Fluffy
A fool
Recently, I have debated with a number of people who argue that if I cannot know a belief then I have faith in that belief. They argue that unless a belief is known, it is as likely to be true as every other non-known belief.
In philosophy, an argument can either be deductive or non-deductive. An argument is deductive if a person is unable to reject the conclusion whilst accepting the premises.
For example if my premises are "All men are mortal" and "Fluffy is a man" and I believe that these premises are true then I must accept the conclusion "Fluffy is mortal".
Deductive conclusions split all belief into two clearly defined categories: knowledge and not-knowledge. You can't get anything in between because either the conclusion of a deductive argument must be accepted or it must be rejected.
Non-deductive arguments only assign a probability to their conclusion. We never have to accept the conclusion of a non-deductive argument, even if we accept its premises. If I see 100 white swans, I might argue that all swans are white. This conclusion only has a chance of being correct since the 101st swan I see might be black. It is not certain.
This opens up a number of problems because it destroys the previous model of belief which deduction gave us. Compare the conclusions of the following arguments:
The second argument is a non-deductive argument. The conclusion may or may not be true if I accept the premise. I'm not sure what chance it has of being true but I can say that it has more chance of being true than the first argument. I can also say that the third argument is more likely than both of them.
Non-deduction provides a scale of belief in terms of probability. At one end we have certainty or what is typically called "knowledge". At the other there is a 0% chance of our conclusion being true and then there is everything in between.
Knowledge only makes up those beliefs that we can state with 100% certainty all of which will be deductive. Given that, it seems strange to give knowledge some special status over the rest of belief since it is only one end of a scale. Knowledge has a higher chance of being true than beliefs with a 99% chance of being true and so on.
Therefore, it is important to distinguish between beliefs that are known from each other as well as from knowledge and not to assume that all beliefs that aren't known must be equally likely.
In philosophy, an argument can either be deductive or non-deductive. An argument is deductive if a person is unable to reject the conclusion whilst accepting the premises.
For example if my premises are "All men are mortal" and "Fluffy is a man" and I believe that these premises are true then I must accept the conclusion "Fluffy is mortal".
Deductive conclusions split all belief into two clearly defined categories: knowledge and not-knowledge. You can't get anything in between because either the conclusion of a deductive argument must be accepted or it must be rejected.
Non-deductive arguments only assign a probability to their conclusion. We never have to accept the conclusion of a non-deductive argument, even if we accept its premises. If I see 100 white swans, I might argue that all swans are white. This conclusion only has a chance of being correct since the 101st swan I see might be black. It is not certain.
This opens up a number of problems because it destroys the previous model of belief which deduction gave us. Compare the conclusions of the following arguments:
- I have seen 100 swans all of which are white. Therefore all swans are white.
- I have seen 1000 swans all of which are white. Therefore all swans are white.
- I have seen 10000 swans all of which are white. Therefore all swans are white.
- I have seen all swans all of which are white. Therefore all swans are white.
The second argument is a non-deductive argument. The conclusion may or may not be true if I accept the premise. I'm not sure what chance it has of being true but I can say that it has more chance of being true than the first argument. I can also say that the third argument is more likely than both of them.
Non-deduction provides a scale of belief in terms of probability. At one end we have certainty or what is typically called "knowledge". At the other there is a 0% chance of our conclusion being true and then there is everything in between.
Knowledge only makes up those beliefs that we can state with 100% certainty all of which will be deductive. Given that, it seems strange to give knowledge some special status over the rest of belief since it is only one end of a scale. Knowledge has a higher chance of being true than beliefs with a 99% chance of being true and so on.
Therefore, it is important to distinguish between beliefs that are known from each other as well as from knowledge and not to assume that all beliefs that aren't known must be equally likely.