pug846

What criterion ought we use to term if a belief is justified? Does a belief have to be true to be justified?

I would say that my answer to the second question is a “no.” I think people in the past had adequate reasons for believing certain scientific theories that have since proven to be false.

The only answer I could give to the first question is: If it is reasonable, given the evidence, that a proposition is true, then you are justified in believing it to be true. I don’t like that and I don’t think it is a very useful definition. Certain beliefs seem way more important than others, and the bar should be set higher. Anyone have some good articles and/or thoughts on this subject? Book suggestions would be helpful too.

jpbrooks

This whole issue seems to be contingent upon what criteria are essential for a belief to be considered justified. If "reasonability" of the evidence is a criterion, then what characteristics of evidence make it "reasonable"? But a more fundamental question would be, is evidential support necessary to justify all beliefs? I.e., are there some beliefs that could be considered justified without (sufficient) evidential support, (e.g., conclusions based on authority)?
Of course, my own beliefs about this issue may be without adequate support. I await correction.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Boshko

Well that depends on what you mean by "believe." If all it means is "given X evidence then Y is the most probable explanation we currently have" then your requirement is just fine. If you mean something stronger by "belief" then thing'll get messier, especially since as a good Skeptic I think it's counterproductive to have your beliefs be stronger than my above definition...

Laurentius

AVE

Beliefs are normally irrational and should require no justification.

A distinction is necessary, though. There is a net difference between a statement initiated with “I believe in” and one starting with “I believe that”. Compare:
(a) I believe in Bush’s capabilities as president.
(b) I believe that Bush makes a capable president.
Statement (a) grounds on my instincts or emotions (affinities) related to this man – it is an irrational drive of mine to offer him my full trust & support.
Statement (b) grounds on my reasoning based on various facts representing arguments for my belief built on a rational argumentation. In this case, the justification should consist of the arguments, their relevance for my demonstration, and syllogism I employ. The general criteria for truth should be applied to the facts I use in my demonstration/syllogism as well as a logic verification of the syllogism lest it should be a sophism.

Zar

In everyday conversation, when not engaging in God-talk, I think most people just want you to give some kind of reasons for your beliefs with no very obvious holes in them to consider you "reasonable", even if they don't agree with you. You are a person who can be "reasoned with" to some extent, and are separate from children, who often do not yet understand that convention.

That is the whole of the definition of what it means to most people to be "justified" in your beliefs. Whether you are "right" is another point that would take a lot more discussion to cover.

Laurentius

AVE

Justify:
show that sb/sth is right, reasonable or just.

According to the definition, "justifiable" seems to have a lot more to do with being right, rather than with being able to give a sensible account of one's belief.

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Transworldly Depraved

pug846:

It seems that a person is warranted in holding a belief only if they have a certain amount of objective evidence or objective support for that belief.

Suggesting that the amount of evidence or support needed to provide warrant is a function of how important the belief is would seem to imply that the logical relations between evidence/support and a proposition is subjective or a matter of human wants, wishes or needs.

A belief either has sufficient warrant or it does not. This has nothing to do with what we want to be the case.

phaedrus

pug

These works by the friesians sort of encapsulate the whole issue. Instead of just concentrating on beliefs/facts or knowledge, they get to crux of the issue, i.e, "value". While i would not entirely agree with their conclusions...gives a pretty good picture of the whole issue... There are three parts, at the bottom there is a link to the next part...

<a href="http://www.friesian.com/founda-1.htm" target="_blank">The Foundations of Value, Part I - Logical Issues: Justification (quid facti), First Principles, and Socratic Method</a>

Transworldly Depraved

It seems that a person is warranted in holding a belief only if they have a certain amount of objective evidence or objective support for that belief.

What do you mean by objective here? Objective according to whose standards?

A belief either has sufficient warrant or it does not. This has nothing to do with what we want to be the case.

If an individual belonging to a tribe which has no contact with world and the tribe doesnt have an inkling of what is happening the world - is the individual justified in subscribing to the tribes' belief system ?

If we extrapolate the situation, are individuals belonging to the modern world justified in subscribing to the current belief systems? (assuming of earth as an tribe on a cosmological level, cut-off from the rest of the so-called "intelligent univrese")

JP

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

Zar

phaedrus said:

"What do you mean by objective here? Objective according to whose standards?"

I think the most workable definition of "objective" I have seen used is to simply separate evidence that is characterized as existing outside of the mind or "soul" (objective) from evidence that is characterized as coming from within (subjective.)

An objective example: A car sped away from this spot because all standing here can see the tire marks left behind.

A subjective example: I have a feeling a car sped away from this spot because my intuition tells me so, though no one else's can seem to.

This is not to say that there are not many cases where it is hard to tell whether someone mistakenly saw some objective event or just imagined it, but at least the claim is basically an objective one that in principle can be experienced by someone else. This makes all the difference between the two types of claims, as far as I can tell.

Also, it doesn't much matter whether you'd like to apply different words to what I have just said, or whether you have a different definition. The important point I mean to make is that these ideas applied to these terms seem useful to having a productive conversation.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Zar ]</p>

Laurentius

AVE
Posted by Zar:
Indeed, it is feelings that are commonly associated with a belief: a father may believe in his son purely out of love, the same as a superstitious person may avoid certain people or places out of fear. “Elective affinities” form naturally (this is what charisma is based on – millions of people irrationally believe in someone). Antipathies, too. We cannot believe in those we find mean, low and contemptible.
AVE