Basis of Belief

[AppieB]

Yes, but you don't just have one belief. You have several.

Do you also have several bases? Is there not an ultimate basis for what you believe about reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you also have several bases? Is there not an ultimate basis for what you believe about reality?

No, because reality is not one. It is several experiences and there is no one basis/method for them all.

 

[AppieB]

No, because reality is not one.

Are there more than one realities?

It is several experiences and there is no one basis/method for them all.

Maybe experience is the basis. How would you even have notion about one (or more) reality (realities)

 

[Sheldon]

Well, there is no foundational method for all of the world. Not even science.

You're missing the point, a foundational basis need not be the same in every instance. If I claimed I am inclined to disbelieve claims unless sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated to support them, then clearly the word sufficient is a qualifier that can vary, as it will necessarily differ depending on the claim. I might also wave the necessity of evidence entirely, if my acceptance of the claim was entirely inconsequential. There will be times when claims are unfalsifiable and no evidence can be expected for such claims, these would require me to be agnostic about such claims, but I would still disbelieve them all.

If a claim violates a principle of logic, or denies well established scientific facts then of course I'd be inclined to disbelieve them as well.

 

[Sheldon]

No, because reality is not one. It is several experiences and there is no one basis/method for them all.

That is itself a foundational belief, what criteria have you used to validate it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're missing the point, a foundational basis need not be the same in every instance. If I claimed I am inclined to disbelieve claims unless sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated to support them, then clearly the word sufficient is a qualifier that can vary, as it will necessarily differ depending on the claim. I might also wave the necessity of evidence entirely, if my acceptance of the claim was entirely inconsequential. There will be times when claims are unfalsifiable and no evidence can be expected for such claims, these would require me to be agnostic about such claims, but I would still disbelieve them all.

If a claim violates a principle of logic, or denies well established scientific facts then of course I'd be inclined to disbelieve them as well.

Well, yes, but both being morally good or bad is without objective evidence and you can't decide good or bad with logic. Note, if you can submit your find to a relevant scientific organisation.
So if you act based on good or bad, you do so without objective evidence and logic. That is the limit of your world view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is itself a foundational belief, what criteria have you used to validate it?

Well, I don't do cognition like you. So I do it differently. To me it appears to work as useful, so that is it. Since this one -
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
can't be validated and is in the end a belief without objective evidence and logic, I don't try to validate it. It apparently works for me to believe in it and it appears useful to me.
But there is still this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[AppieB]

So if you act based on good or bad, you do so without objective evidence and logic.

But you use objective evidence and logic to determine whether an action does something good or bad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you use objective evidence and logic to determine whether an action does something good or bad.

No, I use my feelings.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[Sheldon]

Well, yes, but both being morally good or bad is without objective evidence and you can't decide good or bad with logic.

Correct morals are subjective.

Note, if you can submit your find to a relevant scientific organisation.

What find?

So if you act based on good or bad, you do so without objective evidence and logic.

Not necessarily, while morals are necessarily subjective, how we best achieve moral goals need not be.

That is the limit of your world view.

Straw man, I mentioned no "world view". We are discussing the basis for belief.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, I don't do cognition like you. So I do it differently. To me it appears to work as useful, so that is it. Since this one -
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
can't be validated and is in the end a belief without objective evidence and logic, I don't try to validate it. It apparently works for me to believe in it and it appears useful to me.
But there is still this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Works for you how? What criteria do you use to assess whether a belief is true, correct, or valid?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Not necessarily, while morals are necessarily subjective, how we best achieve moral goals need not be.
...

There is no objective "we" there. That "we" is social, cultural and thus relative. Now if you can find an objective "we", please submit your finding to a relevant scientific organization. You will have done something no other human have done in recorded history.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Works for you how? What criteria do you use to assess whether a belief is true, correct, or valid?

I don't hold the same beliefs about true, correct and valid like you do. That is a result of cognitive relativism.

 

[Sheldon]

There is no objective "we" there. That "we" is social, cultural and thus relative.

Thus it is a "we", since societal morals are based on a broad consensus. We cannot all agree all the time on everything, that's a given, so we set our moral goals by broad consensus, at least in democracies, and once we do that we can used objective evidence and methods to help us determine how to best achieve them.

However you are pulling us off topic again, which is about the basis for our beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't hold the same beliefs about true, correct and valid like you do. That is a result of cognitive relativism.

You haven't answered my question, what criteria do you use to evaluate a belief or disbelief?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Works for you how? What criteria do you use to assess whether a belief is true, correct, or valid?

I don't use those words like you. I am a global skeptic. You are a scientific skeptic. We are not the same. We might both be some kind of atheists, but that is all.
Start here:
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
So which truth are you talking about? What kind of valid or correct?

And, yes, a part of the everyday world is objective, but that doesn't solve what truth, valid or correct is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thus it is a "we", since societal morals are based on a broad consensus. We cannot all agree all the time on everything, that's a given, so we set our moral goals by broad consensus, at least in democracies, and once we do that we can used objective evidence and methods to help us determine how to best achieve them.

However you are pulling us off topic again, which is about the basis for our beliefs.

Okay, I believe the world is fair in the epistemological sense and we are not Boltzmann Brains and what not. That doesn't tell me how to live me life thought. That is another set of beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You haven't answered my question, what criteria do you use to evaluate a belief or disbelief?

That it works for me. Now for different contexts I use different versions of works.

 

[Sheldon]

yes, a part of the everyday world is objective,

How do you know this to be true, or correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How do you know this to be true, or correct?

I don't. But it seems to work.
So again, if you can solve this one:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
Please write to a relevant scientific organisation.