Logic VS, Faith

[Heyo]

So, you get a 'winner' rating for that, plus the contents of what's behind door number three. (That's a lame joke -- a reference to an old American game show. )

I got that one wrong until it was explained to me, again and again.
It really helped me to understand the weirdness of probability calculus.

 

[Sunstone]

Is that actually true?
I thought it was more an argument of what was established by reason and what by instinct.

Whilst he thought it impossible to reason that the sun would rise tomorrow, I didn't think he precluded having faith that it would. Indeed, to a degree his argument was that it is only faith that makes us believe this will happen.

Or am I mangling his logical position?

Hume was attacking the notion that inductive reasoning could lead to necessarily true conclusions. At the time of his writing -- in the early to mid 1700s -- it was widely assumed (based on a mistake or two made by Aristotle) that inductive reasoning could lead to necessarily true conclusions. Hume set us on the course we're on today -- that it cannot.

Now, it's been forty years since I studied Hume -- but your own study of him is more recent and much fresher than that -- and we both agree that he did not preclude having faith. So we have that much in common. However, I'm not sure Hume had any love of faith. I think he was more of a probabilistic thinker than we sometimes give him credit for, and to think it's probable the sun will rise tomorrow is significantly different from having faith the sun will rise tomorrow. But then again -- forty years is time enough to forget a whole lot of things. My impression of Hume as a probabilistic thinker could be way off. I'd have to brush up on it to be sure.

 

[Sunstone]

Correct, there is no knowledge as justified true beliefs.

Woah there, Big Guy! That's an indefensible statement unless you, Mikkel, are god and get to make the rules! Are you god?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Woah there, Big Guy! That's an indefensible statement unless you, Mikkel, are god and get to make the rules! Are you god?

It is conditional on humans remaining humans. Of course in principle God has knowledge, but since we have no knowledge of God and humans are not Gods, in practice as long as induction holds and the world remains the same, there is no knowledge as justified true beliefs.
We can imagine we have knowledge and consider what it means to have knowledge, but we can't do it in practice.
We run into Agrippa's trilemma for justification and the problem of what objective reality is other than being independent of the mind. I.e. the-thing-in-itself and the different skeptical versions of whether the world is fair or a computer simulated word and other versions.
So I am not claiming an absolute, I am stating a conditional claim. If knowledge remains as requiring a mind and reasoning, then as long as those limitations are in place, there is no knowledge of objective reality in practice in regards to what objective reality really is.

"...
3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label “relativist” to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a “pragmatist”, an “ironist” and an “ethnocentrist”.

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
..."
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[nPeace]

Faith is based on realities that are not seen, things that have been proved and are 100% reliable. An example, you have faith the sun is going to rise in the morning. Why is this? Because it has a proven track record of doing so in the past. The sun is there, was there before you were born, and will be there after you are gone.

But have you seen the sun rise tomorrow? Have you seen tomorrow come? Whether you are here tomorrow or not to see it, the sun is going to rise. You can have the assurance of that.

And just as surely as you can have faith that the sun will rise in the sky tomorrow you can have trust in the word of God. All that he says comes true. The visible creation is the evident demonstration of the invisible God who brought it into existence, even his eternal power and Godship.

The things we see with the eyes, these are the things that are ephemeral, fleeting, passing away, mere unrealities. While what is unseen is real and everlasting. Spiritual eyes to see perceive these truths. The fleshly eyes that only perceive what is in front of them have not the foresight to see into these everlasting realities.

Is there something wrong with the Winner button?
It only punches once.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hume was attacking the notion that inductive reasoning could lead to necessarily true conclusions. At the time of his writing -- in the early to mid 1700s -- it was widely assumed (based on a mistake or two made by Aristotle) that inductive reasoning could lead to necessarily true conclusions. Hume set us on the course we're on today -- that it cannot.

Now, it's been forty years since I studied Hume -- but your own study of him is more recent and much fresher than that -- and we both agree that he did not preclude having faith. So we have that much in common. However, I'm not sure Hume had any love of faith. I think he was more of a probabilistic thinker than we sometimes give him credit for, and to think it's probable the sun will rise tomorrow is significantly different from having faith the sun will rise tomorrow. But then again -- forty years is time enough to forget a whole lot of things. My impression of Hume as a probabilistic thinker could be way off. I'd have to brush up on it to be sure.

Well, I think your conclusions here match to my basic understanding, actually.
As I think we've discussed before, I don't have much in the way of formal training or education around philosophy or logic, so I would readily admit to finding it equal parts rewarding and frustrating when I do try and trawl through some.

Hume and Nietzsche are two of my...well...favourites is entirely the wrong term. Interesting thinkers, I guess. But my understanding of both is a long way short of where I'd claim much knowledge.

 

[MikeF]

You're conflating belief and knowledge just as @joe1776 was.

Not sure I get what you're saying. Obviously, as you have previously pointed to the dictionary, we often use the same word or label to represent several meanings. A synonym for one use of faith is the word hope. Hoping acknowledges that there is a chance things may not go as planned or desired. I am pushing back against the religious notion that despite what you see, feel, and think to the contrary one is required to have blind faith in that religious notion. To not have blind faith, you will be lost, or damned, or just plain miserable in an afterlife, that, oh by the way, the existence of which you must also take on blind faith.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not sure I get what you're saying. Obviously, as you have previously pointed to the dictionary, we often use the same word or label to represent several meanings. A synonym for one use of faith is the word hope. Hoping acknowledges that there is a chance things may not go as planned or desired. I am pushing back against the religious notion that despite what you see, feel, and think to the contrary one is required to have blind faith in that religious notion. To not have blind faith, you will be lost, or damned, or just plain miserable in an afterlife, that, oh by the way, the existence of which you must also take on blind faith.

Before I reply, can you please clarify what you mean by "religious notion?"

 

[Sunstone]

But my understanding of both is a long way short of where I'd claim much knowledge.

Well, given that very bright but still normal people spend whole careers trying to figure out all the implications of what those two geniuses thought about things, I'd say you're being justifiably modest. I started reading Nietzsche at 15, Hume a few years later. I took a 450 level seminar in Nietzsche. I still would not call myself well informed about either man's philosophy.

 

[MikeF]

Why only religion? Any belief without evidence is a belief without evidence and if you act on it, you have faith in it. At least faith in this sense: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. That is not limited to religion.

Again, it all depends on which use of the several uses of the word faith. Faith that is synonymous with hope is not the same thing as faith that is a belief held without evidence or even held despite contrary evidence. Hope acknowledges the possibility the belief held may not be warranted.
Complete trust or confidence in something or someone is only garnered through repeated experience that the expectation has been true and therefore will most likely remain true. Once there is a violation of that expectation, complete confidence and trust is lost. Simple as that. Outside of any experience whatsoever there is no evidence to form a belief, therefore the word belief does not apply. In these cases you are left with speculation, guessing and hoping, which is not the same as blind religious faith or belief.

Because the word faith is steeped in religious connotation and strongly associated with belief without evidence or contrary to the evidence, I would strongly discourage its use outside of this context.

 

[nPeace]

My brother. My dear brother @Eyes to See, I am more endeared to you, not only for your graciousness, but your love, ardor, courage, and other things which I won't mention now... but I want to thank you for your posts in this thread.
They put the meat on the bones, in all the right places. Now the lion is fat. Who can contend.

Here I am, six pages from your post, and no one has even attempted to touch your post with a ten foot pole.
I think you drove that nail in good.
One has to destroy the wood to get it out.

I normally wouldn't get much of a challenge to my responses on faith, but yours were much more simple, and complete. Like BRAM! 5 seconds out the oven, and we are eating.

So I just want to say thank you for staying connected to the source of wisdom (So good), and ask... 'Can I link to your posts here', in the event that this subject raises its ugly head again?
To me, it's like the Hammer said...

Spoiler

Cant touch this.

No offense with the gif. I know as a faithful brother, you probably, like me, don't "hang" with these guys.

Love it.

 

[PureX]

Yes, and there a people who believe 2 plus 2 equals five. So, the 'truth' of 2 plus 2 is "different for different people". But that does nothing to change the fact that some people are right and other people are wrong. Either there are ghosts or there aren't ghosts. There is no 'There are ghosts for Smith, but no ghosts for Jones'. At least that's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

That isn't the issue, though. The issue is that we can't know which is true so much of the time. Even though we are convinced that we do.

 

[MikeF]

Before I reply, can you please clarify what you mean by "religious notion?"

The notion that one should hold a system of religious beliefs without question and for which there is not proof, or in spite of contradictory evidence. For with proof, faith is not required.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The notion that one should hold a system of religious beliefs without question and for which there is not proof, or in spite of contradictory evidence. For with proof, faith is not required.

Not all religions have such a religious notion.

As stated in the first page (maybe second) of this thread, my religion is evidence based, not faith based. It's more of a philosophical worldview than a dogmatic one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, it all depends on which use of the several uses of the word faith. Faith that is synonymous with hope is not the same thing as faith that is a belief held without evidence or even held despite contrary evidence. Hope acknowledges the possibility the belief held may not be warranted.
Complete trust or confidence in something or someone is only garnered through repeated experience that the expectation has been true and therefore will most likely remain true. Once there is a violation of that expectation, complete confidence and trust is lost. Simple as that. Outside of any experience whatsoever there is no evidence to form a belief, therefore the word belief does not apply. In these cases you are left with speculation, guessing and hoping, which is not the same as blind religious faith or belief.

Because the word faith is steeped in religious connotation and strongly associated with belief without evidence or contrary to the evidence, I would strongly discourage its use outside of this context.

Yeah, but I still do it differently.

 

[MikeF]

Not all religions have such a religious notion.

As stated in the first page (maybe second) of this thread, my religion is evidence based, not faith based. It's more of a philosophical worldview than a dogmatic one.

And duly noted. Yes, it was a sweeping generalization. How about I qualify my statement by saying a statistically large number of religious notions are as I described. Does that still work?

 

[SalixIncendium]

And duly noted. Yes, it was a sweeping generalization. How about I qualify my statement by saying a statistically large number of religious notions are as I described. Does that still work?

I can live with that.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, but I still do it differently.

Meaning you fully embrace the value of faith as defined as a belief that something is true or correct, without question, without evidences, and even in spite of evidence to the contrary?

 

[MikeF]

That isn't the issue, though. The issue is that we can't know which is true so much of the time. Even though we are convinced that we do.

And so it depends what is at stakes, what the potential risks are. With low risk it is easy to assume, guess, hope that something is true. When the stakes are high, isn't it foolish to assume something is true without any evidence, or worse, contradictory evidence? Is not caution the better part of valor on high stakes issues?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Meaning you fully embrace the value of faith as defined as a belief that something is true or correct, without question, without evidences, and even in spite of evidence to the contrary?

No, I do use reason and evidence. They are just limited and can only get you so far.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

They don't work on morality, aesthetics, what is useful and important, and metaphysics.
You don't understand that there are other forms of truth than the one you use:
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I don't use your correspondence theory of truth. But I do use truth. A combination of weak coherence, pragmatism and deflationary truth as in the end what subjectively makes sense to me.
Or I do a combined version of phenomenology and transcendental idealism and figure out if it works for me. If it works, it is true.
You do truth differently and you can't understand how it can be done differently.

"...
3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label “relativist” to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a “pragmatist”, an “ironist” and an “ethnocentrist”.

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
..."

I use truth and evidence differently than you.
You want your reason and truth to apply to a "we". I just do it differently.