Hot answers tagged

58

Technically speaking a fallacy is an invalid argument. In practice, what we would expect to see is two people starting from shared premises, and reaching contradictory conclusions, because (at least one) has made a logical error, or fallacy. But in this case, there are no shared premises. This is actually Mr. Black's biggest strategic error. It happens ...


32

You need to distinguish at least three cases here. Case #1: To believe consciously, at the same time , and with full understanding A and not A. In other words, this is the case where simultaneously believe that the world is flat and the world is spherical at the same time. This seems difficult if not impossible and might represent a feature of the human ...


20

No fallacy, two people have stated their opinions The whole issue resolves itself quickly with one small clarification (my addition in boldface) Mr. Black then confronts Mr. Pink one day at lunch, claiming that it is his opinion that all new age magic power b.s. is in-fact, nonsense Mr. Pink then asks in return: "Why does it matter? Why are you so [...


12

Your (1) and (2) are not enough. Here is an example: suppose I have excellent reasons to believe that the earth is round (I've seen photos, listened to lectures, etc.), and that it is in fact true that the earth is round, but nevertheless I do not believe it (because I'm irrational). Clearly this is not a case of knowledge. There is a recent view, however, ...


11

You can't really identify a logical fallacy unless someone makes a claim, and the only claim your question describes is this: Mr. Black denies all claims that cannot be proved by evidence. Mr. Black is committing the fallacy of over-generalisation. Because it is clear that there are some claims that must be 'accepted' without evidence. Otherwise Mr. ...


11

Ugh. Let me rephrase the original post: Mr. Brown practices a lifestyle of scientific empiricism. Although Mr. Brown doesn't outwardly proclaim his beliefs, he passively makes them known to anyone in his life and frequently drops amoral bits of wisdom. Mr. White believes that the Bible is the one and literal truth. Mr. White then ...


10

Knowledge is a particular kind of belief, one that has (or has more) evidence, and justified at that (of course there is the classic Gettier problem with this definition). The picture you gave shows two axes, one from theism to atheism (the subject matter about what one knows/believes), and an orthogonal one or gnosis to agnosis, or what I take it, to be ...


10

Strictly speaking I believe definitive knowledge is never obtainable, as Karl Popper has convincingly argued. Simply put; Karl Popper argued that there can always arise occasions where that, that which we hold to be confirmed knowledge (truth), will be falsified by a new observation. In other words; what we accept as being knowledge is actually merely ...


10

'Mr. Black denies all claims that cannot be proved by evidence.' It's easy to rug-pull Mr Black if he makes this claim, as a previous answer shows. But he has no need to make this claim. It is unnecessary. All Mr Black need do, and would do in real life I should guess, is to argue against Mr Pink that by the standards of evidence they both use outside the ...


9

God is entirely simple (not composed of parts), and God is immutable. God does not change in time; God is not in time; nothing about God changes. If this is so, how can God, for example, prohibit the Jews from eating pork before Christ, yet after Christ God allows those Jews who converted to Christianity to do so? Christians believe the God of the Old ...


8

Knowledge, of the kind you're asking about, I think, usually requires evidence and reasoning. In extreme cases where such knowledge doesn't require both evidence and reasoning, such as in parts of symbolic logic, knowledge requires only reasoning. On the other hand, belief doesn't require any reasoning or evidence whatsoever. If I know that the sun burns ...


8

According to Eric Schwitzgebel, Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a ...


7

Atheism is a belief that there are no deities (from the Greek ἄθεος, or "without gods"). It has nothing to do with their "existence," "minds," "personalities," or "selves." There are also degrees of atheism. There is the hardest of atheism, which believes there are no gods, and there are softer atheisms, which are not certain there is a god. (The latter ...


7

I'm looking for a little more than "A lot of adults believe it so it's OK". In other words, you are not willing to accept the premise that it is nothing but because "a lot of adults believe it so". But what if that is the correct answer, and anything else would just be a contrivance? My conclusion is in fact a little more nuanced but this is a good ...


7

In general, what makes it properly basic is that it is justified. The word "properly," in this context, means "justified." A properly basic belief is a belief that has two properties: (1) it is justified and (2) it is not justified by inferences from more basic propositional beliefs (a "propositional belief" is a belief whose content is a proposition rather ...


6

Broadly speaking, knowledge is objective truth while belief is subjective truth. That is, knowledge is typically thought to be that which is true independent of circumstance; it is universally true (non-contingent). Belief, however, is an idea or concept which is held as true to the individual who holds it, and not necessarily to anyone (or everyone) else. ...


5

The question reminds of the problem with Cartesian doubt and of the Clifford-James debates (somewhat poorly named because Descartes is not actually subject to this type of doubt). Early in the Meditations, Descartes looks at the consequences for a species of radical skepticism. Here, he looks at the most radical denial of our ability to trust our faculties ...


5

One possible way to answer this question is to hypothesize that God wants good things for people at all times, but what those things are change as human circumstances change --even if God does not change. For example, at one point in human history, it was necessary for people to have large families because so few children survived to adulthood. Accordingly,...


5

What problems arise in responding to Gettier problems with an assertion "the formal definition of knowledge, as justified true belief, does not need to exactly correspond to intuitive notions of knowledge."? Gettier problems are that some ideas that allegedly satisfy the formula of being justified true belief are not knowledge. One example is suppose ...


5

Let me propose as a working definition of religion, that it is a set of rituals, practices and beliefs organized around a "legitimate" attempt to understand the assumed deeper metaphysical realities of the world. NOTE: This definition does not require you to accept that there ARE deeper metaphysical realities, only that there exist legitimate attempts to ...


5

Indeed, as jobermark noted, you started backward (implicitly) from the assumption that God does not exist and then proceeded to make your point. As a rule of thumb, you can say any type of question on StackOverflow about arguments to "demonstrate" the existence or non-existence of God is likely to be a fallacy. The reason is very simple: questions such as "...


5

The problem is that both Mr. Pink and Mr. Black have made a commitment to a position. They made a choice and they are now going to rationalize their position to each other. That neither side can convince the other suggests that evidence and logic underdetermines a unique position. See the SEP’s Underdetermination of a Scientific Theory article for more on ...


5

Welcome George. The fact is true. She has justifiable reasons to conclude it is true. These conditions are not sufficient ('not enough') for knowledge because the fact may be true and she, X, may have justifiable reasons to conclude that it is true but those justifiable reasons may lead X only accidentally to conclude that it is true. Suppose X is ...


4

I believe what you are describing isn't a fallacy so much as a cognitive bias. In this case, the closest cognitive bias that fits your description is motivated reasoning where "when people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled 'motivated reasoning'. In other words, 'rather than search rationally for ...


4

Focusing on my own religious views, I'd say something similar to the other posters as the solution. First, God is not in time, His existence precedes time and therefore is independent of it. In the Nicene Creed are the words [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages So, in this view, it ...


4

Suppose I flip a coin and don't look at it. I have no knowledge that the coin landed heads up. But I may choose to believe it landed heads up if I want to. Interpreting your diagram: Agnostic atheist: "I do not believe that a god exists. God might exist or might not, I don't know. Perhaps evidence might make me believe in the future, but right now, I don't....


4

There's an ongoing discussing here between comments and answers about the definition of contradiction as asked by the OP. Since the question asked about the realm of logic, I'm going to provide an answer assuming that contradiction means the fact of statement A and not A to be held true at the same time. OP asked why is it that humans cannot believe in ...


4

The problem is one of terminology and effective communication. Suppose we have a mathematics paper that includes the line, "For the purposes of this proof, we refer to numbers of the form 2^2^n + 1 as 'prime'", and then begins to prove all sorts of things about prime numbers. This is terrible use of terminology, because it uses the word "prime" to mean ...


4

They are belief systems. Any conjecture on a situation that has no proven answer is a belief. No exceptions. Nobody knows for certain the meaning or lack of meaning in the universe and thus any opinion on the matter is exactly that, opinion, belief, idea, or philosophy.


4

I think the limit you're running into is the idea the you either believe in something or you don't. Its trivial to show countless examples where that is insufficient. One approach you could take to reconciling this is to create a tiered system of belief. This would still be an approximation, but it could be enough of a model to help. For a predicate P: "...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible