On Belief, Knowledge, and Justification

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Just to make sure we are on the same page - as I understand it, you consider "justified" = "true"? You seem to consider that some statements can be more "justified" than others, depending upon the accumulation of evidence either way?

No, I'm not trying to say anything like justified = truth. I'm trying to make a distinction between justification for belief and the fact of the matter, and to say that we can understand them as different evaluative schemes.

This might seem petty, but the reason why I want to make this distinction is so that we can put together a list of things that count toward justification for a belief, about either physical or metaphysical things.

In your philosophy, is there anything which we may accept as "givens" or "material reality" versus a "belief" which may or may not be true?

For example, would you consider the equation

force = mass x acceleration

a "belief" or a "true" statement useful for describing the behavior of objects under the laws of classical physics?

I'm actually going to go a different direction with this than skepticism vs. realism. My answer is going to be skepticism -or- realism. I think the way this fleshes out is this - whether you are a radical skeptic, and say that nothing is verifiable, or you are a realist, and say that our perceptions are trustworthy and that some things can be verifiable, that you have to carry that same perspective through both the physical and the metaphysical.

I'm not trying to dodge the question, and I will take it up later, but for now, I'm more interested in knowing if you thing anything is verifiable, and if so, then what counts toward verification? If nothing is verifiable, then what counts toward justification? In a personal sense, what evidences cause you to say "I know this" or "I believe this to be true"?

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Beestie

My real question, therefore, is how can we really be sure what does and doesn't belong there. How can we differentiate between categorical error and the truly metaphysical? ... If you want to only include those things for which error is unthinkable (God, for example), then justification is limited to the lack of a physical cause.

I want to limit the metaphysical to exactly that ... those things which, if they exist at all, can by definition only exist as metaphysical entities. God is one example. Universal moral laws are another. They may not exist, but if they do, then by definition, they exist as something other than the result of physical causation. There was no chemical reaction that caused universal moral laws, if they exist by that definition.

We might say "Well, these things we call moral laws are the result of chemical reactions in the collective brains of a society, and are therefore physical and not metaphysical." This might be true, but if it is, then what we are really saying is that universal moral laws do not exist as such, and only appear to exist. Catch what I'm saying? For something to be a metaphysical concepts, it has to be by nature metaphysical. If it is demonstrated to be the result of physical causation, we cannot say that it has "become" physical, we must say that is does not exist. Some new thing may be said to exist, the physical thing, but the initial thing must be said to have never really existed.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

No, I'm not trying to say anything like justified = truth. I'm trying to make a distinction between justification for belief and the fact of the matter, and to say that we can understand them as different evaluative schemes.

This might seem petty, but the reason why I want to make this distinction is so that we can put together a list of things that count toward justification for a belief, about either physical or metaphysical things.

OK, I think I know where you're going with this. See, one problem I have with discussing metaphysics with most people is that they often seem to treat physics (or science) and metaphysics (or religion/faith)as two intersecting sets. Faith needs to stick with the question of god, and science needs to stick to questions which can be answered through application of the scientific method.

Contemporary society runs into more problems when some ill-informed group tries to either prove or disprove god through science or, conversely, tries to use god to disprove science.

I feel equally annoyed when a fundamentalist makes some statement like "God created the fossils" or an atheist says science has shown that the universe has an infinite existance, therefore, god does not exist. You simply can't use two such different modes of understanding to explain each other.

Do you share this premise of mine?

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

I'm actually going to go a different direction with this than skepticism vs. realism. My answer is going to be skepticism -or- realism. I think the way this fleshes out is this - whether you are a radical skeptic, and say that nothing is verifiable, or you are a realist, and say that our perceptions are trustworthy and that some things can be verifiable, that you have to carry that same perspective through both the physical and the metaphysical.

I'm not trying to dodge the question, and I will take it up later, but for now, I'm more interested in knowing if you thing anything is verifiable, and if so, then what counts toward verification? If nothing is verifiable, then what counts toward justification? In a personal sense, what evidences cause you to say "I know this" or "I believe this to be true"?

Yes, I know that certain things are verifiable. We can get into the whole question of well, maybe I'm a certified schizophrenic; or maybe you are; or maybe you and I are the only ones who can trust our senses, and everyone ELSE is a certified schizophrenic. This reasoning has its adherants, but, personally, I find it to be a tiresome argument where little of substance ever seems to derive from discussions which have this premise.

My 5 basic animal senses of touch, hearing, sight, etc. usually serve me well enough to verify the reality of things that I encounter in my daily life.

If my senses cannot detect the thing itself, the senses are often able to detect phenomena which arise as a result of that thing's existance. For example, up here in north Idaho, we can't see the air, but we can feel it when the wind blows. I understand that people in LA, however, can actually see the "air" on a smoggy day.

If I can't personally sense a thing either directly or indirectly, I am willing to accept that thing's validity from the reports of other people - depending. If 20 members from the cult outside of town all drop acid together and show up on my doorstep proclaiming that they have seen god or seen a pink elephant with purple stripes, I am unlikely to accept their statement as valid.

If my best friend who has never told a lie in his life or ever touched a mind altering substance, tells me about the pink elephant, I will feel concerned for his mental well-being. If, in addition, to my best friend's report, the head of the biology department also claims the animal to be in existance, I'll check my calendar to see if its April Fool's. If the pink elephant reports continue to come in over time and from a variety of sources, I'll begin to think that perhaps such an animal does indeed exist.

As for the existance of Undertoad, for all I know, you made him up, along with also making up people who claim to have actually seen him. I think it rather unlikely that you would go to such an elaborate ploy, but I suppose it's possible.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

I want to limit the metaphysical to exactly that ... those things which, if they exist at all, can by definition only exist as metaphysical entities. God is one example.

Certainly not; God in most religions has a quite physical existance.

We might say "Well, these things we call moral laws are the result of chemical reactions in the collective brains of a society, and are therefore physical and not metaphysical." This might be true, but if it is, then what we are really saying is that universal moral laws do not exist as such, and only appear to exist.

What that is saying is that universal moral laws are an emergent phenomenon. Which I'd claim is metaphysical.

[finding_nirvana]

I do not know what this thread is about, but I did find it interesting for a moment. I lost interest when I found that I could not understand what the basis of the argument was in the first place. Nothing can come of this post, but I just felt like I had to say so

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by finding_nirvana

I do not know what this thread is about, but I did find it interesting for a moment. I lost interest when I found that I could not understand what the basis of the argument was in the first place. Nothing can come of this post, but I just felt like I had to say so

finding or looking for?

[smoothmoniker]

sorry guys, there's a whole other part to my argument, this stuff is just background, but I've been slammed, and haven't had time to pull it together. I'll try to get it up later this week.

[mrnoodle]

I'm more interested in the state of my belief prior to verification. True, I could get on a plane, come visit you, get my bad self all sloppy up with cheesesteak, but prior to me actually doing that, I still have a justified true belief that you live in Philly. The point where we might disagree is that I think I'm able to call this belief "knowledge" in the normal sense. I have enough justification for my true belief that I can say "I *know* that UT lives in Philly.

My belief in the existence of UT can never be fully justified. There will always be some room for error, no matter how negligible. I can phly to philly, walk up the steps and ring the bell, and when UT answers, still not have "proof" that UT lives in Philly. Maybe this is someone pretending to be UT. Maybe I'm at the wrong house. Maybe he's just visiting. And what exactly is the definition of Undertoad? What is his core essence - not a physical body, which can conceivably be simulated, but the undeniable Undertoadness of Undertoad. How can I see it, verify its truth, and place it in Philly (if such a place even exists) to the point that absolutely NO unanswered questions remain? I can choose disbelief forever, based on the fact that not all factors can be simultaneously proven true.

So whether belief is justified is based entirely on personal interpretation. Your model accounts for absolute truth and falsity, but doesn't define what "good reason" is. Most importantly, it doesn't have a variable for "the price of tea in China", which is presumably the reason we're trying so hard to find this UT person.

[Undertoad]

It doesn't really matter to you whether I live in Philly (actually I live NEAR it which is a whole 'nother ball of wax). But it does matter to you whether or not the sandwich you just ate is not contaminated with food poisoning. So at some point you start to require better proof of things - or take it on, uh, some level of faith that the sandwich was OK?

[finding_nirvana]

Originally Posted by Beestie

finding or looking for?

I'm not sure what you are asking me, but all I was doing was placing a comment on this thread.

[Clodfobble]

He's asking about your username, whether you think you're actually finding nirvana or if you're just looking for it blindly like most people.

[finding_nirvana]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

He's asking about your username, whether you think you're actually finding nirvana or if you're just looking for it blindly like most people.

Most likely what you have suggested, I am searching for that inner peace, nothing yet.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Everyone I've met who claimed to have found inner peace were obviously deluded. I guess it's mind over matter* and "fat, dumb and happy" has something going for it.


*If you don't mind...it don't matter.