Freethought & Rationalism Archive

12-30-2002, 05:14 AM

I�m not sure if this belongs in here or not, but none of the other forums seemed to apply.

I�ve recently been having a discussion about Ayn Rand�s �Atlas Shrugged,� and through the course of discussion, and further readings, I�m coming across certain things that could certainly bring my previously positive opinion of the book into question.

This got me thinking about evaluation for the purposes of self-improvement and whether or not it was really safe to like anything. It seems to me that all of us might live very different lives if all our statements, opinions, and decisions were open to constant criticism, like they may very well be at these forums.

If all your opinions, statements, and decisions were open to criticism from a panel of philosophers and scientists, would you still have them? How much would you seek to change your views on things to adapt to the possibly accurate dialog between this party of judges? How much questioning of one�s motivations for liking something is too much?

I�ve always been very adaptive, and ready to change my opinions about something if evidence, or a convincing rational basis was provided for an opposing position, but how much is too much?

Carlos · 12-30-2002, 08:29 AM

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the safest position to take is no position, to abstain from making a choice when the "true" or "correct" choice is uncertain. If we were to make a choice, one day we might be proved wrong - and it is this potential (or perhaps the aggregate number of wrong choices) that you find unacceptable.

I agree that it would be safest to not like anything, but I don't think safety is the best goal. A better goal IMO would be to make as many correct choices as I could, which requires that I take risks. I don't play not to lose, I play to win - knowing that in doing so I may well lose.

Faced with the arguments of philosophers and scientists, it is likely that some of what I believe in would be challenged and shown to be incorrect. Yes, I would be disappointed that I was wrong - but without having made my original choice I couldn't have achieved the subsequent enlightenment.

It is possible to learn by reading, listening or observing - but the kind of understanding achieved through experience surpasses these. The truths one learns from others are borne from their experiences; doing it first hand brings you closer to the source of that knowledge.

The unexamined life is not worth living. [Socrates]

August Spies · 12-31-2002, 11:23 PM

well if your tastes in thing lean towards psuedo-philisophical bad writers with boring repetative stories, flat characters, and uber-autherial intrusion than maybe it would be safer to just not like things.

los · 01-02-2003, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carlos
The unexamined life is not worth living. [Socrates]

Agreed.

Keith Russell · 01-02-2003, 07:43 AM

Jsimmons:

It seems you have the idea that it is better that one's ideas should not change throughout one's life.

Thus, the agnostic attitude 'I don't know', or 'I'm not sure whether I agree with that idea, or like that idea, or not' could be seen as the proper attitude for one to have.

It's a very safe attitude, and thus a very boring one.

One of the ways we learn is via our mistakes.

(I'd rather learn, than play it safe...but that's just me...)

Keith.

Defiant Heretic · 01-05-2003, 02:39 AM

It is perfectly acceptable to hold opinions and beliefs. However, it is necessary to change these views if they are proved to be incorrect. Generally I believe something if the probability of it being accurate is roughly 90% or higher (Granted, this is a general figure. It�s impossible to calculate the exact probability of every proposition.) If it�s around 70% it�s probably true; if it�s around 50% it might be true. As new data is discovered the probability changes, and as the proposition becomes more or less credible I will change my beliefs accordingly.

Keith Russell · 01-05-2003, 12:02 PM

Defiant:

Why believe something fully, if it has only a 90 percent possibility of being true?

Why not believe it to be 90 percent true, if it has a 90 percent probability; believe it to be 95 percent true, if it has a 95 percent probability; etc.?

Keith.

August Spies · 01-05-2003, 12:25 PM

Defiant... you have totally lost me. How do you measure, even roughly, the probabiltity of somethings truth?

AtlanticCitySlave · 01-06-2003, 08:35 AM

It's safe to like pizza.

Defiant Heretic · 01-08-2003, 04:47 AM

Keith: I don't believe it fully, I just believe it enough to base my decisions on the assumption that it is true.

August: It's hard to put it into words. I just analyze the data I have and try to come up with a vague probability.

12-30-2002, 05:14 AM	#1
FloatingEgg Guest Posts: n/a	Is it safe to like anything? I�m not sure if this belongs in here or not, but none of the other forums seemed to apply. I�ve recently been having a discussion about Ayn Rand�s �Atlas Shrugged,� and through the course of discussion, and further readings, I�m coming across certain things that could certainly bring my previously positive opinion of the book into question. This got me thinking about evaluation for the purposes of self-improvement and whether or not it was really safe to like anything. It seems to me that all of us might live very different lives if all our statements, opinions, and decisions were open to constant criticism, like they may very well be at these forums. If all your opinions, statements, and decisions were open to criticism from a panel of philosophers and scientists, would you still have them? How much would you seek to change your views on things to adapt to the possibly accurate dialog between this party of judges? How much questioning of one�s motivations for liking something is too much? I�ve always been very adaptive, and ready to change my opinions about something if evidence, or a convincing rational basis was provided for an opposing position, but how much is too much?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-30-2002, 08:29 AM	#2
Carlos Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 545	If I understand correctly, you're saying that the safest position to take is no position, to abstain from making a choice when the "true" or "correct" choice is uncertain. If we were to make a choice, one day we might be proved wrong - and it is this potential (or perhaps the aggregate number of wrong choices) that you find unacceptable. I agree that it would be safest to not like anything, but I don't think safety is the best goal. A better goal IMO would be to make as many correct choices as I could, which requires that I take risks. I don't play not to lose, I play to win - knowing that in doing so I may well lose. Faced with the arguments of philosophers and scientists, it is likely that some of what I believe in would be challenged and shown to be incorrect. Yes, I would be disappointed that I was wrong - but without having made my original choice I couldn't have achieved the subsequent enlightenment. It is possible to learn by reading, listening or observing - but the kind of understanding achieved through experience surpasses these. The truths one learns from others are borne from their experiences; doing it first hand brings you closer to the source of that knowledge. The unexamined life is not worth living. [Socrates]

12-31-2002, 11:23 PM	#3
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	well if your tastes in thing lean towards psuedo-philisophical bad writers with boring repetative stories, flat characters, and uber-autherial intrusion than maybe it would be safer to just not like things.

01-02-2003, 07:43 AM	#5
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Jsimmons: It seems you have the idea that it is better that one's ideas should not change throughout one's life. Thus, the agnostic attitude 'I don't know', or 'I'm not sure whether I agree with that idea, or like that idea, or not' could be seen as the proper attitude for one to have. It's a very safe attitude, and thus a very boring one. One of the ways we learn is via our mistakes. (I'd rather learn, than play it safe...but that's just me...) Keith.

01-05-2003, 02:39 AM	#6
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	It is perfectly acceptable to hold opinions and beliefs. However, it is necessary to change these views if they are proved to be incorrect. Generally I believe something if the probability of it being accurate is roughly 90% or higher (Granted, this is a general figure. It�s impossible to calculate the exact probability of every proposition.) If it�s around 70% it�s probably true; if it�s around 50% it might be true. As new data is discovered the probability changes, and as the proposition becomes more or less credible I will change my beliefs accordingly.

01-05-2003, 12:02 PM	#7
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Defiant: Why believe something fully, if it has only a 90 percent possibility of being true? Why not believe it to be 90 percent true, if it has a 90 percent probability; believe it to be 95 percent true, if it has a 95 percent probability; etc.? Keith.

01-05-2003, 12:25 PM	#8
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	Defiant... you have totally lost me. How do you measure, even roughly, the probabiltity of somethings truth?

01-06-2003, 08:35 AM	#9
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	It's safe to like pizza.

01-08-2003, 04:47 AM	#10
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	Keith: I don't believe it fully, I just believe it enough to base my decisions on the assumption that it is true. August: It's hard to put it into words. I just analyze the data I have and try to come up with a vague probability.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.