Infinite Regress

[quatona]

The prosecution and the defence. If both sides are to be treated as innocent/trustworthy, they go to court. If only one side was so treated you would not have a trial - either the accused would be treated as not innocent or the prosecution would be treated as innocent. We take both sides in faith and then discard the one who denies faith (by faithless behaviour).

Ah, I see. Initially I thought you were talking about the person accused when discussing the implications of "innocent until proven guilty". I´m a complete layman when it comes to jurisdiction but I am pretty sure that the maxime "innocent until proven guilty" is not about the innocence of the prosecutor, the lawyer, the judge or the audience or whomever - it is about the accused person. Of course, I may be wrong.

 

[The Engineer]

Innocence is not the absence of guilt. It is the presence of harmlessness and trustworthiness. Declaring someone innocent is declaring a positive state of trustworthiness, rather than declaring a negative one of nothing beyond absence of guilt.

That's not the definition, at all.

innocence - definition of innocence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

All the definitions you can find are negative ones.

Doubt, the requiring of evidence before belief is forthcoming, IS.

I already discussed this one. Instead of constantly repeating yourself, I suggest you

Sorry, no, you are wrong here. Doubt, the requiring of evidence before belief is forthcoming, is the basis of science and modernity.

There's a difference between functional doubt and between embracing doubt. Scientists constantly check whether they are wrong, that doesn't mean they assume in everyday life that they are wrong.

By the way, you just said yourself that doubt is the basis of science. You also said that doubt is poisonous. You do know that science gave us modern society, right? Would you rather live in the stone age?

I think you are 180 degrees off here. There is no way one can function unless one chooses what they will absolutely believe. The fact that most of these choices are not consious ones does not change that. Choosing to believe in logic is an example.

The fact that most choices are made unconscious does change it. If you can't willingly influence your beliefs, then you didn't choose to them. You can choose which evidence you accept and which you don't accept, to a degree, but not whether you believe something or not.

Yes, that is, but why would one assume that logic is the way to resolve conflicts in people's perceptions of reality if one did not first believe in logic because they assumed that logic was efficacious and not merely a fallacious construct built upon faulty or incomplete sensory information.

It's really hard to understand what you're saying if you just leave out half the punctuation. That's why I'll split your quote up.

Yes, that is, but why would one assume that logic is the way to resolve conflicts in people's perceptions of reality if one did not first believe in logic

Because you can make predictions based on logic. Logic works, blind faith doesn't.

If you had a cube and a square hole of the same size and shape, you would assume the cube can go through the hole, right? You would do so based on a logical prediction.

Do you think logical predictions could turn out right if the whole system was just flat-out wrong?

because they assumed that logic was efficacious and not merely a fallacious construct built upon faulty or incomplete sensory information.

First of all, if you deny logic, the concept of a fallacy makes no sense at all.
Second, even if logic is built upon faulty sensory information, as you call it, it still works. I just demonstrated it to you.

There are numerous assumptions that we must agree to make in order to have a meaningful exchange of ideas. If one party is working on a set of assumptions that contradict the assumptions of the other party they will each inevitably view the other as less intelligent, less open minded and probably willfully hostile to reasonable discourse.

As it turns out, having logic as the set of assumptions works best. That's even what it was designed for. As I said, you can make predictions based on logic, but not on blind faith.

 

[Leap]

That's not the definition, at all.

innocence - definition of innocence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

All the definitions you can find are negative ones.

You'll find harmlessness in the defition you link to, and trustworthiness is implied.

By the way, you just said yourself that doubt is the basis of science. You also said that doubt is poisonous. You do know that science gave us modern society, right? Would you rather live in the stone age?

Scientific doubt is precisely the same thing as I speak of. And we had a thriving society before it turned up....a society that was a long way from "stone age".

 

[The Engineer]

You'll find harmlessness in the defition you link to, and trustworthiness is implied.

You can't prove harmlessness. How would you prove that a person doesn't intend to cause harm? Proving the absence of an intention to harm is impossible.

Trustworthiness is implied, yes. Because that's a side effect of being free of guilt.

Nothing you said suggests that the

Scientific doubt is precisely the same thing as I speak of. And we had a thriving society before it turned up....a society that was a long way from "stone age".

A society that burned witches, treated diseases by letting people bleed out, where half of all newborn died because the doctors didn't wash hands, where women had no right to work and where children were hanged for stealing a piece of bread.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a time where the default treatment of leg wounds wasn't amputation without anesthesia.

 

[Leap]

A society that burned witches, treated diseases by letting people bleed out, where half of all newborn died because the doctors didn't wash hands, where women had no right to work and where children were hanged for stealing a piece of bread.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a time where the default treatment of leg wounds wasn't amputation without anesthesia.

No system is perfect, but doubt breeds insanity no matter what the benefits that modern science brings.

 

[The Engineer]

No system is perfect, but doubt breeds insanity no matter what the benefits that modern science brings.

Not perfect? You're saying that a society that burns witches is not perfect? Good one!

So you acknowledge that logic and the scientific method work, but you still call them insane because they don't work on blind faith.

If so, then I'm gladly insane.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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


2. However, for every proof given, yet another proof is required for that proof to be justified; leading to vicious infinite regress of proofs.


3. An infinite regress of proofs provides no basis for justification since it is impossible to determine if every belief in the series is justified.
​

What do people make of this argument and can they find a way around it? Is there possibly a reason to deny the first assumption?

All knowledge is based on the idea that reality is what we think it is. There's no way to confirm this idea however. So all knowledge other than "something exists" has an inherent uncertainty, and is based on what we assume to be true.

 

[Leap]

Not perfect? You're saying that a society that burns witches is not perfect? Good one!

So you acknowledge that logic and the scientific method work, but you still call them insane because they don't work on blind faith.

If so, then I'm gladly insane.

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? Surely you could not require evidence until you doubt (ie: believe that evidence is necessary) and you could not doubt (ie: believe that evidence is necessary) until you required evidence. Catch 22. It must mean that the first demand for evidence was actually an act of faith (in the necessity of evidence) that itself denies and contradicts the whole premise of doubt (ie: that evidence is necessary before belief is forthcoming).

Ooops. So if you doubt, it must rely on an act of faith (ie: believing without requiring evidence) in doubt (ie: requiring evidence before believing) that invalidates the whole notion of needing evidence in the first place.

Does this also discredit faith which, after all must have lead to someone having faith in doubt? Nope, because you can have faith in something which then betrays that faith without it discrediting faith itself. You cannot however have faith in doubt without discrediting doubt, nor can you believe in doubt through evidence before doubting (ie: believing in the need for evidence in the first place).

 

[Illuminaughty]

Since there hasn´t been a reason given for the first assumption I think it can be denied without giving a reason.
Anyway, it´s always a good idea to become aware of your most basic (axiomatic) beliefs.

I was thinking along those lines too but that reasoning really didn't satisfy my doubts. I see that the statement is kind of paradoxical but when you start demanding evidence for specific statements I still think you run into that infinite regress. Do you really believe that statements don't require evidence to back them up in order for them to be legitimately classified as "proven" or "true" ? I can't bring myself to say that. I demand evidence. It's only logical that once you demand evidence you run up against an infinite regress though.

 

[The Engineer]

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? Surely you could not require evidence until you doubt (ie: believe that evidence is necessary) and you could not doubt (ie: believe that evidence is necessary) until you required evidence. Catch 22. It must mean that the first demand for evidence was actually an act of faith (in the necessity of evidence) that itself denies and contradicts the whole premise of doubt (ie: that evidence is necessary before belief is forthcoming).

Ooops. So if you doubt, it must rely on an act of faith (ie: believing without requiring evidence) in doubt (ie: requiring evidence before believing) that invalidates the whole notion of needing evidence in the first place.

Does this also discredit faith which, after all must have lead to someone having faith in doubt? Nope, because you can have faith in something which then betrays that faith without it discrediting faith itself.

I already addressed this. Your cute little concept of faith is little more than the denial of the burden of proof. Without the burden of proof, logic stops working. If logic stops working, then how do you measure the validity of an argument, except by completely subjective and arbitrary standards? How do you find out whether a belief makes sense or not?

By the way, you're talking to strawman, you know that? No one doubts everything! At a certain point, you just stop doubting and take something for granted, until you need to justify it. You could call this faith, but this faith is nothing like the gullibility that you propose as the basis for everything.

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.

 

[Leap]

I already addressed this. Your cute little concept of faith is little more than the denial of the burden of proof. Without the burden of proof, logic stops working. If logic stops working, then how do you measure the validity of an argument, except by completely subjective and arbitrary standards? How do you find out whether a belief makes sense or not?

By the way, you're talking to strawman, you know that? No one doubts everything! At a certain point, you just stop doubting and take something for granted, until you need to justify it. You could call this faith, but this faith is nothing like the gullibility that you propose as the basis for everything.

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.

I think that perhaps you need to read again what I have put because at the moment you are (quite understandably) defending something that you have built yourself upon and so do not wish to challenge it. Doubt must come from an act of faith that itself contradicts the whole premise of doubt (ie: that evidence is needed for belief).

I shall leave you to ponder that.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Without the burden of proof, logic stops working. If logic stops working, then how do you measure the validity of an argument, except by completely subjective and arbitrary standards? How do you find out whether a belief makes sense or not?

I think that's the case as well.

 

[quatona]

I was thinking along those lines too but that reasoning really didn't satisfy my doubts. I see that the statement is kind of paradoxical but when you start demanding evidence for specific statements I still think you run into that infinite regress. Do you really believe that statements don't require evidence to back them up in order for them to be legitimately classified as "proven" or "true" ? I can't bring myself to say that. I demand evidence. It's only logical that once you demand evidence you run up against an infinite regress though.

Actually, I was merely questioning *proof* to be the necessary criterium, since, well, "proof" is a big word and hardly any belief/conviction we hold has supporting proof in its side.

That aside: Yes, no matter what we insert as the criterium for justified belief, we will run into an infinite regress. I guess that´s where axioms come into play.

Personally, I think everybody works from basic premises (i.e. assumptions that they can´t do without), and as long as these basic premises are signified as such I don´t see a major problem. These basic premises may be culturally and individually different, though.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Actually, I was merely questioning *proof* to be the necessary criterium, since, well, "proof" is a big word and hardly any belief/conviction we hold has supporting proof in its side.

Good point. It might be more realistic to use terms like probable and improbable.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That aside: Yes, no matter what we insert as the criterium for justified belief, we will run into an infinite regress. I guess that´s where axioms come into play.

I'm not sure that we ever need run into an infinite regress. I think axioms are derived inductively. That is, we experience them. I am justified in believing the sun will rise tomorrow. This is, in some sense, axiomatic to my life ... so axiomatic I never stop to think about it. I am justified in believing that I will wake up tomorrow. I always have before and I'm in good health.

The key to progress is realizing that this is where axioms come from and that we should be prepared to abandoned them. (Perhaps, this is why death sometimes takes us by surprise.)

It would appear that "1 + 1 = 2" is axiomatic. However, I aver that this the name we give to the experience of having acquiring one more object than the one we have now.

IOW, the regress stops with "do my axioms work" or "are my axioms justified by experience."

 

[Received]

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


2. However, for every proof given, yet another proof is required for that proof to be justified; leading to vicious infinite regress of proofs.


3. An infinite regress of proofs provides no basis for justification since it is impossible to determine if every belief in the series is justified.
​

What do people make of this argument and can they find a way around it? Is there possibly a reason to deny the first assumption?

I love this argument, and it isn't applied enough to reasoning in general as much as it should be.

What it really appears to be getting at is that our philosophical systems (rationalism, empiricism, whatever) aren't self-contained, but look beyond themselves to a point of self-evidence or intuition. That is, reason isn't capable of explaining reason. The basis of reasoning is pre-rational, toward the "you just know it" intuition.

Where this is interesting for theism is that belief in God might be another type of "you just know it" intuition -- one that isn't accessible to everyone, given that what mediates this intuition is personal experience. Much like we all (with the exception of the radical skeptics, who would be no good even getting out of bed in the morning) make basic assumptions about the external world, so religious people can take this same intuition-mediated assumption and apply it to their personal experiences.

 

[Received]

I'm not sure that we ever need run into an infinite regress. I think axioms are derived inductively. That is, we experience them. I am justified in believing the sun will rise tomorrow. This is, in some sense, axiomatic to my life ... so axiomatic I never stop to think about it. I am justified in believing that I will wake up tomorrow. I always have before and I'm in good health.

The key to progress is realizing that this is where axioms come from and that we should be prepared to abandoned them. (Perhaps, this is why death sometimes takes us by surprise.)

It would appear that "1 + 1 = 2" is axiomatic. However, I aver that this the name we give to the experience of having acquiring one more object than the one we have now.

IOW, the regress stops with "do my axioms work" or "are my axioms justified by experience."

That's pretty much, as I see it, what Hume argued as his main theme in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, except he labeled "custom" what you call induction.

The qualm I have is that custom itself is the ultimate axiomatic sort of thing that precedes even the experience that (through custom/induction) makes something axiomatic. That is, induction/custom is axiomatic without us "getting used to" it through induction/custom -- or else it wouldn't allow us to have axiomatic beliefs, if indeed induction and custom themselves need induction and custom. If that makes sense.

I think evolutionary psychology has filled in the gaps of the problems of the philosophers. Check out studies on very young infants, and they seem surprised when some things, e.g., a ball doesn't complete a roll because of a trap door behind a screen, don't follow through. That seems good enough to reason to believe that certain things, notably causality and custom/induction, are hard wired into us. From our perspective, they're axiomatic. So the problem of an infinite regress is solved through genes that like to replicate themselves.

 

[Illuminaughty]

The Munchhausen Trilemma is interesting to think about too

Münchhausen Trilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[quatona]

I'm not sure that we ever need run into an infinite regress. I think axioms are derived inductively. That is, we experience them.

I do not necessarily disagree, but at the point where someone questions the validity of his experiences as reliable means of epistemology he will face this problem.

I am justified in believing the sun will rise tomorrow. This is, in some sense, axiomatic to my life ... so axiomatic I never stop to think about it. I am justified in believing that I will wake up tomorrow. I always have before and I'm in good health.

Well, to say it pointedly: Of course, once we stop thinking about things we are not in danger of facing an infinite regress. However, philosophy tends towards not stopping to think.

The key to progress is realizing that this is where axioms come from and that we should be prepared to abandoned them. (Perhaps, this is why death sometimes takes us by surprise.)

Yes, I think I tried to express this very idea in different words when I said it´s a good thing to be aware of your axioms.

It would appear that "1 + 1 = 2" is axiomatic.

Disagree. I think "1+1=2" is true by definition of the mathematical code.

However, I aver that this the name we give to the experience of having acquiring one more object than the one we have now.

I know what you mean. However, there are philosophical approaches that question the validity of our habit of dividing *that which is* into distinct objects. Obviously, they are working from different axioms than you do, and your and their ways of thinking have parted long before this particular question is becoming subject to discussion.

IOW, the regress stops with "do my axioms work" or "are my axioms justified by experience."

I couldn´t agree more. Actually, personally I don´t understand the obsession with proving an assumption to be "true" - I have always found the criterium "Does it work? Is it useful?" to be way more helpful and intellectually honest.
Of course, this approach throws us into acknowledging that our thoughts and explanations always serve a purpose, and are not - as traditional philosophy tends to claim and take pride in - about some abstract "objective" truth that exists independently of the observer and thinker. I tend to think we would do well in admitting that all our considerations and assumptions are interest driven: We do not want to understand the world as it is, we want to understand it on our terms. Else the term "understand" wouldn´t even make any sense.
I may also add that the criteria we demand for the validity of an assumption often vary with the purpose and context.

 

[Illuminaughty]

IOW, the regress stops with "do my axioms work" or "are my axioms justified by experience."

I think I would agree too. That doesn't necessarily mean the axioms are true though just that they appear to be useful.