Timeline for Why should I believe my own conclusions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2014 at 14:20 | comment | added | That Guy | @alaf I think you and Sherz are using 'justification' in two different ways. The problem with just picking an idea at random and arguing about it is that you can go a whole lifetime and not even come remotely close to the truth. Just because an idea seems to have 'won the argument' today, does that really mean that it's more likely to be true? Can you be justified (in any sense of the word) calling that a 'win', when there's no reason that it's more likely to be true than the previous idea, since it can just as easily be debated and rejected tomorrow? | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 13:45 | comment | added | Sherz | @alanf What do you mean by "No idea is justified"? Is it not justified to believe that walking on a highway blindfolded is dangerous? Or that if I flap my hands, I cannot fly? I would have called those justified beliefs. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 13:38 | comment | added | alanf | The JTB theory of knowledge is wrong. No idea is justified. If you are interested in an issue you should take a position on it and argue about it. If you are wrong then you might find a better position, which is a win. If you are right then you don't lose anything by arguing about it. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 13:33 | history | edited | alanf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2014 at 13:28 | comment | added | Sherz | First, thanks for thought-out the answer. I have a few issues with it, though. 1) You say no knowledge has ever been created by induction, but you call induction a form of justification. According to the basic JTB definition of knowledge, why wouldn't induction be an ingredient of knowledge? 2) More importantly, many people think that they have come to a conclusion rigorously, that they have examined, conjectured and hypothesizes, and that they're conclusion is justified (though you can't really experiment to see if God exists). So apparently doing so can still lead you wrong. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 12:59 | comment | added | alanf | I have removed the reference to your comment since I don't want to misrepresent the OP's position. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 12:59 | history | edited | alanf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 321 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2014 at 11:57 | comment | added | That Guy | I do like the question though. The problem isn't really about induction etc. despite the title. It's about the very reasonable position of recognizing ones own limitations and therefore following experts, taken to its logical (?) conclusion: on questions of metaphysics, brilliant experts have disagreed, so it seems best to abstain, for my own conviction is no better than flipping a coin | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 10:26 | history | answered | alanf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |