|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 12, 2017 4:54:46 GMT
Suppose we are watching a horse race. The race is close, but I was attending very carefully and I'm sure I saw horse A win. However, you were also attending very closely, and you're sure you saw horse B win. Assuming that neither of us is drunk, tired, or otherwise impaired, it seems that in this situation we should suspend judgement about whether A or B won the race. One of us must be wrong, and I have no reason to think that you're more likely to have made a mistake than me. So it would be irrational for me to retain my belief that A won.
Recently, a number of philosophers have argued that the same is the case for the more "weighty" disagreements that are found in philosophy, science, history, etc. It seems that people who are equally intelligent and equally well-informed about the relevant evidence and arguments can arrive at different conclusions about various issues. Plenty of intelligent, well-informed people believe in god; plenty of intelligent, well-informed people believe there is no god*. Both groups cannot be correct; and since they are about equally intelligent and well-informed, then it seems that neither has a good reason to think that the opposing side is more likely to have made the mistake. So they should all suspend judgement.
What do you think? Should we suspend judgement whenever we encounter intelligent, well-informed people who disagree with us? If not, what is the difference between disagreements such as the horse race example, and more "weighty" disagreements such as the existence of god?
* If you hold that intelligent, well-informed people are not to be found on both sides of the debate about god, just use a different example. For instance: plenty of intelligent, well-informed people are moral realists; plenty of intelligent, well-informed people are moral antirealists.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 12, 2017 5:05:24 GMT
Dead heat
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 12, 2017 5:13:20 GMT
In horse races, we wait for the fotofinish. In religion, there is no fotofinish available. Yet.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 12, 2017 5:25:34 GMT
In horse races, we wait for the fotofinish. In religion, there is no fotofinish available. Yet. So, you are saying we rely on the factual, verifiable evidence available.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Apr 12, 2017 6:44:52 GMT
I like your horse racing analogy. But in the case of religion there's a bet on the race so both sides are keen to keep arguing that their horse won...
If religion and the religious were content to keep their beliefs and their morality to themselves then it would be the equivalent of both people agreeing to disagree on which horse won. But whilst they trying to get laws passed that affect non-believers too and they keep trying to force their beliefs on defenceless children we have to keep arguing about something that can never be settled.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 12, 2017 8:51:44 GMT
I like your horse racing analogy. But in the case of religion there's a bet on the race so both sides are keen to keep arguing that their horse won... If religion and the religious were content to keep their beliefs and their morality to themselves then it would be the equivalent of both people agreeing to disagree on which horse won. But whilst they trying to get laws passed that affect non-believers too and they keep trying to force their beliefs on defenceless children we have to keep arguing about something that can never be settled. I don't like the analogy. Like religion, it is simplistic nonsense without foundation.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 12, 2017 13:19:59 GMT
In horse races, we wait for the fotofinish. In religion, there is no fotofinish available. Yet. Right, but before we have the fotofinish, the rational thing to do is suspend judgement. The mere fact that there is no "higher authority" we can appeal to in weightier debates such as religion doesn't show that it's rational to remain committed to our beliefs. Surely it would only show that we should suspend judgement permanently (or at least until a "higher authority" is found)? Suppose, for example, that when we look at the film of the horse race, it turns out to be severely damaged for some reason and so no longer shows which horse won. Would it then become reasonable for you to insist that horse A won? Surely not - you would have to admit that you'll never have good reason to believe one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 12, 2017 13:23:48 GMT
I like your horse racing analogy. But in the case of religion there's a bet on the race so both sides are keen to keep arguing that their horse won... If religion and the religious were content to keep their beliefs and their morality to themselves then it would be the equivalent of both people agreeing to disagree on which horse won. But whilst they trying to get laws passed that affect non-believers too and they keep trying to force their beliefs on defenceless children we have to keep arguing about something that can never be settled. I don't like the analogy. Like religion, it is simplistic nonsense without foundation. Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail where you think the analogy goes wrong?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 12, 2017 13:27:42 GMT
Stick to your opinion.
If it doesn;t affect the outcome, then it literally doesn;t matter unless you specifically want to argue about it, which is a fun exercise.
If settlement is the goal, then it's best to keep quiet.
However, if the decision does affect something, then it is perfectly acceptable to argue it for all eternity.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 12, 2017 13:28:26 GMT
well that is not really the case when its come to things like philosophy. No two sides would be of the exact same intelligence. Also in the analogy we are relying on our subjective experience.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 12, 2017 13:30:31 GMT
I like your horse racing analogy. But in the case of religion there's a bet on the race so both sides are keen to keep arguing that their horse won... If religion and the religious were content to keep their beliefs and their morality to themselves then it would be the equivalent of both people agreeing to disagree on which horse won. But whilst they trying to get laws passed that affect non-believers too and they keep trying to force their beliefs on defenceless children we have to keep arguing about something that can never be settled. True (& I would add secular authorities overstepping their bounds in relation to belief. Let the ladies wear burkas people), but this rarely happens. For example, like so many others you do not come on here whining about religion because your rights are impacted any more than I come on here to convert you.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 12, 2017 13:37:15 GMT
Can you suspend your beliefs? I can understand agreeing to disagree, or even conceding you might be wrong. But I think it takes a lot to be neutral about a topic. Especially if it's a topic you care about a lot.
It's also a problem that neutrality isn't always an option. Suppose we are working out how best to plan an economy. On one side, you have a bunch of very intelligent Marxists. On the other you have a bunch of very intelligent Austrian Schoolers. Since both are highly intelligent and well-educated we could declare it impossible to know who is right. But we still have to plan the economy. So do we go the Marxist route or the Austrian School route? Or perhaps some sort of mixed economy that both sides agree is bad?
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 12, 2017 13:37:21 GMT
well that is not really the case when its come to things like philosophy. No two sides would be of the exact same intelligence. Yeah, I think that one plausible response to this is just to deny that assumption that it's frequently the case that people who are equally intelligent, equally well-informed, etc, disagree on an issue. Importantly, it pretty much never happens that two people disagree on just one issue. I've found that when I argue with others about some philosophical question, we uncover disagreements about all sorts of related issues, often even including proper philosophical methodology. From my point of view, my interlocutor is wrong about nearly everything, and if that's the case then surely I should consider them to be epistemically inferior to me. On the other hand, this kind of attitude seems unreasonably arrogant, especially given that among the people who disagree with me are professional philosophers who, prima facie, are more intelligent than me and who have spent longer thinking about the issues than I have.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 12, 2017 13:44:41 GMT
Can you suspend your beliefs? I can understand agreeing to disagree, or even conceding you might be wrong. But I think it takes a lot to be neutral about a topic. Especially if it's a topic you care about a lot. Yes, I think people can suspend judgement, as evidenced by the many people who do in fact suspend judgement on the issues in question. It might be difficult to suspend judgement about a particular topic, but this is hardly an argument that it is rational not to suspend judgement. For somebody who promotes suspending judgement, the fact that we find it difficult to suspend judgement would only show that it's difficult to be rational, which is, I suggest, something we all already knew anyway. It's also a problem that neutrality isn't always an option. Suppose we are working out how best to plan an economy. On one side, you have a bunch of very intelligent Marxists. On the other you have a bunch of very intelligent Austrian Schoolers. Since both are highly intelligent and well-educated we could declare it impossible to know who is right. But we still have to plan the economy. So do we go the Marxist route or the Austrian School route? Or perhaps some sort of mixed economy that both sides agree is bad? It seems to me that this is a general problem, rather than a problem special to the view under consideration. Even if we think that suspension of judgement is not rationally required in response to mere disagreement, surely there are some circumstances where it is rationally required, but where we have to make a choice anyway. For example, suppose I'm climbing a mountain and I get caught in a snowstorm. There are two possible paths I can use to get back down. I don't know what the conditions on either path are like. Arguably, I should suspend judgement about which is the best path - but I still have to choose a path.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 12, 2017 13:46:54 GMT
well that is not really the case when its come to things like philosophy. No two sides would be of the exact same intelligence. Yeah, I think that one plausible response to this is just to deny that assumption that it's frequently the case that people who are equally intelligent, equally well-informed, etc, disagree on an issue. Importantly, it pretty much never happens that two people disagree on just one issue. I've found that when I argue with others about some philosophical question, we uncover disagreements about all sorts of related issues, often even including proper philosophical methodology. From my point of view, my interlocutor is wrong about nearly everything, and if that's the case then surely I should consider them to be epistemically inferior to me. On the other hand, this kind of attitude seems unreasonably arrogant, especially given that among the people who disagree with me are professional philosophers who, prima facie, are more intelligent than me and who have spent longer thinking about the issues than I have. well first of all how long one spends thinking about something does not necessarily make them more knowledgable. Secondly who decides who is themost intelligent? if it is me that is circular reasoning and it is self contradictory.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 12, 2017 14:00:19 GMT
Yes, I think people can suspend judgement, as evidenced by the many people who do in fact suspend judgement on the issues in question. It depends. I'm largely happy to suspend judgement on whether string theory is correct for instance because I don't really care if it is or isn't. Other things I'm less complacent about. Sure but I'm of the opinion that this striving for utter rationality is itself quite irrational. True. But then suspending judgement becomes a largely academic exercise as it doesn't affect your actions.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 12, 2017 14:20:27 GMT
It depends. I'm largely happy to suspend judgement on whether string theory is correct for instance because I don't really care if it is or isn't. Other things I'm less complacent about. That sounds more like "I don't want to suspend judgement" than "I can't suspend judgement". Few of us want to suspend judgement about topics that we've thought about carefully and hold firm opinions on. That's why this view poses a bit of a challenge. Could you explain your view here a little more? You're not keen on rationality at all, or you think rationality is appropriate in only some circumstances, or something else? I'd say that's already the case for plenty of debates in philosophy. Not much would change in my life if I came to believe that god exists, that numbers are mind-independent abstract entities, that personal identity is determined by psychological continuity, that colours are reducible to surface spectral reflectances, etc. For me, some things are just interesting to think about for their own sake.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 12, 2017 14:36:03 GMT
quote]That sounds more like "I don't want to suspend judgement" than "I can't suspend judgement". It's a bit of both. It's difficult for me in some situations certainly. Perhaps if I really put my mind to it I could do it but I don't always want to and I see no reason why I should in those cases. It's essentially my take on the is-ought problem. We can say it is rational to do X if you want Y. But we can't say it is rational to want Y. All our wants are ultimately irrational. Including the want to behave as rationally as possible. Therefore since it is irrational to always want to be rational, I don't mind being irrational at times. So if I don't want to back down on an issue I care a lot about, yes I am irrational. But it would be just as irrational for me to want to back down for the sake of being more rational. "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions" and all that. On that I can agree. But if it doesn't matter to your life whether you believe God exists, doesn't exist or remain neutral, why champion neutrality as preferable to the other two options?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 14:36:45 GMT
Suppose we are watching a horse race. The race is close, but I was attending very carefully and I'm sure I saw horse A win. However, you were also attending very closely, and you're sure you saw horse B win. Assuming that neither of us is drunk, tired, or otherwise impaired, it seems that in this situation we should suspend judgement about whether A or B won the race. One of us must be wrong, and I have no reason to think that you're more likely to have made a mistake than me. So it would be irrational for me to retain my belief that A won. An issue I have with these discussions, a debate about belief in god should be prefaced with a clarification of what one imagines god to be. I find this can cut the disagreements down significantly.
That said, in most cases the difference is most I know that don't 'believe' in god are doing just that... suspending their belief until evidence is provided to confirm, even willing to accept, at least in this life, that they may never have such confirmation. The believer is usually the one insisting on the winner before confirmation, to the point of building entire religions around the unconfirmed winner of the horse race... putting the Pope's wagon before the horse, so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 12, 2017 14:36:58 GMT
tpfkar To make the analogy work for me, at least one of the bettors would have to believe in the outcome prior to witnessing it, and also that bookies will gut him on the way out of the track if his horse in fact lost. see, the luck I've had, can make a good man turn bad
|
|