iiioiia t1_iw8252b wrote
Reply to comment by Ok_Meat_8322 in The "Reasonable Certainty" Standard for Belief (On the problem of other minds, our duties to future people, and believing in the unknown) by contractualist
>> If there is sufficient existing evidence for a certain belief, so much so that one can act intuitively as if it is true, then demanding impossible evidence is unreasonable skepticism. Only without this intuitively satisfying evidence can we reasonably warrant suspending disbelief.
> Well, sure. But this is basically just a tautology
tautology: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form
The proposition is subjective - subjective matters can be framed in a tautological manner, but this does not seem to be an example of that.
> if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a certain belief, then that belief is justified, period. This isn't interesting or controversial.
I disagree with it, because of the subjectivity.
I agree with your other points though.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iw8v4lr wrote
>tautology: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form
>
>The proposition is subjective - subjective matters can be framed in a tautological manner, but this does not seem to be an example of that.
There's nothing subjective about it; epistemic justification for a given belief just is having sufficient evidence for it (at least, on the prevailing theory of epistemic justification, evidentialism, which I'm assuming for the purposes of this discussion). So if you say that "there is sufficient existing evidence for a certain belief" this is to say that this belief is epistemically justified, since having sufficient evidence =/= the belief being justified/warranted.
What may be "subjective" (or, at least, open to disagreement) is what one considers to constitute "sufficient" evidence for a given belief... but we don't need to adjudicate the proper criteria for sufficiency for our purposes here; if we say that "there is sufficient existing evidence for a belief" then we are by the same token saying that the belief is epistemically justified, regardless of what particular criteria of sufficiency we happen to be using.
iiioiia t1_iw8w84o wrote
>There's nothing subjective about it; epistemic justification for a given belief just is having sufficient evidence for it
For all propositions that exist, is there unanimous agreement on the necessary level of evidence required to meet epistemic justification?
If so, please link to your data source so I can check to see if my name is in the list.
>So if you say that "there is sufficient existing evidence for a certain belief" this is to say that this belief is epistemically justified, since having sufficient evidence =/= the belief being justified/warranted.
Seeing something is true does not cause it to be true though, it only causes it to appear to be true.
>What may be "subjective" (or, at least, open to disagreement) is what one considers to constitute "sufficient" evidence for a given belief... but we don't need to adjudicate the proper criteria for sufficiency for our purposes here
It is a crucially important component of your claim, so yes you do if you want your claim to be epistemically sound.
>if we say that "there is sufficient existing evidence for a belief" then we are by the same token saying that the belief is epistemically justified, regardless of what particular criteria of sufficiency we happen to be using.
Do "we" say that though, or might you have only imagined that?
Also, this runs up against the issue I noted above.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iw8ygmh wrote
>For all propositions that exist, is there unanimous agreement on the necessary level of evidence required to meet epistemic justification?
Almost certainly not, but as I pointed out already, it doesn't matter whether there is or not.
>It is a crucially important component of your claim, so yes you do if you want your claim to be epistemically sound.
It isn't. The proposition in question is the conditional statement, "IF there is sufficient evidence for a belief, THEN that belief is justified", which doesn't require us to take any position on what constitutes sufficiency.
Since justification just is having sufficient evidence, then whatever sufficiency might be, IF you have it, THEN belief is justified, regardless of what constitutes sufficiency. Assume sufficiency to be whatever you like; no matter what you pick, it will always remain the case that if you have sufficient evidence (whatever "sufficient" might be) then belief is justified. Its just straightforwardly tautological, no subjectivity involved whatsoever.
iiioiia t1_iw90p8o wrote
> Almost certainly not, but as I pointed out already, it doesn't matter whether there is or not.
In terms of belief, perhaps, but in terms of knowledge there is.
If you were to simply acknowledge that you are expressing your opinion, I think we'd have less disagreement.
> It isn't. The proposition in question is the conditional statement, "IF there is sufficient evidence for a belief, THEN that belief is justified", which doesn't require us to take any position on what constitutes sufficiency.
Vague tautologies are true by definition. They are also an excellent source of delusion (as if consciousness and our piss poor education system wasn't enough!!!).
> Since justification just is having sufficient evidence, then whatever sufficiency might be, IF you have it, THEN belief is justified, regardless of what constitutes sufficiency.
At the object level, how do you determine that you have it though? Belief is powerful, but it has limited ability to transform reality itself, it only changes perception of reality.
> Assume sufficiency to be whatever you like
I cannot, it is against my religion.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iwdmtpi wrote
>If you were to simply acknowledge that you are expressing your opinion, I think we'd have less disagreement.
I'm trying to find anything in my previous comments in this thread that constitute mere opinion, and drawing a blank, so I'm afraid I can't do that.
And I'm suspicious whether we have any substantive disagreement, it mostly looks like you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing (especially since my point was straightforwardly tautological).
>At the object level, how do you determine that you have it though? Belief is powerful, but it has limited ability to transform reality itself, it only changes perception of reality.
An interesting and productive question, certainly... but one entirely outside of the scope of my comments or the point I was making in this particular thread (which was pretty straightforward)
iiioiia t1_iwdx4km wrote
What a weird tangent this took.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iwepujg wrote
Agreed, I began by merely pointing out something that I assumed was a typo or unintentional mistake, didn't really expect it to go any further than that
iiioiia t1_iwesf8v wrote
I like a big show.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iwhhhy6 wrote
So I gather..
iiioiia t1_iwhi01q wrote
And as luck would have it: it is rarely difficult to get one's counterpart enthusiastically involved in the manufacture of a big show.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments