and actually answer to what I write.

That's strange, because I was thinking the same thing about you. Either you came to require evidence as an act of faith (in the necessity of evidence) and by doing so contradict the whole "evidence is needed" line. Or you came to require evidence because you already believed that evidence was required....which, as should be fairly obvious, is self-contradictory.

 

[The Engineer]

That's strange, because I was thinking the same thing about you. Either you came to require evidence as an act of faith (in the necessity of evidence) and by doing so contradict the whole "evidence is needed" line. Or you came to require evidence because you already believed that evidence was required....which, as should be fairly obvious, is self-contradictory.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

I told you that evidence is NOT ALWAYS NEEDED!

Some problems can't be solved by evidence, but solely by choosing between two options! You can either accept the concept of the burden of proof without evidence, or you can deny it; the latter option makes logic impossible.

Here, for the record:

Look, it doesn't always boil down to having evidence, okay? I just tried to tell you that!

I've also told you that no one, NO ONE on this whole planet is a doubter; YOU MADE THIS POSITION UP!

 

[Leap]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

I told you that evidence is NOT ALWAYS NEEDED!

Some problems can't be solved by evidence, but solely by choosing between two options! You can either accept the concept of the burden of proof without evidence, or you can deny it; the latter option makes logic impossible.

So what exactly is your problem?

 

[quatona]

Either you came to require evidence as an act of faith (in the necessity of evidence) and by doing so contradict the whole "evidence is needed" line. Or you came to require evidence because you already believed that evidence was required....which, as should be fairly obvious, is self-contradictory.

Personally, I came to require evidence because the all-faith approach that I naturally had as a child soon proved to be unsuccessful. I started having doubts - not as an end in itself, not as the all-governing principle, not as the starting and end point of everything (as your sophistry suggests) - but simply as a useful method.

And just to give you some of your own sophistry medicine: If you were consistent in your approach of faith you would have faith in doubts, as well. Swallow this.

 

[The Engineer]

So what exactly is your problem?

My problem is that the philosophy you argue against is a philosophy in which EVERY assertion has to be supported by evidence.

I DON'T HAVE SHARE THIS PHILOSOPHY! In fact, I'd go as far as to say you made it up.

Positive claims need to be supported by evidence, but that doesn't mean every assertion must be supported by evidence.

 

[Leap]

My problem is that the philosophy you argue against is a philosophy in which EVERY assertion has to be supported by evidence.

Which was the OP's premise;

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

And I am illustrating how that is self-contradicting.

I DON'T HAVE SHARE THIS PHILOSOPHY! In fact, I'd go as far as to say you made it up.

Positive claims need to be supported by evidence, but that doesn't mean every assertion must be supported by evidence.

Actually, what I am describing is the basis of science; that something not be believed until evidence is presented. It is the standard line from atheists, that they will not believe in God until evidence is presented. It is the basic stance of empiricism: that something not be believed until evidence is presented.

Do you really think that I made it up?

 

[Received]

Why shouldn't God be commensurate with evidence? I think it's a totally legitimate question, even if it might be incommensurate if science's limitation is the physical.

Not all evidence is scientific evidence. We should strive for evidence whenever necessary, and have a rational justification (including an appeal to intuition, as this thread makes possible) when we can't. Without such a rigorous standard, we run the risk of fanaticism, whether religious or secular.

 

[Leap]

Why shouldn't God be commensurate with evidence? I think it's a totally legitimate question, even if it might be incommensurate if science's limitation is the physical.

Not all evidence is scientific evidence. We should strive for evidence whenever necessary, and have a rational justification (including an appeal to intuition, as this thread makes possible) when we can't. Without such a rigorous standard, we run the risk of fanaticism, whether religious or secular.

What evidence would there be that a partner loves you that could not also be deemed part of an elaborate plot to mislead you? Sooner or later it takes a leap of faith, based on hope.

 

[The Engineer]

Which was the OP's premise;

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

And I am illustrating how that is self-contradicting.

That was the whole point of the thread! Your solution to this problem was to abandon step 1 altogether; I gave an alternative to step 1 for the situations in which it doesn't work.

Actually, what I am describing is the basis of science; that something not be believed until evidence is presented. It is the standard line from atheists, that they will not believe in God until evidence is presented. It is the basic stance of empiricism: that something not be believed until evidence is presented.

Positive claims need to be backed up with evidence, that's a rule of logic. That doesn't mean every claim has to backed up with evidence.

Science is concerned only with discovering and describing the natural world. There are some problems science can't solve, philosophical questions like the nature of good and evil, but then again, science doesn't want to answer those questions.

Do you really think that I made it up?

In the way you presented it at least, yes.

EDIT:

What evidence would there be that a partner loves you that could not also be deemed part of an elaborate plot to mislead you? Sooner or later it takes a leap of faith, based on hope.

This problem is easily solved with Occams Razor. If presented with several hypotheses, all of which are equally good at explaining a given phenomenon, one should chose the one which makes the fewest assumptions, i.e. the simplest one. In this case, that would be the hypothesis that the partner loves you.

 

[Received]

What evidence would there be that a partner loves you that could not also be deemed part of an elaborate plot to mislead you? Sooner or later it takes a leap of faith, based on hope.

I agree that it takes a leap of faith. I think that unless you're a Pyrrhonist, a leap is necessary at the very beginning just to get off the ground.

But I fail to see how The Engineer isn't supportive of this claim.

 

[The Engineer]

I agree that it takes a leap of faith. I think that unless you're a Pyrrhonist, a leap is necessary at the very beginning just to get off the ground.

But I fail to see how The Engineer isn't supportive of this claim.

You don't need a leap of faith. You just need to check which explanation for the behavior of your partner is the simplest one.

 

[Leap]

Personally, I came to require evidence because the all-faith approach that I naturally had as a child soon proved to be unsuccessful. I started having doubts - not as an end in itself, not as the all-governing principle, not as the starting and end point of everything (as your sophistry suggests) - but simply as a useful method.

So how did you decide to rely on evidence? Was it based on evidence (in which case it pre-supposes itself) or was it based on faith (in which case it denies itself)?

And just to give you some of your own sophistry medicine: If you were consistent in your approach of faith you would have faith in doubts, as well. Swallow this.

You cannot have faith in doubt because doubt actually denies faith - the inherent contradiction stops you having faith in doubt.

 

[quatona]

So how did you decide to rely on evidence? Was it based on evidence (in which case it pre-supposes itself) or was it based on faith (in which case it denies itself)?

I already told you: Experience. Like, when I can see, touch, smell and eat a pizza it tends to be there. When there is no such evidence for there being a pizza it´s reasonable to reserve judgement (i.e. doubting it).
I´m not sure what alternative you are thinking of as reliable if not evidence. After all, that´s what "evidence" means.

You were talking about the maxime "innocent until proven guilty". What does that "proven guilty" refer to if not the collection of evidence?

The reliance on evidence is apparently something that is common to those who prefer doubt as the better tool of investigating reality and those who prefer faith, and unless they are unable to ever correct their initially faith-based assumption, even "faithers" utilize doubts.

You cannot have faith in doubt because doubt actually denies faith - the inherent contradiction stops you having faith in doubt.

I was under the impression that you kept telling us that we have faith in doubt. Now I´m completely lost as to what it is you are saying.

If belief and doubt are the antagonists you make them out to be a faith based approach will never allow any doubts, and as such doesn´t allow for any correction.

I don´t agree that belief/faith and doubt are antagonists. Belief and disbelief are antagonists. Thus, doubt is the experience based belief in the value of evidence, and there is no contradiction at all.

But let´s, for argument´s sake, assume you are right and I have chosen skepticism as the best approach towards the world purely based on faith. This is not a contradiction because the seemingly contradiction attitudes are not on the same level, not in the same context and not for the same task. It´s not a contradiction to use tools other than a screwdriver to produce a screwdriver and henceforth use the screwdriver to screw in screws.

On a final note, since doubt is not the antagonist of belief (as your word games are suggesting) I can still have doubts about the doubt-approach even though using it for my preferred tool of epistemology. I do can believe something and at the same time have and allow doubts about it.