Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jamie_L · 09-13-2002, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt, Jr.:
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.

That may be true. However, given enough corroboration from sources that you trust for various reasons, you can reach a conclusion about how likely the encyclopedia is to be correct. One rarely needs or has absolute certainty about the reliability of evidence. Almost all of our decisions are based on judgements about probabilities and likelihoods. It appears that you are trying to present the encyclopedia example as a binary choice: either have no idea if the information is correct or you know absolutely that it is correct. My point is that there is a whole spectrum in between, and that spectrum is not only valid, but it's where we actually reside in terms of most of our day-to-day decisions.

So, your sense that encyclopedia's are accurate is probably good enough if you are just answering a question or creating a school report. If your life depended on the accuracy of the answer, then more certainty would likely be justified.

Jamie

JP2 · 09-13-2002, 08:24 AM

Erm, not wishing to be anal, but in the strict sense of the word the "rational" belief is based in logic, and may have nothing to do with empirical evidence.

To sum it up quickly:

It may require evidence to acsertain whether the premises in an argument are true, but it is logic alone that determines whether the conclusions are true (we're all familiar with syllogisms?). However, the strictly rational person attempts - as far as it is possible - to base their "world view" on what they can ascertain by means of logic alone (see Descartes et al), disregarding empirical evidence, insofar as this empirical evidence can be "rationalised" away by their own internal logic.

Thus, given this, perhaps we can say that Christians are the most "rational" of all people?

JP2 · 09-13-2002, 08:37 AM

And if we deconstructed the entire "encyclopaedia" argument into the form of a syllogism, the premises would be based in what we can ascertain, emprically, of the claims made by the encyclopaedia, whereas the conclusion would involve the application of "logic" to the premises in order to give meaning to them, and identify the common, inarguable truths contained and implied by the two (assuming that the premises are emprirically viable in the first place).

For instance:

This encyclopaedia claims there is a place called "Siberia".

Corroborating evidence for a place called "Siberia" can be found from sources entirely independent of anyone involved in the publication of the enyclopaedia.

Therefore, either a place called Siberia exists as they describe, or - in a highly improbable scenario - several independant entities have deluded themselves into wrongly believing that a place called Siberia - described in astonishingly similar terms by each of them - actually exists.

The first step (the premises) involved the application of empricism, the second (the conclusion) that of rational logic. Unfortunately logic can also cast aside empiricism (as in "sensual" empiricism) as "fallible" and thus "untrustworthy", but could logic not also cast itself aside under the same terms? Can we use logic to disprove logic?

Though I suppose that's a question for another time....

Voltaire Is My Hero · 09-13-2002, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt, Jr.:
Voltaire Is My Hero,

You asked
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.

*I already gave you the basis wherein you may find your answers. So has Keith Russell [excellent post, Mr. Russell!].

--Cindy

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Voltaire Is My Hero ]

Clutch · 09-13-2002, 10:17 AM

J.G. Jr,

JamieL makes an excellent point: examples like the Nebraska/encyclopedia one typically oversimplifiy matters badly. You don't come to the world with this one justified belief, 'The encyclopedia says X'. You possess vast swathes of information about different kinds of propositions, the sociology of fact-checking, the relative ease of checking some facts and the relative difficulty of checking others, what propositions can change truth-values quickly and which ones won't... The latter contrast comes up all the time for me, since I was handed down a set of 1960 Brittanica. If it tells me where a city is, I trust it. If it tells me the population of a city, I don't. And I make these differential judgements effortlessly, unconsciously, because I already know lots and lots and frickin' lots about life, the universe, and everything.

All things considered, if your source is a recent one, then yes, you have excellent grounds for forming a belief about the largest city in Nebraska. Jerry Fodor puts this well:

Quote:

"I can't tell elms from beeches, so I defer to the experts." Compare: "I can't tell acids from bases, so I defer to the litmus paper"; or "I can't tell Tuesdays from Wednesdays so I defer to the calendar." These three ways of putting the case are, I think, equally loopy, and for much the same reason. As a matter of fact, I can tell acids from bases; I use the litmus test to do so. And I can tell elms from beeches too. The way I do it is, I consult a botanist. (The Elm and the Expert, p. 34)

He might just as well have said that you know how to determine the largest city in Nebraska: consult a recent encyclopedia.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]

Clutch · 09-13-2002, 10:19 AM

Keith,

Quote:

Ayn Rand said "check your premises"

Yeah, but it's a good idea to do it anyhow.

Clutch · 09-13-2002, 10:37 AM

JP2,

The method you describe is Rationalism. Being rational is not the same as being a rationalist. In fact, "rational" is philosophically ambiguous between instrumental rationality (which can, in a perfectly good sense of the term, be deeply irrational!), a description of a line of reasoning itself, and a description of the inferential dispositions of an agent... among other senses. There is certainly no preferred philosophical use that denotes a reliance on pure logic to the exclusion of empirical data.

doubtingt · 09-13-2002, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Certainly if we create a dichotomy of "rational"
or "non-rational" these sorts of examples are quite problematic. But if we conceive of rationality as a kind of continuim between extremes then its more feasible, b/c we can talk
in relative terms rather than absolutes.
To really break your example down requires
us to think about all of the knowledge, and evidence that you have that is relevant to the
assumption that the encyclopedia entry was written
by someone who engaged in an evidence-based approach to reaching their conclusion. This includes all your knowledge about the publication process, the academic sanctions the author would face if they did not properly use evidence,
the publication year and knowledge of the quality of evidence and methods of the time, the number of revisions this assertion has survived indicating that respected experts have not discovered an error with it, the ease with which
the assertion could be falsified by readily accessible evidence, your knowledge of human psychology and whether the topic is likely to elicit affect and bias, and on and on.

All of these things should enter into your estimation about the probability of an encylo assertion being accurrate according to currently available evidence.

Your assumption that its probably accurate b/c its
an encyclopedia is probably based on implicit
consideration of some of these issues. If we were
more explicit about these considerations we would
probably reduce our confidence in encyclopedias,
but we would still be rational in assigning more
confidence to them than to mass media jounalism
or books that are not subject to the same level
of expert review.

One important point in this issue you've raised is
that it is not rational to have 100% unquestionable confidence in anything, because there is always room for error in our evidence or
reasoning. This is why philosophies that
promote absolute faith and doubtless belief are
inherently anti-rational and undermine the foundation of all reasoned thought.

Of course, I could be wrong.

doubtingt · 09-13-2002, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JP2:
Erm, not wishing to be anal, but in the strict sense of the word the "rational" belief is based in logic, and may have nothing to do with empirical evidence.

To sum it up quickly:

It may require evidence to acsertain whether the premises in an argument are true, but it is logic alone that determines whether the conclusions are true (we're all familiar with syllogisms?). However, the strictly rational person attempts - as far as it is possible - to base their "world view" on what they can ascertain by means of logic alone (see Descartes et al), disregarding empirical evidence, insofar as this empirical evidence can be "rationalised" away by their own internal logic.

Thus, given this, perhaps we can say that Christians are the most "rational" of all people?

I know this is tongue in cheek but, premises are simply conclusions made previously.
If you lack the needed prior premises to
justify your current ones then it is just as
irrational as lacking the current premises.
So, just b/c a conclusion is true given premises, this is no way makes it rational to belief that the conclusion is in fact true.

Keith Russell · 09-13-2002, 11:15 AM

John:

That is exactly what I mean.

The encyclopedia, library, books, magazines, man-on-the-street interviews, and the Internet, provide only claims.

If you want to know the accuracy/validity of those claims, you have to test the claims against reality itself.

Hopefully, at some point, the facts in the encyclopedia were checked and verified as true.

But, the encyclopedia isn't right about everything. Numbers can be transposed, (photos can be transposed or mislabelled), typos occur--and those are just a few of the 'honest' mistakes.

'Bias' also plays a role in distorting claims.

Keith.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]

09-13-2002, 11:15 AM	#20
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	John: That is exactly what I mean. The encyclopedia, library, books, magazines, man-on-the-street interviews, and the Internet, provide only claims. If you want to know the accuracy/validity of those claims, you have to test the claims against reality itself. Hopefully, at some point, the facts in the encyclopedia were checked and verified as true. But, the encyclopedia isn't right about everything. Numbers can be transposed, (photos can be transposed or mislabelled), typos occur--and those are just a few of the 'honest' mistakes. 'Bias' also plays a role in distorting claims. Keith. [ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

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

09-13-2002, 08:24 AM	#12
JP2 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 204	Erm, not wishing to be anal, but in the strict sense of the word the "rational" belief is based in logic, and may have nothing to do with empirical evidence. To sum it up quickly: It may require evidence to acsertain whether the premises in an argument are true, but it is logic alone that determines whether the conclusions are true (we're all familiar with syllogisms?). However, the strictly rational person attempts - as far as it is possible - to base their "world view" on what they can ascertain by means of logic alone (see Descartes et al), disregarding empirical evidence, insofar as this empirical evidence can be "rationalised" away by their own internal logic. Thus, given this, perhaps we can say that Christians are the most "rational" of all people?

09-13-2002, 08:37 AM	#13
JP2 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 204	And if we deconstructed the entire "encyclopaedia" argument into the form of a syllogism, the premises would be based in what we can ascertain, emprically, of the claims made by the encyclopaedia, whereas the conclusion would involve the application of "logic" to the premises in order to give meaning to them, and identify the common, inarguable truths contained and implied by the two (assuming that the premises are emprirically viable in the first place). For instance: This encyclopaedia claims there is a place called "Siberia". Corroborating evidence for a place called "Siberia" can be found from sources entirely independent of anyone involved in the publication of the enyclopaedia. Therefore, either a place called Siberia exists as they describe, or - in a highly improbable scenario - several independant entities have deluded themselves into wrongly believing that a place called Siberia - described in astonishingly similar terms by each of them - actually exists. The first step (the premises) involved the application of empricism, the second (the conclusion) that of rational logic. Unfortunately logic can also cast aside empiricism (as in "sensual" empiricism) as "fallible" and thus "untrustworthy", but could logic not also cast itself aside under the same terms? Can we use logic to disprove logic? Though I suppose that's a question for another time....

09-13-2002, 10:37 AM	#17
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	JP2, The method you describe is Rationalism. Being rational is not the same as being a rationalist. In fact, "rational" is philosophically ambiguous between instrumental rationality (which can, in a perfectly good sense of the term, be deeply irrational!), a description of a line of reasoning itself, and a description of the inferential dispositions of an agent... among other senses. There is certainly no preferred philosophical use that denotes a reliance on pure logic to the exclusion of empirical data.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.