Reformed Epistemology

[MikeF]

It is different. Whereas the OP talks about a properly basic belief (God) as something of an axiom, James is contrasting faith with skepticism. This could be faith or skepticism of anything. Of course, what makes James interesting here is how his arguments may impact religious belief, but they don't necessarily have to.

James, being a pragmatist, wonders about cases where having an unfounded belief plays a genuine role in the outcome, and how we should treat these cases epistemologically speaking. He gives the example of a mountain climber who must make a leap across a chasm in order to survive. Supposing that this person is just barely able to make the jump to the extent that, if he believes he can make the jump, the boost on confidence and sure-of-footness will allow him to succeed. BUT, without the belief, he will fall just short. Is his belief that he can make the jump true or false? In either case (skepticism or faith) he will turn out to be correct. So, in that case, the better belief is the most useful one.

James does NOT endorse believing in falsehoods. If the climber could NOT make the jump, believing he could is bad.

James was responding chiefly to William Clifford who posited that it was unethical to believe in something without a proper degree of certainty. (ie. to Clifford, faith in God is unethical, and leads to unethical behavior/decision making). If anything, I think James does a good job of refuting Clifford. Though I'm uncertain how much work his arguments about faith really do. I'm a skeptic, and I always like to challenge my own positions, so James was really intriguing to me since his argument isn't super weak. Theists are pretty good at bringing the weaksauce (like this reformed epistemology crap). James makes a decent case.

If you aren't familiar with Clifford, I linked it below. If anything, his opening parable (paragraph 1) and Clifford's interpretation (paragraph 2) is must read material for all atheist's and skeptics. You can skip the rest as it just goes into more detail from there.

https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf

Is it fair to equate religious faith with the decision required by the hypothetical mountaineer? Certainly the common usage of the word faith is used in a variety of ways, and certainly some may say the mountaineer had faith he could make the jump. However, I would say the mountaineer's choice is better described as a calculated risk. She/he knows their capabilities, has extensive experience and therefore takes a risk. There is no faith that he/she will not fail, that the outcome is certain. On the contrary, it is a choice of best possible outcome without guarantee of success.

Contrast this with religious faith, which to my mind represent a strong belief without sufficient evidence to support, or really belief in spite of conflicting evidence against the belief.

To me, these are not the same uses of the word faith.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Is it fair to equate religious faith with the decision required by the hypothetical mountaineer? Certainly the common usage of the word faith is used in a variety of ways, and certainly some may say the mountaineer had faith he could make the jump. However, I would say the mountaineer's choice is better described as a calculated risk. She/he knows their capabilities, has extensive experience and therefore takes a risk. There is no faith that he/she will not fail, that the outcome is certain. On the contrary, it is a choice of best possible outcome without guarantee of success.

Contrast this with religious faith, which to my mind represent a strong belief without sufficient evidence to support, or really belief in spite of conflicting evidence against the belief.

To me, these are not the same uses of the word faith.

Faith is a loaded word, and that specific word isn't really necessary to our discussion here. Let's use the term "unverified belief." The word "faith" has tons of connotations, and a long history of association with spirits, deities, and other dubious materia. The reason we usually criticize faith is because: faith is not verified or backed up by evidence. So we are being more precise (and less confusing) if we replace the term faith with "unverified belief." So let's do that.

I feel like your concerns are warranted. It's a common first objection when the thought experiment is proposed. I'm dubious of James's notions too, but (for purposes of debate) I'll take up the mantle of defending him.

James isn't saying that the mountain climber in our scenario is taking anything "more" than a calculated risk. That's all that's depicted here... a calculated risk. Nothing more. Nothing less. What interests James is that one of the factors that influences the outcome of the event is the *unverified belief* of the climber.

Don't forget that the skeptic still goes ahead and tries to make the jump. When you say the climber, "knows their capabilities, has extensive experience and therefore takes a risk. There is no faith that he/she will not fail, that the outcome is certain. On the contrary, it is a choice of best possible outcome without guarantee of success." You simply describe the skeptic climber. The skeptic climber doesn't deny that they can make the jump. Like a true philosophical skeptic, they withhold judgment until they have adequate evidence they can.

But, says James, what if this is such a case where having the actual positive belief "I can make the jump" influences the proceedings so as to make itself true. "Very interesting," says James, and I think so too. Because it seems to propose that, in principle, unverified knowledge can (sometimes) be true simply because it is believed prior.

I think ultimately, what you have to realize is that James isn't arguing "Religious faith is good." Nor is he arguing: "If you think the climber ought to have the positive belief, then you must also admit that religious faith is advisable." James is not so ambitious. Even if you DO agree with James, you could still have a plethora of objections to religious faith.

(Returning to religion) all James is proposing is that the problem with Christian faith (or any other) is not that "It is an unverified belief." It's something else.

The problem with any religious belief is, "the errors of that belief (how wrong it is)" and not it's unverified-ness. ie. the fact of God's nonexistence-- that's the real problem.

James sees skepticism as crucial in the pursuit of knowledge. He's not advocating that we "dispense of skepticism" or anything like that. That would be dumb. If a religious (or any other) person makes a questionable claim, we are right to treat it with skepticism.

According to James, we have two separate goals in our pursuit of knowledge. The first goal is to have correct beliefs. (If the sun consists primarily of hydrogen atoms, we would like to know that fact rather than not know it.)

Our other epistemological goal is to avoid error. This is why skepticism is important; skepticism helps us avoid error. To James, the pursuit of knowledge is carried forward by a left foot and a right foot. One foot is seeking beliefs... the other foot is rejecting error. We get nowhere simply by rejecting error. We don't learn anything simply by rejecting error. Disbelieving that the sun is made up of Jello doesn't get you any closer to knowing that the sun is made up of hydrogen.

But, at the same time, it is disastrous to seek new beliefs without also rejecting beliefs that are found to be erroneous. So skepticism is clearly indispensable. But the only way to satisfy skepticism is complete verification. That's too high a mark. There is tension between these two approaches to knowledge.

Therefore, concludes James, we ought to find a reasonable balance between believing and doubting. If that's the case, there are times when unverified belief will have to do-- and ought to do. We shouldn't criticize anyone on the account of their belief being unverified. Rather we ought to explore how error prone their idea may be and make that our focal point of our criticism.

TLDR

Agnes Callard probably puts it more cogently than I can, so you can skip reading my post and listen to her say it better:

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is different. Whereas the OP talks about a properly basic belief (God) as something of an axiom, James is contrasting faith with skepticism. This could be faith or skepticism of anything. Of course, what makes James interesting here is how his arguments may impact religious belief, but they don't necessarily have to.

James, being a pragmatist, wonders about cases where having an unfounded belief plays a genuine role in the outcome, and how we should treat these cases epistemologically speaking. He gives the example of a mountain climber who must make a leap across a chasm in order to survive. Supposing that this person is just barely able to make the jump to the extent that, if he believes he can make the jump, the boost on confidence and sure-of-footness will allow him to succeed. BUT, without the belief, he will fall just short. Is his belief that he can make the jump true or false? In either case (skepticism or faith) he will turn out to be correct. So, in that case, the better belief is the most useful one.

James does NOT endorse believing in falsehoods. If the climber could NOT make the jump, believing he could is bad.

James was responding chiefly to William Clifford who posited that it was unethical to believe in something without a proper degree of certainty. (ie. to Clifford, faith in God is unethical, and leads to unethical behavior/decision making). If anything, I think James does a good job of refuting Clifford. Though I'm uncertain how much work his arguments about faith really do. I'm a skeptic, and I always like to challenge my own positions, so James was really intriguing to me since his argument isn't super weak. Theists are pretty good at bringing the weaksauce (like this reformed epistemology crap). James makes a decent case.

If you aren't familiar with Clifford, I linked it below. If anything, his opening parable (paragraph 1) and Clifford's interpretation (paragraph 2) is must read material for all atheists and skeptics. You can skip the rest as it just goes into more detail from there.

https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf

edit: James's case is NOT super weak (oops)... *corrected*

Interesting, and thanks.

I looked at the link, and it's essentially what you said it was. Here's Clifford: "If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind"

I would largely agree with the idea that one has a duty to oneself to seek what is true, and that other approaches to reality are a transgression against the self. But Clifford's position is a little too rigid, because I agree that there can be a pragmatic value to belief in prescribed circumstances. We hear of the faith-based believer who attributes his release from a an addiction and a dissolute life to God, and who clings to that belief like a life raft. I have no desire to pop that raft. This must be what you meant by the limits of skepticism - for the guy who benefits from a faith-based belief.

I find that I don't need that. Even when I am in need of comforting, as when the life of a loved one appears to be in the balance, I can find comfort without contradicting reality or violating critical thinking. I don't have to think that God will perform a miracle or engage in any other kind of faith-based thinking to manage my emotions. I have a fair amount of experience in hospice, where much of the work is in helping the dying and their loved ones cope with ongoing deterioration - not so much a problem for the patient as for the others, who can become despondent. The kindest thing one can do for them is to gently help them see the inevitability of death in the setting of an irreversible, late stage, terminal illness, and how false hope actually increases the suffering, as each new loss is another unexpected dashing upon the emotional rocks.

But the other side of that coin is those who do need what is called validation therapy, or the joining them in their reverie, most often useful with children and the demented (I'm no longer discussing the terminally ill). It would also be inappropriate to be a strict realist or empiricist in those settings. One agrees with much of the fantasy when there is no harm in so doing.

And I understand that when you're Ukrainian mother comforting a child while bombs rain down around you both, that might not be the best time to express skepticism or seek reality. A loving lie - "everything's going to be OK, little one" - is the right thing to do there.

But still, I never leave my skepticism behind when assessing what it true. There is no limit to skepticism for me apart from the fact that it only applies to reality evaluation - what is, as opposed to what's desirable. But in that domain, it's always appropriate, and it alternative, uncritical belief, never a good way to go if one can face whatever the reality is, even when dire.

Interesting discussion, professor. Of the two of us, you are the philosopher (@Ella S. as well). My education in philosophy is all post graduation from university, and self-administered thanks to the Encyclopedia Britannica and bookstores like B. Dalton and Barnes & Noble that sell paperbacks on assorted topics like The Age of Reason and The Pre-Socratic Philosophers. So, my education is spotty there, and I appreciate your help with James and Clifford. It's one of the benefits of participating in these threads. The theists occasionally want to know what skeptics are doing on a site called Religious Forums, and one of the answers is to read other skeptics. We trade ideas.

 

[vulcanlogician]

But still, I never leave my skepticism behind when assessing what it true.

Good idea. Too much bad information flying around not to keep skepticism in your holster. When I read James, I don't see justification for me to hold silly or questionable beliefs. I see a path to tolerance for those who have faith in [something].

As James puts it: "No one of us ought to issue vetoes to the other, nor should we bandy words of abuse. We ought, on the contrary, delicately and profoundly to respect one another's mental freedom: then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism's glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as in practical things."

For me, James is a path to seeing the rationality involved in theistic ideas. NOT an excuse to accept an idea without critical thinking or skepticism.

Interesting discussion, professor. Of the two of us, you are the philosopher (@Ella S. as well).

Dude. I majored in philosophy in college (undergrad)... but I never pursued a grad degree. Philosophy is a field that an undergrad degree doesn't count for jack.

IMO, philosophy is not as hard or inaccessible as it's made out to be. In fact, I think anyone can do it. Bertrand Russell once said something like, when his mind began to dull, at old age, so that mathematics became difficult, he decided to switch to philosophy.

Philosophy isn't that hard. You don't really need a degree to do it. You just need an open mind and a willingness to be exact (or precise) with your thinking.

The theists occasionally want to know what skeptics are doing on a site called Religious Forums, and one of the answers is to read other skeptics. We trade ideas.

Yes. I love trading ideas with other skeptics. But, also, I'm pretty intrigued by religion to begin with. I'm fascinated with it. Maybe even obsessed. It's certainly one of the most interesting pancultural phenomenons out there. I just can't get enough of it. I'd probably be a religious person if I didn't have so many reservations about these being clearly false beliefs. And not only false... sometimes ignorant and interpersonally destructive.

Apologies to @Ella S. because I think I've officially derailed her thread. If anyone wants to defend reformed epistemology, I'm all ears. As of now, I think it doesn't have a leg to stand on, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if someone could prove me wrong on that.

 

[Ella S.]

Apologies to @Ella S. because I think I've officially derailed her thread. If anyone wants to defend reformed epistemology, I'm all ears. As of now, I think it doesn't have a leg to stand on, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if someone could prove me wrong on that.

In a sense, you have contributed more to this thread than I had hoped for. I was looking for a more rigid and philosophically sound defense of theology than I usually experience when speaking with apologists and clergy. It seems I was looking in the wrong place.

I appreciate the recommended text. I'm going to mull over it for awhile.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In a sense, you have contributed more to this thread than I had hoped for. I was looking for a more rigid and philosophically sound defense of theology than I usually experience when speaking with apologists and clergy. It seems I was looking in the wrong place.

I appreciate the recommended text. I'm going to mull over it for awhile.

Okay, since this as per @vulcanlogician has turned into skepticism, it should be noted that there is no one single school of skepticism.

Rather there are 2 in short:
There is no in any sense justified true beliefs as for knowledge for any variation of justified and true.
It is possible with reason to find the best methodology with the use of critical thinking and doubt.

Most skeptics are of the 2nd variant. I am of the first.
The problem is that if you accept doubt as valid you also have to accept a negative outcome, but that is absurd for most people because they don't want to doubt that the world must make positive sense with reason. It is in a sense not philosophy, it is psychology.

 

[Ella S.]

Interesting discussion, professor. Of the two of us, you are the philosopher (@Ella S. as well). My education in philosophy is all post graduation from university, and self-administered thanks to the Encyclopedia Britannica and bookstores like B. Dalton and Barnes & Noble that sell paperbacks on assorted topics like The Age of Reason and The Pre-Socratic Philosophers. So, my education is spotty there, and I appreciate your help with James and Clifford. It's one of the benefits of participating in these threads. The theists occasionally want to know what skeptics are doing on a site called Religious Forums, and one of the answers is to read other skeptics. We trade ideas.

I'll preface this by saying I live in the US.

While I have studied logic in college, and I am receiving a certificate on the subject from an Ivy League school as soon as I am able to gather the required funds, I find that college is mostly just a gatekeeper for careers.

Unfortunately, I am not formally educated in philosophy outside of logic and epistemology, since I'm actually pursuing degrees in Statistics and Mathematics (which are on hold at the moment, also due to financial issues) and my interest in logic is mostly due to its association with theory of math and statistical inference.

I do know people with degrees in philosophy, but they break my heart. Neither one of them had a return on investment for their degrees, causing them both some long-term financial issues, and they also don't seem to be able to hold conversations on a wide range of philosophies that I've read in my free time. One of them didn't know who Epicurus was and the other said that they never heard of Albert Camus, for instance.

College, as an institution, is only to teach people the bare minimum they need to begin a career in a specific field. If you actually want to know about that field, a degree is neither necessary nor sufficient. While college courses do provide great overviews and introductions to a field, and they can help you know where to start reading, most of the valuable education you will get is outside of the classroom.

When I was a kid, I was in that braniac gifted-and-talented program that gave kids the option to go to college in 7th grade, skipping the end of Middle School and all of High School. I turned down the option because I knew I wasn't going to be ready for a career that soon. Even in that program, most of the material was shallow overview; I always had to study on my own outside of class to really understand the topics we passed over.

I don't regret the choice I made, or the fact that I'm putting college off even more now. I still manage to have on-level conversations with other people who have PhDs, despite not earning mine yet (but I'm determined to).

If you haven't taken a look yet, Stanford and Routledge have great online resources for philosophy, including logic. I'm not sure that most colleges even cover topics like paraconsistent logic or epistemic logic in the way the online resources do; I didn't learn them in school and they aren't a part of my certificate.

Outside of that, MIT also has a ton of decent online resources for learning a variety of topics, and there are many college lectures you can find on YouTube if you're interested in diving deeper on a particular subject.

You might already know all of this, but it's worth mentioning for anyone passing through this thread who might find themselves in a similar situation. Or any gifted kids on this site pretending to be older than they really are like I used to just to gain access to deeper discussion.

ETA: Essentially, you can get a better-than-college-level education online for free if you know where to look. College is really more about paying for the degrees that will get you jobs, in my opinion

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll preface this by saying I live in the US.

While I have studied logic in college, and I am receiving a certificate on the subject from an Ivy League school as soon as I am able to gather the required funds, I find that college is mostly just a gatekeeper for careers.

Unfortunately, I am not formally educated in philosophy outside of logic and epistemology, since I'm actually pursuing degrees in Statistics and Mathematics (which are on hold at the moment, also due to financial issues) and my interest in logic is mostly due to its association with theory of math and statistical inference.

I do know people with degrees in philosophy, but they break my heart. Neither one of them had a return on investment for their degrees, causing them both some long-term financial issues, and they also don't seem to be able to hold conversations on a wide range of philosophies that I've read in my free time. One of them didn't know who Epicurus was and the other said that they never heard of Albert Camus, for instance.

College, as an institution, is only to teach people the bare minimum they need to begin a career in a specific field. If you actually want to know about that field, a degree is neither necessary nor sufficient. While college courses do provide great overviews and introductions to a field, and they can help you know where to start reading, most of the valuable education you will get is outside of the classroom.

When I was a kid, I was in that braniac gifted-and-talented program that gave kids the option to go to college in 7th grade, skipping the end of Middle School and all of High School. I turned down the option because I knew I wasn't going to be ready for a career that soon. Even in that program, most of the material was shallow overview; I always had to study on my own outside of class to really understand the topics we passed over.

I don't regret the choice I made, or the fact that I'm putting college off even more now. I still manage to have on-level conversations with other people who have PhDs, despite not earning mine yet (but I'm determined to).

If you haven't taken a look yet, Stanford and Routledge have great online resources for philosophy, including logic. I'm not sure that most colleges even cover topics like paraconsistent logic or epistemic logic in the way the online resources do; I didn't learn them in school and they aren't a part of my certificate.

Outside of that, MIT also has a ton of decent online resources for learning a variety of topics, and there are many college lectures you can find on YouTube if you're interested in diving deeper on a particular subject.

You might already know all of this, but it's worth mentioning for anyone passing through this thread who might find themselves in a similar situation. Or any gifted kids on this site pretending to be older than they really are like I used to just to gain access to deeper discussion.

Philosophy can't be learned unless you can doubt the core assumption that is mostly unsaid and taken for granted:
There is one or a coherent set of methods that for all of the everyday world will lead to positive correct answer in an universal sense.
So far for over 2000+ years of trying to do that, it has failed.
In short it is a set of with variations beliefs with blind faith that apparently seems to work. Sorry, I know. But I can prove that if you accept a negative result or rather it is unknown.

 

[Ella S.]

Okay, since this as per @vulcanlogician has turned into skepticism, it should be noted that there is no one single school of skepticism.

Rather there are 2 in short:
There is no in any sense justified true beliefs as for knowledge for any variation of justified and true.
It is possible with reason to find the best methodology with the use of critical thinking and doubt.

Most skeptics are of the 2nd variant. I am of the first.
The problem is that if you accept doubt as valid you also have to accept a negative outcome, but that is absurd for most people because they don't want to doubt that the world must make positive sense with reason. It is in a sense not philosophy, it is psychology.

I am not too sure what you mean here.

I will agree that there are various schools of thought that touch on different aspects of skepticism. Pyrrhonian skepticism is completely different from the moral skepticism of Nietzsche, for instance.

When I say that I am a skeptic, which is a claim that I try to avoid since it is not something I identify with, what I mean is that I recognize the limitations of logic. All conclusions that are arrived at through inductive inference or statistical analysis might be false. Everything I think I know (and can justifiably claim to know) might be wrong.

This doubt also extends to the claims of other people.

To think that reason gives us inexorable conclusions, or that the world itself must conform to our sensibilities, isn't rational. It's a straw-man of reason, which was given the nickname "pseudo-rationalism" by Otto Neurath.

I would then say that you are attacking a straw-man but, unfortunately, I am also aware that you are probably accurately reflecting the views of those who have driven you to make this reply.

 

[Ella S.]

Philosophy can't be learned unless you can doubt the core assumption that is mostly unsaid and taken for granted:
There is one or a coherent set of methods that for all of the everyday world will lead to positive correct answer in an universal sense.
So far for over 2000+ years of trying to do that, it has failed.
In short it is a set of with variations beliefs with blind faith that apparently seems to work. Sorry, I know. But I can prove that if you accept a negative result or rather it is unknown.

No, I agree with the spirit of what you are saying here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I would then say that you are attacking a straw-man but, unfortunately, I am also aware that you are probably accurately reflecting the views of those who have driven you to make this reply.

Yeah, that is the point. Read this:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Now try to show that to people who claim knowledge and they will answer with 1st person answers of in effect: It doesn't make sense, therefore I reject it.
But that is the point. It is the limit of knowledge and what we can do with it. But most people in the Western world are cultural conditioned to believe that rationality, evidence, proof, logic and so on have no real limits.

 

[Ella S.]

Yeah, that is the point. Read this:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Now try to show that to people who claim knowledge and they will answer with 1st person answers of in effect: It doesn't make sense, therefore I reject it.
But that is the point. It is the limit of knowledge and what we can do with it. But most people in the Western world are cultural conditioned to believe that rationality, evidence, proof, logic and so on have no real limits.

I am aware of congitive relativism. It does not impress me. I went ahead and read your link, anyway, in case it has new points for cognitive relativism that I've missed. I probably shouldn't have, because it's not good to make a habit of responding to articles rather than the actual arguments of another user, but I realized that after my lust for the discussion had already overtaken me and I had finished writing this reply.

Ah, the article mentions Kant's transcendental idealism. I actually held to transcendental idealism for years after my initially solipsistic phase when I left Nicene Christianity. It's only this year that I've finally given it up, just a couple of months ago. I think transcendental idealism naturally leads to empiricism with enough experience, because one is forced to admit that their own experience of reality seems to indicate an external world beyond their senses.

Actually, we all start out as cognitive relativists when we're babies, and our experience of the external world naturally develops into concepts of object permanence and a complex theory of mind, so undergoing this process again in adulthood was more of an intellectual rebirth for me in a way.

The two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

I agree with 1, which is something the article says most people do, but I disagree with 2. The better-informed standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

I agree that words such as "reason," "science," "knowledge," and "truth" are often used in ideological ways with heavy implicit biases. I do not think this applies to formal logic, though. I think it would be quite odd to say that we have adopted the Euclidean agenda, for instance, or that Bayesian inference is somehow inherently prejudiced against Catholics.

I agree that we cannot meaningfully talk about things outside of our own experience, but I can experience other people describing their experiences, which sort of makes this a non-issue to me.

I agree with the non-cognitivist argument here that what we regard as "true" might not correspond to metaphysical reality, but at that point I would say that we are wrong about regarding those things as true, not that they are relatively true. I agree that this means that our perception of truth can never be wholly accurate, but I still think it can be approximated since we, ourselves, are a small slice of that external reality and can interact with it through our (albeit flawed) sense-perception.

"For instance, arguments for the superiority of the standpoint of modern science over that of religion will presuppose the value of consistency, of solving theoretical puzzles, and of being able to manipulate one’s environment" This statement made me face-palm. No, arguments for the superiority of the standpoint of modern science over that of religion will not presuppose any of those points. They will attempt to prove them. Through argumentation. That's what makes them arguments.

The relativist arguments that science can still be judged on predictive power seems to me to be self-refuting because, to me, truth is a value that is approximated through logic and statistical analysis. If "truth" is relative, then it is relative to that system, within which it refers to an objective, external reality, so we're back to where we started without non-cognitivism and nothing of value has been added to the conversation.

To conclude, I think relativism confuses doubt about our ability to understand the external world as evidence that we can't. I don't think it is. The doubt is alright, but you need something a bit more substantive to make a decent argument for the negative claim being presented here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am aware of congitive relativism. It does not impress me. I went ahead and read your link, anyway, in case it has new points for cognitive relativism that I've missed. I probably shouldn't have, because it's not good to make a habit of responding to articles rather than the actual arguments of another user, but I realized that after my lust for the discussion had already overtaken me and I had finished writing this reply.

Ah, the article mentions Kant's transcendental idealism. I actually held to transcendental idealism for years after my initially solipsistic phase when I left Nicene Christianity. It's only this year that I've finally given it up, just a couple of months ago. I think transcendental idealism naturally leads to empiricism with enough experience, because one is forced to admit that their own experience of reality seems to indicate an external world beyond their senses.

Actually, we all start out as cognitive relativists when we're babies, and our experience of the external world naturally develops into concepts of object permanence and a complex theory of mind, so undergoing this process again in adulthood was more of an intellectual rebirth for me in a way.

The two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

I agree with 1, which is something the article says most people do, but I disagree with 2. The better-informed standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

I agree that words such as "reason," "science," "knowledge," and "truth" are often used in ideological ways with heavy implicit biases. I do not think this applies to formal logic, though. I think it would be quite odd to say that we have adopted the Euclidean agenda, for instance, or that Bayesian inference is somehow inherently prejudiced against Catholics.

I agree that we cannot meaningfully talk about things outside of our own experience, but I can experience other people describing their experiences, which sort of makes this a non-issue to me.

I agree with the non-cognitivist argument here that what we regard as "true" might not correspond to metaphysical reality, but at that point I would say that we are wrong about regarding those things as true, not that they are relatively true. I agree that this means that our perception of truth can never be wholly accurate, but I still think it can be approximated since we, ourselves, are a small slice of that external reality and can interact with it through our (albeit flawed) sense-perception.

"For instance, arguments for the superiority of the standpoint of modern science over that of religion will presuppose the value of consistency, of solving theoretical puzzles, and of being able to manipulate one’s environment" This statement made me face-palm. No, arguments for the superiority of the standpoint of modern science over that of religion will not presuppose any of those points. They will attempt to prove them. Through argumentation. That's what makes them arguments.

The relativist arguments that science can still be judged on predictive power seems to me to be self-refuting because, to me, truth is a value that is approximated through logic and statistical analysis. If "truth" is relative, then it is relative to that system, within which it refers to an objective, external reality, so we're back to where we started without non-cognitivism and nothing of value has been added to the conversation.

To conclude, I think relativism confuses doubt about our ability to understand the external world as evidence that we can't. I don't think it is. The doubt is alright, but you need something a bit more substantive to make a decent argument for the negative claim being presented here.

Now read your own post and highlight all words where you think as in effect taking for granted as per the other thread about ROW.
You are doing that classical trick in rationalism. My thoughts make sense to me, therefore they are about the ROW, because it doesn't make sense to me, that OOW is possible as based on my thoughts.

 

[Ella S.]

Now read your own post and highlight all words where you think as in effect taking for granted as per the other thread about ROW.
You are doing that classical trick in rationalism. My thoughts make sense to me, therefore they are about the ROW, because it doesn't make sense to me, that OOW is possible as based on my thoughts.

More likely, I think you are making a false equivocation because your actual arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More likely, I think you are making a false equivocation because your actual arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

You still think that your thinking causes objective reality to be real objective reality.

 

[Ella S.]

You still think that your thinking causes objective reality to be real objective reality.

Not once have I claimed anything remotely similar to that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

While I have studied logic in college, and I am receiving a certificate on the subject from an Ivy League school as soon as I am able to gather the required funds, I find that college is mostly just a gatekeeper for careers.

I thought that you had some formal training in these subjects as I did with @vulcanlogician. Good luck with your endeavors.

And thanks for the tips on free online educational resources.

College, as an institution, is only to teach people the bare minimum they need to begin a career in a specific field.

You've mentioned this twice now, as did vulcanlogician to some extent when he noted that a bachelors in philosophy is not a saleable skill. My assessment of the value of my education is different. Of course one learns a number of facts (the data base, or fund of knowledge) which may or may not lead to a good career, facts which have relatively little practical value now in retirement. I chose medicine because I could make a good living at it, because I love science, because it was people oriented, because it's instant respect, and because I could be self-employed. I had been programming computers in the Army before medical school, and knew from that that I didn't want to be a cog in a cubicle in a corporate hierarchy.

My medical education has relatively little practical value to me now in retirement, but I learned two other things in university that paid just as well and continue paying today. I learned critical thinking without realizing it or ever hearing the phrase, and I learned how to go on learning for the rest of my life, starting with the years right after finishing my residency and entering private practice, when I first began studying philosophy, 20th century science, and history at home using the resources I named - an Encyclopedia Britannica, and several hundred books from retail booksellers. My education had been narrow by design, being mostly math and science. My undergraduate degree was in biochemistry (I had to take one social science class to get my degree, and it was the statistics of sociology, which is just statistics, nor sociology), and medical school is nothing but medicine. So, there were gaps to fill in, but by then, I was accustomed to finding and assimilating information independently.

You mentioned logical positivism in passing in an earlier post. That was an area of philosophy that was extremely useful in helping analyze sentences and recognizing fluff, a skill that I use every day I'm on RF. What's more useful than that?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For me, James is a path to seeing the rationality involved in theistic ideas. NOT an excuse to accept an idea without critical thinking or skepticism.

I still don't see the rationality in theistic ideas, although I see a practical benefit to belief even if the belief is false, but as I said, I don't find benefit myself there, and have already learned from experience the risk of holding such beliefs, so I avoid such thinking, which I call soft thinking. So, I guess I still don't really know what it is James has to say to somebody like me beyond to try to see some value in faith for others, which I already do, especially in those recovering from substance abuse, but also in those who take comfort in the thought of seeing a loved one again some day, or that somebody is watching over them when they feel vulnerable.

Dude. I majored in philosophy in college (undergrad)... but I never pursued a grad degree. Philosophy is a field that an undergrad degree doesn't count for jack.

It shows.

I commented on the second part of that statement to @Ella S. I think that your education in philosophy served you well and still does. It's thinking about thinking.

Philosophy isn't that hard. You don't really need a degree to do it. You just need an open mind and a willingness to be exact (or precise) with your thinking.

I agree. The material is accessible.

Yes. I love trading ideas with other skeptics. But, also, I'm pretty intrigued by religion to begin with. I'm fascinated with it. Maybe even obsessed. It's certainly one of the most interesting pancultural phenomena out there. I just can't get enough of it.

I understand.

Religion doesn't interest me very much, but the way people process information does, and the way religion affects them does. I'm interested in interacting with faith-based thinkers not for their beliefs, but for the way they defend them. Another great benefit of this discussion group is to survey the thoughts of thousands of theists and humanists to get a better sense of how religion affects thought and character. I see a spectrum of believers ranging from some that I wouldn't know are theists if they didn't say so. Their religious thinking seems to be completely compartmentalized making them effective critical thinkers, usually well educated especially in the sciences. They are indistinguishable from the humanists.

On the other end of the spectrum are the zealous theists, people I don't envy or admire at all. They often seem troubled, and they don't think well. These are the people starting thread after thread trying to prove the existence of god, the moral and spiritual failure of atheists and atheism, or the problem with evolution without much understanding of what it is. They make terrible, uninformed, incoherent (self-contradictory) arguments, and are often angry at skeptics for not respecting what I called soft thinking - any deviation from critical analysis, which they describe as scientism or materialism, and too narrow to allow spiritual truth in.

Ask one to name one of these spiritual truths to see what this other way of knowing, soft thinking, yields for them - empty words and claims, the kind of sterile, unfalsifiable, indemonstrable, metaphysical claims that the logical positivists teach one to recognize and reject as meaningless. Conclusion: the more religion in your life, the more harmful it is. In my experience, the best a religious person can do is to is to be indistinguishable from a humanist. That's the kind of thing that has captivated my attention for years now.

I seem to remember a quote from Wittgenstein about casting metaphysical ideas into the fire, but can't find anything similar using Google. Do either of you remember anything like that?

 

[vulcanlogician]

In a sense, you have contributed more to this thread than I had hoped for. I was looking for a more rigid and philosophically sound defense of theology than I usually experience when speaking with apologists and clergy. It seems I was looking in the wrong place.

I appreciate the recommended text. I'm going to mull over it for awhile.

Awesome. I was worried that I sidetracked your discussion. I didn't want to offend a fellow Vulcan.

I'm still down for discussing reformed epistemology. Hopefully a theist will come in here and "God-splain" it to me. Because I'm still calling it weaksauce at this point.

I'm always looking for good challenges to my atheism that aren't apologetics. We are something of kindred spirits in that way. I dig your whole angle on it. James is actually pretty decent as far as that goes. The Will to Believe and The Varieties of Religious Experience have presented pretty solid arguments to me. (Both public domain). Leo Tolstoy has said some pretty convincing things too. But Tolstoy has that "spiritual not religious" thing going on that the kids are into nowadays. But still, he's super good. A very unique thinker.

I'm in the process of understanding Dostoyevsky; he seems promising. But that's pretty much the best I got as far as pro-theism arguments. I guess Kierkegaard and Buber register too, but I'm not super familiar with either of them. But the things I've read, I've liked. Not too much weaksauce from any of the thinkers I've listed.

I'm curious about your studies in logic. Are you well versed in symbolic logic, entailment, and all that math-adjacent stuff? If so, I'm impressed. I've always struggled with that sort of stuff. But I would like to achieve enough mastery of it (some day) to be able to do things like entailment without racking my brain too hard. I'm more of a syllogism guy.

 

[Ella S.]

I thought that you had some formal training in these subjects as I did with @vulcanlogician. Good luck with your endeavors.

And thanks for the tips on free online educational resources.



You've mentioned this twice now, as did vulcanlogician to some extent when he noted that a bachelors in philosophy is not a saleable skill. My assessment of the value of my education is different. Of course one learns a number of facts (the data base, or fund of knowledge) which may or may not lead to a good career, facts which have relatively little practical value now in retirement. I chose medicine because I could make a good living at it, because I love science, because it was people oriented, because it's instant respect, and because I could be self-employed. I had been programming computers in the Army before medical school, and knew from that that I didn't want to be a cog in a cubicle in a corporate hierarchy.

My medical education has relatively little practical value to me now in retirement, but I learned two other things in university that paid just as well and continue paying today. I learned critical thinking without realizing it or ever hearing the phrase, and I learned how to go on learning for the rest of my life, starting with the years right after finishing my residency and entering private practice, when I first began studying philosophy, 20th century science, and history at home using the resources I named - an Encyclopedia Britannica, and several hundred books from retail booksellers. My education had been narrow by design, being mostly math and science. My undergraduate degree was in biochemistry (I had to take one social science class to get my degree, and it was the statistics of sociology, which is just statistics, nor sociology), and medical school is nothing but medicine. So, there were gaps to fill in, but by then, I was accustomed to finding and assimilating information independently.

You mentioned logical positivism in passing in an earlier post. That was an area of philosophy that was extremely useful in helping analyze sentences and recognizing fluff, a skill that I use every day I'm on RF. What's more useful than that?

Interesting points about education.

Logical Positivism should not be mistaken for logic as a whole. The issue with Logical Positivism is that it's a form of pseudorationalism and it's essentially self-refuting. Modern philosophy of science is actually closely tied to Karl Popper's refutation of Logical Positivism.

Under Logical Positivism, among other issues, the primary problem is that it stated that the only meaningful claims were the ones that had been verified to be true. Well, the issue with that is, the only statements that can be verified to be true are tautologies. Any statement about the external world is inductive, having a fuzzy truth value.

Popper's approach was to say, hey, we might not be able to say that what we know is unquestioningly true and will never be disproven. Instead, we can focus on what we know absolutely can't be true, due to violating one of the laws of logic. Hence the modern concept of forming falsifiable hypotheses.

That can be extrapolated out into epistemic modal logic, where we can know that we don't exist in any of the "impossible worlds." We still use probabilistic inferences in a lot of logical epistemology, but these justified claims are only "confirmed." We can only "verify" that a specific model is false, not that it is true, by showing that it contradicts reality.

That's one of the biggest issues with Logical Positivism.