A few days back, or maybe a few weeks. I lose track these days... weeks. I wrote about justification for a belief. In recap, there are two positions, the coherentist and the foundationalist.
A coherentist thinks that beliefs are true/justified if they fit coherently with a larger network of beliefs. I think that 'coherently' exclusively means without contradiction. I believe A because it does not contradict beliefs B, C, D, ad infinitum. Foundationalists think that a belief is true/justified if it based on other true/justified beliefs. I believe A because of B. Foundationalism has the problem of the infinite regress, where you just go on into eternity basing beliefs on others. So they think there must be a foundation that is a belief which is self-evidently true. The only one of these which has ever been found is "I think, therefore I am."
For many, myself included, coherentism seemed to be winning since modern coherentism dropped truth altogether and focused on justification. It doesn't matter what is actually true, only what we are justified in believing. Foundationalists are less happy with separating justification and truth, since they think that real justification can only ever come from truth.
But then came along meta-beliefs. Namely, a belief about a belief. This type of conjecture spans a number of areas, but for today's subject, we'll focus on beliefs about beliefs and not beliefs inferentially inherent to other beliefs.
The argument basically goes, if I believe that a system of my beliefs is coherent, and I am justified in believing them, is my belief in the very coherence of my belief system included in that system? And if it is, and it seems it must be, since a coherentist assumes the totality of all beliefs, isn't supreme confidence in my beliefs about my beliefs a foundationalist stance? MANY have been swayed.
I have not. I think that this argument is correct if some underlying assumptions are accepted, but I do not think one of those assumptions is anywhere near correct. I think that to assume a belief about my other beliefs as separate is foolish. My beliefs are not coherent because I believe them to be, they are coherent because they are. This argument recreates, to a degree, the homunculous, which is a fallacy. We cannot separate ourselves from our beliefs. We ARE our beliefs. I do not hold beliefs about my beliefs, I hold beliefs about my memories of beliefs, which are fallable since they are memory. I only ever hold beliefs at a given moment, which are part of me. I cannot separate myself from them.
Funny enough, many foundationalists have also not been swayed, since they are in search of truth, and even if we assume my metabeliefs to be evidently true, that says nothing of my beliefs actually being true, or my perceptions. We are just as fallable as we were in the beginning. We just know that we know, which is strangely similar to thinking, therefore I aming.
Even if you don't accept that, there are two other major problems which are incontrovertible. One of them involves those ever-pesky infinite regresses..
Monday, August 27, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Law & Order.
One of the coolest areas of philosophy is the philosophy of law, aka, jurisprudence. It's so damned interesting because it's one of the few areas of philosophy that has real-world applications. Metaphysics is quickly being absorbed into traditional physics (Just look at the increasing attention to parallel universes and Boltzmann Brains), and epistemology is mental masturbation at its best.
Since law is so abstract itself, philosophy applies easily as a form of real analysis. When a lawyer analyzes the law, it's usually on a research basis. They have a situation, they look up a statute, and apply it. But this could be considered high-level law. This is the final, application stage. The creation of the laws goes one step lower, then the concept behind those laws, and finally what a law actually is. Philosophy of law pretty much ignores the first two and pays almost exclusive attention to the lowest two.
The fact that pure thought is so tantalizingly close to application makes law a real wonderland for a philosopher. It takes into account what laws are, what humans are, what a mind is, and almost every other aspect of deep, pot-induced thought that you can think of. It's different from other areas of investigation because they are bound by the laws of physics (pun not intended). I can think about, and apply law and be done with it. But if I think about a building, then I better build it. And that's the tough part. Thought is far removed from application. Law's nature makes it interesting, accessible, and yet totally inaccessible at the same time since trying to determine what it is has proven vexing.
For example, you, try and define what a law is. Is it a rule? What's a rule? Is it a dictate of action accepted by the population? Does that mean that those who don't follow the law aren't bound by it? Criminals don't recognize the authority of law, they recognize the authority of large men with guns and night sticks. Yet, the law applies to them. How are we to call a law a law, or something that is obeyed not because of fear of men with guns. We do it because we know it must be done. That sounds kind of like a law. But there are tons of laws I do only because of fear of cops. I don't drive at 120mph because the police will pull me over and, most likely, give me a very large ticket. So is that a law, or merely a command I am forced to follow?
It sounds a bit mamby pamby, I know. But these concepts must be nailed down. They are the very foundation of our society's makeup and if we ever expect our laws to be clean, transparent, and perfectly written so as to be truly just, the concepts which must be adequately defined.
Since law is so abstract itself, philosophy applies easily as a form of real analysis. When a lawyer analyzes the law, it's usually on a research basis. They have a situation, they look up a statute, and apply it. But this could be considered high-level law. This is the final, application stage. The creation of the laws goes one step lower, then the concept behind those laws, and finally what a law actually is. Philosophy of law pretty much ignores the first two and pays almost exclusive attention to the lowest two.
The fact that pure thought is so tantalizingly close to application makes law a real wonderland for a philosopher. It takes into account what laws are, what humans are, what a mind is, and almost every other aspect of deep, pot-induced thought that you can think of. It's different from other areas of investigation because they are bound by the laws of physics (pun not intended). I can think about, and apply law and be done with it. But if I think about a building, then I better build it. And that's the tough part. Thought is far removed from application. Law's nature makes it interesting, accessible, and yet totally inaccessible at the same time since trying to determine what it is has proven vexing.
For example, you, try and define what a law is. Is it a rule? What's a rule? Is it a dictate of action accepted by the population? Does that mean that those who don't follow the law aren't bound by it? Criminals don't recognize the authority of law, they recognize the authority of large men with guns and night sticks. Yet, the law applies to them. How are we to call a law a law, or something that is obeyed not because of fear of men with guns. We do it because we know it must be done. That sounds kind of like a law. But there are tons of laws I do only because of fear of cops. I don't drive at 120mph because the police will pull me over and, most likely, give me a very large ticket. So is that a law, or merely a command I am forced to follow?
It sounds a bit mamby pamby, I know. But these concepts must be nailed down. They are the very foundation of our society's makeup and if we ever expect our laws to be clean, transparent, and perfectly written so as to be truly just, the concepts which must be adequately defined.
America the Brave.
After writing my earlier post about America denying climate change, I seemingly by fate read a number of articles talking about how America is turning its mind around. I think that America deserves credit for casting aside propaganda and pre-set beliefs in barely a year to see different poll results. Bravo, I say. Bravo.
Growing Number of Americans See Warming as Leading Threat (Via Washington Post)
Growing Number of Americans See Warming as Leading Threat (Via Washington Post)
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Why I Don't Belive in God.
Reason: Probability. Since God is faith, and faith is belief without evidence, that means any and all doctrines are equally probable. It is just as probable that a hamster in a top hat is ruling the universe as is God or Allah. Since any story is likely, that means there is an infinite number of possible stories, all equally likely.
One divided by infinity, well, is not actually a number. So the probability of God existing in any definable way is absolute zero. Obviously, this does not mean that A god does not exist, just one that, even if it does, we can never approach any reasonably close understanding of it. So why bother?
One divided by infinity, well, is not actually a number. So the probability of God existing in any definable way is absolute zero. Obviously, this does not mean that A god does not exist, just one that, even if it does, we can never approach any reasonably close understanding of it. So why bother?
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
My Geek Score is Well-Earned.
I just got a 33 on the "Web 2.0 or Star Wars Character" test. I swear to god I actually have a life.
http://www.cerado.com/web20quiz.htm
http://www.cerado.com/web20quiz.htm
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Justified! Part II.
A few days back, or maybe a few weeks. I lose track these days... weeks. I wrote about justification for a belief. In recap, there are two positions, the coherentist and the foundationalist.
A coherentist thinks that beliefs are true/justified if they fit coherently with a larger network of beliefs. I think that 'coherently' exclusively means without contradiction. I believe A because it does not contradict beliefs B, C, D, ad infinitum. Foundationalists think that a belief is true/justified if it based on other true/justified beliefs. I believe A because of B. Foundationalism has the problem of the infinite regress, where you just go on into eternity basing beliefs on others. So they think there must be a foundation that is a belief which is self-evidently true. The only one of these which has ever been found is "I think, therefore I am."
For many, myself included, coherentism seemed to be winning since modern coherentism dropped truth altogether and focused on justification. It doesn't matter what is actually true, only what we are justified in believing. Foundationalists are less happy with separating justification and truth, since they think that real justification can only ever come from truth.
But then came along meta-beliefs. Namely, a belief about a belief. This type of conjecture spans a number of areas, but for today's subject, we'll focus on beliefs about beliefs and not beliefs inferentially inherent to other beliefs.
The argument basically goes, if I believe that a system of my beliefs is coherent, and I am justified in believing them, is my belief in the very coherence of my belief system included in that system? And if it is, and it seems it must be, since a coherentist assumes the totality of all beliefs, isn't supreme confidence in my beliefs about my beliefs a foundationalist stance? MANY have been swayed.
I have not. I think that this argument is correct if some underlying assumptions are accepted, but I do not think one of those assumptions is anywhere near correct. I think that to assume a belief about my other beliefs as separate is foolish. My beliefs are not coherent because I believe them to be, they are coherent because they are. This argument recreates, to a degree, the homunculous, which is a fallacy. We cannot separate ourselves from our beliefs. We ARE our beliefs. I do not hold beliefs about my beliefs, I hold beliefs about my memories of beliefs, which are fallable since they are memory. I only ever hold beliefs at a given moment, which are part of me. I cannot separate myself from them.
Even if you don't accept that, there are two other major problems which are incontrovertible. infinite regress.
Funny enough, many foundationalists have also not been swayed, since they are in search of truth, and even if we assume my metabeliefs to be evidently true, that says nothing of my beliefs actually being true, or my perceptions. We are just as fallable as we were in the beginning. We just know that we know, which is strangely similar to thinking, therefore I aming.
A coherentist thinks that beliefs are true/justified if they fit coherently with a larger network of beliefs. I think that 'coherently' exclusively means without contradiction. I believe A because it does not contradict beliefs B, C, D, ad infinitum. Foundationalists think that a belief is true/justified if it based on other true/justified beliefs. I believe A because of B. Foundationalism has the problem of the infinite regress, where you just go on into eternity basing beliefs on others. So they think there must be a foundation that is a belief which is self-evidently true. The only one of these which has ever been found is "I think, therefore I am."
For many, myself included, coherentism seemed to be winning since modern coherentism dropped truth altogether and focused on justification. It doesn't matter what is actually true, only what we are justified in believing. Foundationalists are less happy with separating justification and truth, since they think that real justification can only ever come from truth.
But then came along meta-beliefs. Namely, a belief about a belief. This type of conjecture spans a number of areas, but for today's subject, we'll focus on beliefs about beliefs and not beliefs inferentially inherent to other beliefs.
The argument basically goes, if I believe that a system of my beliefs is coherent, and I am justified in believing them, is my belief in the very coherence of my belief system included in that system? And if it is, and it seems it must be, since a coherentist assumes the totality of all beliefs, isn't supreme confidence in my beliefs about my beliefs a foundationalist stance? MANY have been swayed.
I have not. I think that this argument is correct if some underlying assumptions are accepted, but I do not think one of those assumptions is anywhere near correct. I think that to assume a belief about my other beliefs as separate is foolish. My beliefs are not coherent because I believe them to be, they are coherent because they are. This argument recreates, to a degree, the homunculous, which is a fallacy. We cannot separate ourselves from our beliefs. We ARE our beliefs. I do not hold beliefs about my beliefs, I hold beliefs about my memories of beliefs, which are fallable since they are memory. I only ever hold beliefs at a given moment, which are part of me. I cannot separate myself from them.
Even if you don't accept that, there are two other major problems which are incontrovertible. infinite regress.
Funny enough, many foundationalists have also not been swayed, since they are in search of truth, and even if we assume my metabeliefs to be evidently true, that says nothing of my beliefs actually being true, or my perceptions. We are just as fallable as we were in the beginning. We just know that we know, which is strangely similar to thinking, therefore I aming.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
The Time is Gone.
I just saw the trailer for the upcoming enviro-documentary by Leonardo DiCaprio, Eleventh Hour. So many of these things, especially Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, tacked on a message of hope amidst all the dire prognostications. I personally think this is silly.
As I think any environmental scientist will tell you, the delay in cause and effect on global scales, save things such as volcanic eruptions, is large. Decades. If we are seeing the effects of our behavior now, that means these are the effects of causes back in the 1980's.
Basically, this means we're hosed. There is nothing we can do to stop things. We need to start preparing for a very different world in a very short time. I still think all the feel-good environmental stuff is good and important, but it's no longer the most important. That time was 1980, and it's long since past.
As I think any environmental scientist will tell you, the delay in cause and effect on global scales, save things such as volcanic eruptions, is large. Decades. If we are seeing the effects of our behavior now, that means these are the effects of causes back in the 1980's.
Basically, this means we're hosed. There is nothing we can do to stop things. We need to start preparing for a very different world in a very short time. I still think all the feel-good environmental stuff is good and important, but it's no longer the most important. That time was 1980, and it's long since past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)