John Galt, Jr.

In another thread, a poster said "Rational beliefs are based only on evidence".[Keith Russell in the "proving Negatives" thread] One hears something like this often, and I would like a bit of clarification by any who can provide it.

What is the name of the largest city in Nebraska. I do not know what the largest city in Nebraska is. I can walk to the library, look in a volume of an encyclopededia,or some other appropriate volume, and get an answer to the question. I will there be told that city A is the largest city in Nebraska. Do I now have evidence that A is the largest city in Nebraska? Some may think it is a strange question. Itis prompted by the following thoughts: Do I have to check/verify/establish the general reliability of the encylopedia first? Or can I assume that it is reliable since it is in the reference section of the library? Or must I verify the general reliability of this reference section? Or....

John Galt, Jr.

Jamie_L

Yes. The next question (as you point out) is how reliable is this evidence?

Perhaps, but relevant.

Well, that depends. How certain do you need to be? What are the consequences if you're wrong?

Generally, in our lives we all develop a feeling for the reliability of certain institutions that provide information. If ABC news reports that alien spacecraft have landed in Nebraska, we might trust this more than if the claim is made by the National Inquirer. This sense of reliability/trust is based on a number of factors: past performance of these sources (based on our experience and the experiences of others we trust), our knowledge of how the source aquires its information, etc. Knowledge that we gain without personal experience will generally be less reliable than knowledge we gain first-hand, but that certainly doesn't mean we don't have methods to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources.

I have it only on the authority of books and media outlets that Siberia actually exists. I've never been there. I've never met anyone who's been there. I've only read about it and seen pictures by people who "claim" it's there. However, based on my experiences with all the various sources, and all the coroborating information, I feel confident that Siberia does, in fact, exist.

Jamie

Voltaire Is My Hero

*Sigh. What is so difficult about understanding the sentence you are questioning?

Douse yourself with gasoline and strike a match: You'll burn. Rational belief, fact, demonstrable.

Weight your body down with 500-pound sand-bags and get shoved into a body of water: You'll drown. Rational belief, fact, demonstrable.

Irrational beliefs are based on lack of evidence/demonstrability and are matters of faith, not reason.

It's simple.

--Cindy

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Voltaire Is My Hero ]</p>

Keith Russell

John Jr.

Only you can establish the validity of the facts you observe.

Statistics reported by people (told or written) are not facts, but are instead claims.

The 'largest city in Nebraska' doesn't even given me enough information to hazard a guess. Does 'largest' refer to the city with the greatest population, or that covers the greatest area?

Dictionaries do not give the definitions of words, but the 'common, current usage'.

Other statistics can be distorted in numerous other ways.

Nearly every human being has the capacity to use reason. But, reasoning is not automatic. Each of us has the choice whether or not to be rational.

If you want to make as certain as possible that you are being as rational as possible, don't trust anyone else to provide you with facts--they can only provide you with claims.

Ayn Rand said "check your premises"--

--and she meant it.

Keith.

doubtingt

Funny you should bring this up. I was just discussing this issue with my research methods
class yesterday.
Your example is an instance of
relying on "authority" broadly defined.
Authority is one basis we can use reach a conclusion. Others include direct systematic observation (science), logic, casual observation
(personal experience), and emotion. We could quibble over what all the categories should be, but lets avoid that for now.

The important point is that whether accepting
something on authority counts as "rational"
depends upon what the authority based their conclusion on. If you have knowledge that
can support the assumption that the authorities
claim is based upon a systemic, scientific examination of the evidence then your acceptance
should be considered "rational". In fact,
since personal experience is extremely unreliable and weak evidence, relying on others who have used scientific evidence is often far more rational than relying on one's own direct, but non
scientific observations.

If the authority did not reach their conclusion
rationally or you have no knowledge of how they reached it, then reliance on the authority cannot
be rational. Although we might contend that a
person's loses some degree of rationality when
going through an authority, it seems clear that
using a rational authority is the most rational
path to belief, second to conducting all systematic observations ourselves.

That's my 2 cents

John Galt, Jr.

Voltaire Is My Hero,

You asked
You then said
When I posed the question that you find to be so simple, I attempted to explain the 'difficulty' with some questions. Will you answer those!

John Galt, Jr.

John Galt, Jr.

Keith Russell,

You said Later, So, do you mean that the encyclopedia provides me with claims only?

John Galt, Jr.

John Galt, Jr.

doubtingt,

So, is an appeal to the (authority of an) encyclopedia to establish the population of the cities in Nebraska rational or not, according to the precepts you describe?

In a clear sense, I have no knowledge of how whomever produced the encyclopedia acquired what they put into it. I assume, because it is (called) an encyclopedia, that it is a legitimate authority, but I haven't checked it against facts, nor do I have evidence to support a belief that others have so checked it-- I might assumethey have checked it, but then what would they check it against. This last question seems especially interesting when we turn to historical claims, claims where the facts are, as it were, gone, i. e., history.

John Galt, Jr.

Jamie_L

Is that really true? Have you not heard of encyclopedia's before? Do you not have an experience base to draw on that would lead you to some conclusion about how encyclopedia's are created? This may be far from conclusive information, but it is far different from saying you have no idea how the knowledge was acquired.

And I argue that these assumptions can be legitimate. Based on other authorities (teachers, librarians, the publishers of the encyclopedia, etc.), and perhaps past experience with encyclopedias, you have a belief that the encyclopedia is reasonably accurate. Again, the level of confidence you need may vary from situation to situation.

Jamie

John Galt, Jr.

Jamie,


I meant to indicate that I have no 'direct experience' of how encyclopedias are created (whatever that might be). I have been told certain things about how they are produced, I have read certhings (I think) about the sorts fo things that go into the production of encyclopedias. At least, I think I might have. On the other hand, I might merely be filling in here working from the assumption that encyclopedias are reliable, supplementing that assumption with the kinds of things that I suppose are true, given that assumption. It seems to me that none of this is any less in need of support than my belief about the encyclopedia is, if that belief is in need of support.

John Galt, Jr.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>