Properly Basic Beliefs

[TheoNewstoss]

Yeah, you said that. You didn't bother to present a reason to think that, hence my question: why should we adopt a theistic framework in the first place?

I've already explained that to you and given you reasons. Why are you still a naturalist?

 

[Dialogist]

I was wondering what you all here think of this idea. For all those familiar with epistemology, a properly basic belief is one which does not need justification from another belief or proposition. Further, all other beliefs are justified by this basic belief. An example of a basic belief would be:

The hat is blue.

Our perceptual experience of this is not based on any further beliefs, according to this idea. My question is, do you find this to be true? Are there such things as properly basic beliefs? Can you provide an example?

It seems to me that the hat being blue is not basic, as it based on our further beliefs there are hats, and there exists a colour such as blue. Would this seem like an accurate objection to the idea of properly basic beliefs?

Doesn't this belief rely on some belief about what "blue" is?

 

[elopez]

Doesn't this belief rely on some belief about what "blue" is?

Yes.

I am wondering if anything could be a basic belief.

I am also wondering if a noninferential idea of a basic belief as infallible is even possible, since this would be to immensely restrict what we can dub as basic, so much that we couldn't even begin to structure our knowledge about the external world starting with basic beliefs.

 

[elopez]

OK, I see.
Now, do you have an example of a basic belief? I like to know it.

I have no examples. I am unsure if there even can be such things as basic beliefs. And really, that is the purpose of this thread. So far all we have got are two possible examples, yet again they are really under scrutiny here, and have not been addressed.

 

[Dialogist]

Yes.

I am wondering if anything could be a basic belief.

I am also wondering if a noninferential idea of a basic belief as infallible is even possible, since this would be to immensely restrict what we can dub as basic, so much that we couldn't even begin to structure our knowledge about the external world starting with basic beliefs.

I was led to Christianity in part by starting out studying epistemology. I concluded that the only foundational truth that could exist was that which was divinely revealed.

 

[juvenissun]

I have no examples. I am unsure if there even can be such things as basic beliefs. And really, that is the purpose of this thread. So far all we have got are two possible examples, yet again they are really under scrutiny here, and have not been addressed.

It seems some statements made by machine language (0 and 1 in computing) would be something close to it. Because any such term has only ONE possible meaning (belief) which is not based on anything else.

It might also be fun to talk to a primitive robot. It will not understand anything which is not basic.

For example, you teach a robot "I exist" in machine language. Then the robot only understand this term in that particularly given domain of information. You do not need to, or should not give another meaning (belief) of "exist" to the robot. As the robot build up itself with more and more information, this particular belief "I exist" will be one of the very basic belief of the robot. No other belief is required (by the robot) to understand it. And no other believes will interrupt it or confuse it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've already explained that to you and given you reasons. Why are you still a naturalist?

Why am I still an atheist? Because you haven't given me any reason to adopt a theistic framework.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

Why am I still an atheist? Because you haven't given me any reason to adopt a theistic framework.

lol.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's not an assumption, first and foremost. Secondly, while theism doesn't need to be justified, it certainly can be and is. But by all means, continue wiggling.

Whose wiggling? You haven't justified your claims.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

Whose wiggling? You haven't justified your claims.

What claims?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What claims?

You claimed that a theistic framework compensates for the apparent deficiencies of a naturalistic framework, but you never justified this claim.

 

[elopez]

I was led to Christianity in part by starting out studying epistemology. I concluded that the only foundational truth that could exist was that which was divinely revealed.

What exactly of epistemology did you study?

So the source of knowkedge of God comes from testimonial justification? Of the Holy Spirit I presume.

What truth would that be? That God exists? Is that a basic belief to you?

 

[elopez]

It seems some statements made by machine language (0 and 1 in computing) would be something close to it. Because any such term has only ONE possible meaning (belief) which is not based on anything else.

Mmm too bad we are more than machine.

You do not need to, or should not give another meaning (belief) of "exist" to the robot.

But that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Such meanings do. We just are withholding that information from the robot. So, the basic belief would almost be near illusion to the 'primitive robot'.

As the robot build up itself with more and more information, this particular belief "I exist" will be one of the very basic belief of the robot. No other belief is required (by the robot) to understand it.

Still, the robot lacks essential information about E. It would not be a genuine basic belief, and if that is the only way in which they can come about, the robot would not be justified in believing it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Strike.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok so beliefs are propositional attitudes. Whats a proposition, and whats an attitude? Do we need languagte for beliefs. No, because we must believe sounds exist in order to learn speech. Other than that I am stumed, but I think that to be aware is to know, and perceptual knowledge comes first.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"I want my mammy".

Everything else is footnotes.

 

[juvenissun]

Mmm too bad we are more than machine.

But that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Such meanings do. We just are withholding that information from the robot. So, the basic belief would almost be near illusion to the 'primitive robot'.

Still, the robot lacks essential information about E. It would not be a genuine basic belief, and if that is the only way in which they can come about, the robot would not be justified in believing it.

If a concept is not simple enough, it is not a basic belief.
If a concept is bare bone simple, then it is not good enough to be a basic belief.

I think you are making yourself a question which has no solution at the very beginning.

 

[elopez]

If a concept is not simple enough, it is not a basic belief.
If a concept is bare bone simple, then it is not good enough to be a basic belief.

I think you are making yourself a question which has no solution at the very beginning.

There is a solution. It is to find a reasonable theory of noninferential justification for basic beliefs, and to describe what sense of basicality is more probable (DB or EB). So far, no one has taken up this task specifically, except to say noninferential justification is incorrigible or self-evident, when this seems to not be the case and when pressed further for an explanation none was given. Of course that doesn't mean foundationalism is false, just more so that it is seemingly untenable.

Another solution is to just drop any idea of basic beliefs, which I am not sure what the results would be, yet I highly doubt it would be so overwhelming for our epistemological understanding that the result would divert from a sound structure of knowledge. We could go with coherentism, which almost seems like more of a suitable option to me.

 

[juvenissun]

There is a solution. It is to find a reasonable theory of noninferential justification for basic beliefs, and to describe what sense of basicality is more probable (DB or EB). So far, no one has taken up this task specifically, except to say noninferential justification is incorrigible or self-evident, when this seems to not be the case and when pressed further for an explanation none was given. Of course that doesn't mean foundationalism is false, just more so that it is seemingly untenable.

Another solution is to just drop any idea of basic beliefs, which I am not sure what the results would be, yet I highly doubt it would be so overwhelming for our epistemological understanding that the result would divert from a sound structure of knowledge. We could go with coherentism, which almost seems like more of a suitable option to me.

Sorry, my primitive mind can not deal with these philosophical terms. I simply get lost.

 

[bhsmte]

You claimed that a theistic framework compensates for the apparent deficiencies of a naturalistic framework, but you never justified this claim.

I was curious to see that justification myself.