全 28 件のコメント

[–]smartalecvtphil. math, metaphysics, phil. science 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Cheese green unicorn blech. Therefore Santana.

[–]dangerzonesupervisor 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Clearly you hold a different set of premises than me. I agree to disagree.

[–]dentaliumPolitical philosophy 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (23子コメント)

No, I usually consider someone irrational when they arrive at conclusions that don't follow from their own premises.

[–]TubbyBud 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If someone comes the the conclusion that p, but know that p is dependent on q being true, yet hold the belief that q is false, then would that not make someone irrational.

[–]dentaliumPolitical philosophy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree.

[–]old_man_tom3[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Is that possible though? Where would they get their conclusions from then? Perhaps they're lying about their own premises.

[–]dentaliumPolitical philosophy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (19子コメント)

Is that possible though? Where would they get their conclusions from then?

They mistakenly think their conclusion follows from their premises.

[–]old_man_tom3[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Surely you need a certain set of premises or network of beliefs to make a mistake. In the JTB model, wrong justified by a false belief, justified by an infinite regression of false beliefs?

[–]dentaliumPolitical philosophy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (15子コメント)

In the JTB model, wrong justified by a false belief, justified by an infinite regression of false beliefs?

Could you clarify what you mean here?

[–]old_man_tom3[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (14子コメント)

If you are to believe anything it must be justified by another belief If it is false is must rely on another false belief because you can't infer something that is wrong from something that is true. Therefore if all beliefs rely on a network of justifying beliefs and a wrong belief entails that your prior belief is wrong then when one thing you belief is wrong everything is wrong this can't be correct however because people discard wrong knowledge all the time without discarding all their beliefs. Therefore since no belief can be false, because then all beliefs would therefore be false and that is not the case then there is no irrationality.

[–]dentaliumPolitical philosophy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

If you are to believe anything it must be justified by another belief

This isn't true.

a wrong belief entails that your prior belief is wrong

This isn't true either.

[–]old_man_tom3[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

So, are you basing it on Gettier? You actually believe Gettier?

[–]dentaliumPolitical philosophy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

It sounds like you're misunderstanding the JTB model of knowledge.

[–]old_man_tom3[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

The Tripartite theory of knowledge is an attempt to explain what is knowledge that is, what is the means of demarcation between a thought that might not be true (a belief) and a fact. The Tripartite theory of knowledge states that for one to possess knowledge three conditions must be first satisfied. Firstly, a belief must be held to be the case; you cannot know something without believing it the theory states. Secondly, the proposition must be true to be knowledge; otherwise it is just mere belief. The third condition given by the theory is justification, which is that in order for a belief to count as knowledge there must be a sufficient reason to believe that knowledge. These conditions are known together as justified true belief or abbreviated as JTB. An example of this is the following: (1) I believe that Paris is in France. (2) Paris is actually in France. (3) This is true because, having been in France, the Seine passed through the city and it is a French river.

Above is what I believe it to be, where be the misunderstanding?

[–]tacobellscannon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Therefore if all beliefs rely on a network of justifying beliefs and a wrong belief entails that your prior belief is wrong then when one thing you belief is wrong everything is wrong

Why would you think this? A person's web of beliefs can withstand minor revision without the entire thing falling apart. Surely you've been right about some things and wrong about others at the same time...

I think the problem is your assumption that "a wrong belief entails that your prior belief is wrong." Sometimes one belief leads to another via abduction or induction, and is therefore potentially wrong without invalidating the original belief. Not all beliefs are connected via deduction (if this were true, your claim might make sense).

[–]old_man_tom3[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Therefore if all beliefs rely on a network of justifying beliefs and a wrong belief entails that your prior belief is wrong then when one thing you belief is wrong everything is wrong

Because how can you infer a falsehood from something that is true?

[–]tacobellscannon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because induction and abduction don't guarantee the truth of the conclusion. This section from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy might help clarify things:

Deduction, induction, abduction

Induction and abduction are non-necessary inferences, which means they could lead you to conclude something false from a true premise.

Consider, for instance, the inference of “John is rich” from “John lives in Chelsea” and “Most people living in Chelsea are rich.” Here, the truth of the first sentence is not guaranteed (but only made likely) by the joint truth of the second and third sentences. Differently put, it is not necessarily the case that if the premises are true, then so is the conclusion: it is logically compatible with the truth of the premises that John is a member of the minority of non-rich inhabitants of Chelsea.

Here's another example I just thought up:

You're walking down the street and you see someone in a police officer's uniform. You believe this person is a cop, but it turns out you've actually walked into a movie set by accident and this guy is just an actor dressed up as a cop.

In this case, you've taken two true premises:

1) This man I see is wearing a police uniform
2) Most people wearing police uniforms are cops

And you've inferred a false conclusion:

3) This man I see is a cop.

That's how you can infer a falsehood from true beliefs!

[–]tacobellscannon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did my response make sense? Curious if it helped at all.

[–]Zaradon1generalist, epistemology 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://www.jimpryor.net/research/papers/Noninferential.pdf

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

Coherentism about epistemic justification is hardly the trivial matter that you seem to wanna make it out to be.

[–]tacobellscannon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Surely you need a certain set of premises or network of beliefs to make a mistake.

Nah, you don't. Some people just don't think things through. It could be a logical error, or even the absence of logical thinking. Hence the irrationality part... the lack of rationality. People aren't robots. Sometimes they just feel like something is true.

It sounds like you're asking "how is it possible to be irrational if you're following logical rules of belief formation?" But irrationality is defined in terms of broken/missing logic! So if you're following logical rules of belief formation, you're not irrational by definition.

A lot of belief formation is more complex than mere deduction (as I mentioned in my other comment) so there can certainly be times when an accusation of irrationality is thrown around without an objective basis. (For example, someone believes that it would be irrational to believe X considering the evidence, but someone else thinks the evidence is inconclusive and leaves room for X to be true. What counts as "irrational" may depend on the individual's epistemological standards.)

[–]old_man_tom3[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Some particular examples that come to mind, abortion, feminism, religion/atheism debates. Either side in all those sorts of debates appear to have a logic and rational all of their own.

[–]aRabidGerbil 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

People often make arguments that aren't valid at a formal level never mind informal fallacies

For example: if you've been arrested then you did something wrong, you weren't arrested so you obviously did nothing wrong

Or:

(A->W)

~A

∴~W

They're denying the antecedent

[–]mediaisdeliciousPhil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

People's reactions to the Monty Hall Problem are an interesting example here. Is it irrational to reject the Bayesian answer? If so, lots of people seem to be irrational.

http://www.montyhallproblem.com/