Trusting your own mind
Everyone can be rash, everyone can be stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason.
My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about.
What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse with others which may be either just as misinformed or very much astute and correct?
Is there an universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one?
My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about.
What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse with others which may be either just as misinformed or very much astute and correct?
Is there an universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one?
Comments (98)
Over time, IF we are persistent and studious, we can reduce the amount of delusion and misinformation on which we were operating, say 10 years ago. In other words, rear-view vision is better than forward-facing vision.
The delusion de jour is that I am less deluded in my old age than I was in youth or middle age. One piece of evidence is that I don't seem to be struggling against "reality" as much as I used to. Not nearly as much. Age and the ever-closer proximity of death eliminates many of the issues that concerned us in the past. Numerous options are closed now, and over which one might have dithered in the past.
You are asking: "what is true?"
What one knows is what has been. What another knows one might learn if one pays attention quietly to what they are saying without rehearsing what one knows over, to compare. Your question arises when there is a conflict. One thinks one knows and then discovers that one was wrong, and there is no conflict if one is ready to learn. Only if one tries to hold on to one's knowing does the conflict arise. So one learns that a conflicted mind is the infallible sign.
Quoting BC
This!
[quote=Tao Te Ching]Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.
So sometimes things are ahead and sometimes they are behind;
Sometimes breathing is hard, sometimes it comes easily;
Sometimes there is strength and sometimes weakness;
Sometimes one is up and sometimes down.
Therefore the sage avoids extremes, excesses, and complacency.[/quote]
Given that we acknowledge that we sometimes make mistakes in conversation, we must in some way - I won't attempt here to say just how - be able to identify in reflection when we are mistaken. It then seems that by being careful enough in conversation and pausing to reflect on what has been discussed, we should similarly be able to identify whether we have gone astray in the present as we have done in the past. If we aren't able to decide whether we are somehow misguided in our present conversation by reflecting on our prior mistakes, we might want to pause and ask "what am I actually arguing for, based on what premises, and how could they turn out to be false?"
Quoting unenlightened
This reply seems insightful to me: if you approach conversation topics by trying to learn instead of trying to hold on to and state what you already take to know, you cannot be mistaken as there are no stupid questions (at least to some extent).
:up:
I recommend becoming expert at something that involves working with the way things are in reality, where reality will let you know if you are bullshitting yourself about what you know.
In doing so, one can develop recognition of what it is to have expertise, and distinctions between what it is to have expertise and to not have expertise.
I have a pretty firm grasp on some subjects, it's insecure on others and there are some that I have not been able to grasp at all (and some in which I have no interest). I have collected reliable information on some subjects, sketchy on others and and there are some subjects on which my information is fragmentary at best. I know which is which, so I'm confident discussing the ones I'm sure of; the ones I'm not sure of, I check sources before making a statement; the ones in which I'm completely at sea, I steer clear of.
In the past year or two, I've had to resort to memory aids even in areas where I used to be articulate: I forget names, the correct terminology and quantities. (I also forget peas cooking on the stove and have destroyed several pots, but that's another matter.)
In idle chat, it matters much less whether one's information is strictly accurate, as long as it's plausible and inoffensive. I do make a reasonable effort to avoid calling other people morons, even if I know their opinion is ill-informed.
As for delusions, I've been fortunate enough not to be subjected to intensive indoctrination and it's some help to be an immigrant, so that one can compare very different points of view without necessarily embracing either. If I still have illusions about things like the perfectibility of systems, institutions or humankind, they're fading fast.
One Art
Elizabeth Bishop 1911 1979
The art of losing isnt hard to master;
so many things seem filled with the intent
to be lost that their loss is no disaster.
Lose something every day. Accept the fluster
of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.
The art of losing isnt hard to master.
Then practice losing farther, losing faster:
places, and names, and where it was you meant
to travel. None of these will bring disaster.
I lost my mothers watch. And look! my last, or
next-to-last, of three loved houses went.
The art of losing isnt hard to master.
I lost two cities, lovely ones. And, vaster,
some realms I owned, two rivers, a continent.
I miss them, but it wasnt a disaster.
Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture
I love) I shant have lied. Its evident
the art of losings not too hard to master
though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.
Thanks. She didn't get to do it very long, did she? I've been at this a little while longer, and the fear of losing our minds or each other is very much a looming disaster in old age.
Not only what is true, but is truth a spectrum or just binary (true or false), are some things more true than others, how do we compare in any meaningful way subjective and objevtive truths, how long are things true for or are things in the past present and future true regardless of whether they endure or not, or whether they have happened or not, or whether we know of them or not, how do we qualify what is true - what ought proof be? Are there unknowable truths? If so what use are they to us? Who knows more or the most of what is true and who knows the least.
It's a broad rumination about truth in general. But yes I am asking "what is true". As well as its auxiliary questions.
Well there's the crux of the situation. How do you know that for absolute verbatim truth.
Ive often been convinced I knew which was which to later be sorely corrected. Isn't everything we hold as beliefs attributed some sort of self appointed veracity (otherwise we wouldn't believe them) despite what others or reality for that matter might suggest upon "testing the metal".
I think to know exactly where ones knowledge ends and their ignorance or delusion begins - suggests omniscient qualities of total awareness.
Surely ignorance begins somewhere within "that which you believe to be true and known" which is in fact, incorrect. That which one is adamant they know to be true, but which is not.
Absolute verbatim and exact? Nobody knows that except the omniscient fictitious being. When I'm not sure enough, I check. Most of my life, I have done well enough with a close approximation of what works: have never fallen off a roof or been booed off a stage or poisoned my family with a dinner or caused any grievous harm to patients through misapplication of lab protocol.
It's a bit late to start questioning everything I count on from day to day.
I only ask because as far as I've considered: scientific method has its limitations, philosophy is all too often bogged down by semantics and a viscious cycle of "what do you mean exactly by....", spirituality is at best vague and religions cannot shirk many of their arbitrary and dogmatic principles.
So it seems looking for something fundamental, trustworthy and true either exists and requires factoring in all of these pillars of society or...fundamental truths aren't accessible to us, or ....and probably the most unencouraging of them all...absolute truths don't exist..
Whatever the case may be the limits of trust in the experience and knowledge of others, as with the self, only go so far. The rest is in the realm of the unknown, the uncertain.
Quoting BC
Ah, don't feel bad. Humans have been doing that forever. Road signs. Language. Landmarks.
I believe people are more alike than they are different. We are all subjected to competing influences as children -- on into adulthood -- that become determining factors as we age. Times and circumstances change for individuals and different influences come to the foreground. An individual may push towards greater wisdom (aka, a wider, more perceptive perspective) or one's delusions may become exaggerated.
We hold ourselves individually responsible for what happens to us (it's in our cultural DNA). To some extent, we are responsible. But one of the benefits of the wider perspective is recognizing where we were, and were not, the prime movers in our life history, and that's just the way it is.
So no, there's nothing special about my specific case. I am grateful things didn't turn out as badly as they might have.
But at least the people who use it know not only that it has limitations, but where those limits currently are: that's where the leading edge of research is. When they domesticated laser technology, they learned enough about it to restore the sight of 28 million people in the world. That couldn't happen if the ophthalmic surgeons second-guessed their knowledge every day.
In order to do anything, we have to trust our knowledge of something.
Philosophy is largely speculative and prescriptive. Nobody's life life depends on a philosopher being right in his theories. As for religion, it deals in certainty (assurance, reassurance, moral ascendancy, trust, faith) without knowledge.
Quoting Benj96
If goes far enough to allow individuals, enterprises, cities and nations to function. Maybe not perfectly, but without some degree of confidence in what we're doing, we would be utterly paralyzed.
Quoting Benj96
And that unknown will just have to wait patiently until we either figure it out or don't.
The pandemic did a number on the brain of all of us.
So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case?
Both in sum, context-sensitive, consistent and coherent, contradiction/fallacy-free, fact-based (as much as possible) and parsimonious discursive practices. Indefeasibility, however, is not required (though certainty lack of evident grounds to either doubt or disbelieve relevant assumptions and statements (Witty) greatly helps to preserve a discussion from devolving into a circle-jerk of empty rhetoric). YMMV.
That's an interesting question. However such a universal algorithm, method or truth principal for all counts would have to transcend the hard problem, for a start. Unifying both objevtive scientific truths and personal/ subjective/ experiential or private ones.
Not only that, it would have to be so depersonalised that I wonder if human perception, cognition or language is simply too flawed, imprecise or biased to ever fully appreciate it without immediately corrupting it upon interpretation.
I think it is likely that some universal primordial rule or phenomenon does exist that gave rise to every phenomenon in existence. But because its so "undifferentiated" for lack of a better word, that qualifying it is probably inherently impossible.
How does one qualify the universal quality? How does one define that which defines everything? In any meaningful or practical way.
As you have probably realised by now this seemingly parallels with the Eastern philosophy/ spirituality of Daoism/Taoism. An unspoken or unspeakable truth that runs through nature.
Should it indeed exist, the greatest question would be how close can we come to knowing it. Is simple acknowledging we cannot know it the greatest definition one can achieve? Reminds me of Socrates "I know that I know nothing".
This is very true. In a way we need to trust something even if we have no concrete nor absolute evidence as to why.
Quoting Vera Mont
I'm inclined to believe it's a moving target. I think knowledge and uncertainty are mutually dependent and you simply cannot remove one entirely without destroying the other.
This is basically the path to the slippery slope caused by the fear of skepticism, from Descartes.
It is now some years since I detected how many were the false beliefs that I had from my earliest youth admitted as true, and how doubtful was everything I had since constructed on this basis; and from that time I was convinced that I must once for all seriously undertake to rid myself of all the opinions which I had formerly accepted, and commence to build anew from the foundation (First Meditation, p. 1)
The disappointment @Benj96 feels about our limitations leads to the same place as the surprise that Descartes experiences. It creates the question: How does one know? (What is true? as @Banno puts it.) Now the question is taken as: What is the litmus test?, but not examining this first step, as Wittgenstein says (PI 308), commits us to a particular way of looking at the matter which leads us to where Descartes ends up, which is: how can we be certain? (as @180 Proof says we aspire to, then admit is unattainable) Trapped in that picture, but without an answer, we resign ourselves to confidence, approximations (as philosophy puts it: appearance, subjective, belief).
Im trying to point out that the reason for wanting an answer, is that we want to avoid our disappointment and surprise, to not just know when that is the case [when we are being rash stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason], but to know it beforehand, before we speak, before we commit ourselves to error or immorality (or to even take us out of the picture altogether, substituting us with depersonalized knowledge, as @Benj96 suggests). This desire is how we slide from doubt to hoping knowledge will save us (from being wrong, from being human).
What we overlook is that: there are ways to fix our screw-ups, after the fact (apart from certain predictable knowledge). Our everyday remedies are why Wittgenstein is trying to get us to look at the bigger picture (PI 122)the ordinary workings (Grammar) of each activity. Austin will point out that our unavoidable fallibility is why we have excuses, correction, apologies, etc.why he focuses on how things fail rather than trying to find something perfectwhich hinge more on accepting responsibility (as @BC points out), than knowledge. The continuing nature of discourse is the vehicle from our past errors to our redemption (the awareness @Max2 suggests that we may acknowledge, about ourself); not the solidity of any universal or circumstantial knowledge, logic, or reasoning.
I'd kind of hoped that by asking the question, the absurdity of the idea would become apparent. Could the same algorithm answer questions as diverse as how black holes function and if she loves you?
Quoting Antony Nickles
See the thread on Rings and Books for more on this.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Excellent answer.
They attempt, however limited, to stretch out all possibilities through which they may fail or be found in error and through humble admittance acknowledge honestly what their true intentions are no matter how arrogant or self-centered. That they don't hide behind authoritative labels, arguments for tradition, or throw out terms indicating their presumptuous forcing of your opinion. Such as truth, objectivity, proven, obvious, rational, etc. They leave as few absolutes besides the most significant ones they wanted to get across but still proliferate their discussion with open endings.
To me its how honest they are of why they do what they do or at least they appear to be presenting that as much. Isn't acknowledging ones' faults seen as a strength?
Well I gave you an answer based within absurdity did I not? Something that is unapproachable, unknowable.
Also I'd like to take this time to commend you on your synesthesis of the various input of different interlocutors in the discussion. It's very refreshing to see a multitude of "in-discussion" references being made in a single post. Well done on that.
In the face of the truth of the human condition that it is possible for things to go wrong, come to a place we are lostthat our very lives might clashwe fixate that it is always a matter of trial and error (or appearance and reality; reason or feeling; objective or subjective) and create the fantasy of first universal principles to avoid our responsibility to look closer to see how we are ordinarily able to work things out, or work harder to become intelligible to each other, because we always can.
I'm not convinced that the desire for a universal principal is simply the result of us wanting to shirk our responsibility or culpability.
Is it a fantasy either? Who really knows. For me that's like saying the desire to understand gravity is a way for us to avoid the responsibility of looking closer at why we pushed Joanne over and made her fall to the ground.
We do not want gravity to be a universal principal; it already is one. We want a rule about what is right to be like gravity, because then if we follow it, we could never be judged to be wrong. If a good act were like a science experiment, the results would always be the same, so it wouldnt matter who did it.
Thats not to say shirking our duty is the only reason for wanting certainty. Cavell generalizes it as not wanting to have a voicenot be a singular limited human. Kant killed off our connection to what we find important in the world (in his terms, the thing-in-itself) because we didnt meet his standard of certainty. But, as Wittgenstein shows, it is our interest in things that create the shared judgments and criteria that reveal what is essential to us about anything. Thus why someone like Emerson has us believe in ourselves, follow our whim, skate on the surface of appearance. If we recognize that we might err, we are less likely to doubt ourselves, but also not need to think of ourselves as infalible, thus able to be less dogmatic. So instead of an epistemological endeavor, we have virtues like trust, humility, openness, forgiveness, etc.
We should try to avoid harming ourselves and others as we stumble around in semi-darkness. We can learn to avoid some stumbling blocks, but even in avoidance we may encounter others. Whatever light we find leaves much else in darkness. As the old joke goes, you should not expect to find your keys by going round and round the lamppost at night because that is where the light is.
All too often answers serve to obscure the questions. One thing we should learn from reading books is the limits of what can be found in books. Another is that the ability to ask questions does not mean that there must be answers. One of the most important questions is whether we are asking the right questions.
If the speaker is speaking in earnest*, who am I to judge? Why would I deny myself the opportunity to "play ball" with anyone who truly just wants to play ball?
*(I suppose, including if they are being earnestly comedic, satirical, absurd, etc. That is, "earnest" is related to "intention" not "delivery" )
Yes, especially for me, I realize how I am "harming" others when my language is reckless and imprecise. But everyone should be permitted to stumble in the darkness. We are all there anyway.
Quoting ENOAH
The irony is that we of course would have to judge whether they are being earnest (or not). But even if we are not determining whether the content is, say, true, there are means to judge, as it were, the person. However, I would argue that there is a false bar for earnest or profound or serious. It sets up a picture that there is always an intention or meaning that we add or give our words (not to say that we cannot choose our words deliberately). If we should trust in ourselves, we absolutely do trust others (what they say and do) in the ordinary course of business. Thus why we only ask what they intended when something doesnt go as we would expect (Did you intend to insult the Queen in thanking her?). Regularly there is no need to discuss intention or meaning or earnestness. What we judge is the negative, when be betray our words. Lying, joking, being under compulsion, like making a promise and not keeping it (or deciding not to keep it ahead of time), these are what we judge. Imagining we are judging whether a speaker has some internal commitment (or not), is exactly what opens the door to allow them to say something like, I didnt mean it, which is to want to slide out of the consequences of our acts (if not to say, I said the wrong thing). People should be taken at their words, so they can be held to them as well.
Hah! And so the thing writes on.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I can't disagree [assume my "position" above (if it even is a position; its melting under the heat lamp of your examination (gratitude)) was "self aware" that it was itself, alas, just another in an endless chain of speakers. But what? Am I not to speak? (smiling).]. In other words, save for the eloquence, I might have written the very statement*. But I may not have followed your path. And, I would "argue" there's a false bar for most, if not all words, not just earnest etc.
*(I already recocognize, to your surprise. Sorry. That's frustrating because it seems Im at best switching positions, but more seeming contradictory. And if thats the case, I suggest 1. I don't say this harshly, you're focused on the path. Obviously. That's a proper tool of philosophy. 2. I am discussing my thoughts approached at different "layers" and am poor at articulating that.)
Quoting Antony Nickles
Ok. Yes. Completely agree. I was hasty, excited. I should pause. And the tragedy is, I still stand behind the "essence" of my thought. That's the crisis of being impatient as I am. Not with my thoughts mind you which simmer like a slow brew. My expression on this forum. Sorry. And thank you.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yes. Why disagree?
Quoting Antony Nickles
Ok. That too. It was dysfunctional, my statement. I agree! Nice. Wow. I was careless.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Beautiful. Listen. I'm not kidding. Funny thing is, I don't abandon my general thinking (and I tell you that not to hang on to some morsel of righteousness but to show you... hah! I did not plan this. I was just about to say, tovshow you my earnest.)
Anyway you're right, and that was well put. I appreciate it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/18lbtt9/how_do_i_as_a_layman_know_evolution_is_correct/
The guy who made the thread, somehow, came to distrust his own ability to reason and discern fact from fiction. I think many of the responses he gets are illuminating and contain at least some tidbits of wisdom.
You should NOT trust your mind, but you can gain trust in certain beliefs by applying critical thinking: seek out contrary opinions, test your beliefs through discussion with others (like on this forum), attempt to mitigate confirmation bias by trying to identify objective reasons to support or deny some presumption you may have. Learn at least some basics of epistemology (including the limits of each technique).
And I did not mean to suggest that you were wrong, only to point out something overlooked generally in these cases.
Quoting ENOAH
And this is exactly why the unfolding of discussion is important philosophically. We do state things poorly at timeswithout reflecting on all the considerations, or using language lazily (one word for another, or with a kind of you-know-what-Im-getting-at vaguery), or in-the-spirit-of aspiration. In seeing that meaning is not something we put into words (or that is held only by them), or that is grasped immediately, we understand the possibility in discourse for clarification, learning, self-discovery. So I am not suggesting that we shouldnt speak without having considered something from every angle, as if we could speak perfectly, completely. I would say that part of the goal of discussion is to give the other as much benefit as possible; not to look for the first logical error, but to develop their argument to be as strong as we canas Socrates does (right before he kills it with his predetermined criteria)to put ourselves in the others shoes intellectually, to consider every expression as possible of more intelligibility than on its face, or first glance. If we are able to read others and judge them by what they say (as language implies expectations, consequences, connotations, criteria for judgment), we can also, as it were, put better words in others mouths, make explicit those implications for them.
Quoting ENOAH
The essence of your thought can be pictured as a special object that you have, an essence apart from a gist, or crux, or point. To imagine meaning or thought are things that we put into words is to claim we always have ownership and control of language, which comes from the desire to be unknowable, to retain our feeling of being unique, me, without demonstration. And this is an occasion to explicate the ordinary workings of earnestness (rather than some imagined connection to philosophical intention). To say you did not articulate what you wanted to say is in one sense to ask to be forgiven for giving the impression of being flippant. And also, to desire to be understood, not dismissed, to ask for help in bettering ourselves. However, earnestness is not imbued into what we say, it is demonstrated; as you say, it is shown, by not abandoning. The whole nature of expression (as Wittgenstein uses it), is that it is by you (not of you), that you are expressed by what you say; so that in standing behind what you say, you are answerable for it. And so the testament of your earnestness is not to claim you are earnest, it is to take up what your have said, in earnest, i.e., with commitment, with resolve to get to the bottom of it, to work to articulate it better, fuller. In that spirit:
Quoting ENOAH
I take this as a plea for leniency from criticism, as, per the analogy, before I even take the field. I think of the denial that Positivism determined about our ability to speak about ethics, or Kants setting aside our desire to understand what we find to be essential about the world, or Platos dissatisfaction with our ordinary understandings, all because of their requirements for knowledge before we even get underway. And also that we be allowed to play, speak provisionally, think creatively, outside the box of argument and conclusion even. And this open opportunity I also take as a call for collaboration rather than combative disagreement, as the game of discourse is always with the other, which is the possibility of the unknown, the different.
Separately:
Quoting ENOAH
I take this as the imposed criteria philosophy creates for: appearing, thinking, being, knowing, believing, understanding, etc. But, if you would, then feel free to.
But that is not a case of distrusting ourselves, but of not trusting science, specifically our ability to tell good science from bad. What makes a scientific conclusion a fact is not correspondence, but repeatability, that anyone could do the same experiment and reach the same answer. Science is contingent on: 1. that the experiment is done competently, and based on the scientific method, isolating the question, etc., and 2. that it is a matter that responds to such a method (science cannot answer every type of thing).
Quoting Relativist
We of course have the ability to develop our skills of thinking things through, analyzing our opinions and assumptions, and considering other perspectives. But there is a difference between ensuring what you say is correct, and how you conduct yourself in and after saying it. So to say you should not trust your mind (yourself)as I, and Emerson, argue against aboveis perhaps different than saying you should not trust the opinions you have or inherited.
That's... 100% a matter of trusting himself. He literally spells it out in his own words in the post and/or comments.
"I have no ability"
His talking about *himself* and his own ability to reason first and foremost.
Consider a devotee of Infowars, who routinely accepts conspiracy theories. Aren't you suggesting they should trust their opinions?
You mention the role of one's conduct, so are you suggesting that the conspiracy theorist just needs to conduct himself in a certain way? Is the right conduct going to lead to him correcting his errors, or are you just suggesting he ought to be polite about his irrational beliefs?
Yes, I understood you that way. My "I can't disagree," was not an expression of regret nor capitulation, more celebratory.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yes. If only, right? Because out of that kind of marriage there will be the healthiest, least incestuous, offspring.
Quoting Antony Nickles
If one wishes to grow (that is, as in the action of growing (some)thing; not as in the selfish "act" of growing oneself) then how else
Quoting Antony Nickles
Oh. Wow. Right! My attachment. Ok. Thank you. I'm going to read on, but say no more.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yes. Yes. You've awakened me. (I know this may read one way.) Let me assure you, I'm being serious. The thing is, I still hold to the essence etc etc. But, just as you did, a few words back about my attachment, you've reminded me that, after all, my essence, too, is imagined. As Chet Hawkins would say, I'm going to read on.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Ok, then is it, not in the speaker, but the receiver? The receiver interprets the committed "action" as earnest? Hence, speaker's intention is irrelevant?
Maybe that's not what you mean, or maybe, if it is, you're "right".
Where I'm currently settled is that (notwithstanding my previous "flippancy") "earnestness" is neither in the speaker (intent) nor in the receiver (interpretation) and (perhaps frustratingly to our conventional logic) it's in both. Why? Because it is imbued in the "word." But , reluctance to use up space, I'll move on. If there is interest in explanation, it will manifest autonomously as do "earnestness" and all other representations surfacing from time to time and structuring these experiences (such as, the cause and effect of "good words," whether it is in "earnestness" or not, etc.).
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yes, completely. The self-same "you", a device used to carry expressions into the Narrative. And I agree with you: you are (from your current angle, manifesting to others as) what you say. I just arrived there differently you are (from my current angle) what you say. Hence, to answer the OP, should we really ever judge whether one is talking crap or (within the rules of a strict system) "knows" what they're talking about? Isn't the safest thing to do ( outside of ignoring hate speech, trolling or clowning, for strictly functional purposes (I'm not denying that there are corresponding moral reasons, i just lump them together)) to listen to what anyone says, and then judge it as to its fitness for belief based upon the criteria applicable to the given locus; I.e., if logic is the Host, it better meet logic. If it's Art, creativity is the criteria, and so on.
The thing is, for a Philosophy Forum, I sense there are schools of thought on what the parameters are. I think that's what was likely getting at, wittingly, or not.
Quoting Antony Nickles
My strictly "philosophical" reasoning is my belief that great discoveries can arise out of a free as possible flow of ideas in forums like these. I'm very excited to be a witness to this. I hope I don't sound pretentious when I say it reminds me of the Salons of the French Enlightenment.
If I were to psychoanalyse my mind, the last representations (thoughts) concerning that plea for leniency, the ones which finally tipped the scale, triggering that plea to "leave my mind," and enter the world upon these pages, was that I have noted with discomfort sometimes at how frustration emerges like a virus until some seemingly decent posts become infected.
But maybe if I dig deeper, what you observed is true. But my surface thinks the contrary, I thirst for criticism. My apologetic tone relates more to my gratitude. Being a new immigrant to this forum, already enriched by its great
people, it's important to me not to carelessly frustrate anyone.
Well, yes, it is a matter of knowledge, though Im not sure it is a problem with knowledge. I wouldnt say we have an issue with our criteria to tell good science from bad, though we might politicize its relevance. All I am claiming is that the OP is more a matter of recognizing (acknowledging) error than ensuring certainty because knowledge does fail us, and then we are left with the conduct of our discourse with each other.
The other does not interpret earnestness, as if it were a matter of confusion or seeing correctly. Because of the way earnestness works, the other judges whether my words and actions are evidence that meet the ordinary (but usually implicit) criteria of what we count as being earnest (commitment, followthrough, not giving up, doing a deep dive, etc.) and acknowledges that I have made a showing of earnestness, or whether I am still faking, putting on a show, etc. So it is a rational determination, but towards instilling faith and trust. The act or word does not have an air of earnestness (it is not imbued in them); I make a demonstration of rising to the level that proves** (to you) that I am not inconstant, etc. (**Now of course when I say rational, I mean subject to discussion and settlement, but the outcome is uncertain, as it is a matter of our relationshipso perhaps I wont be fooled again, that nothing you could do or say could make me see you as serious when you, say, still refuse to choose allegiances, etc.)
If we arent going to call determining good science from bad a skillsay, that anyone competent could performand we take it as a matter of instilling trust, as in beliefwhich in philosophy is code for something we might be uncertain about, or that rests on uncertain groundsthen I would say that is politicizing epistemology. And so it is not that he doesnt trust his (own) ability to reason, but he (secretly?) doubts the (all of our) ability to rationally be certain about our knowledge through science at all.
All I am claiming separately is that there is a distinction between the kinds of things we can be certain of, and those which may lead to an outcome that falls apart (politics, moral acts, etc.), and that philosophy sometimes wants to treat the second like the first (or relegate it to irrationality).
If he doubts his own ability to reason, and his own ability to reason leads him to think he should trust science, then OF COURSE he's going to doubt if he should trust science. Just read his words. He spells it out, I'm not speculating. He literally says he doesnt trust his own reasoning abilities.
Ok, sure. I used "interpret" carelessly.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Ok, I follow that. I say that "rational determjnation" though seemingly not, is an autonomous dialectic. And the "instilling faith," if achieved, is the (temporary and temporal) settlement of that dialectic, commonly called belief and confused for not being knowledge.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Not an "air" as if "magical". The word has an evolved (in both each individual and History) function of triggering the movements/arrangements of other words which eventually trigger conditioned Feelings which eventually trigger actions
(more mental/or physical) .
All of this process seems to contain
"intent" "deliberation" a "self". Hence these discussions etc. But there is no "trusting your own mind" directed by that "you". It is all just the movements of that mind
Sorry if I am belabouring. Note, we "know" the word acts autonomously. It is latent in your sentence above. "Earnestness" the word is not (as though) magically imbued with some Platonic ideal of Earnestness. Earnestness, the word is Earnestness. Whatever effect it has when it surfaces, is its only "purpose," otherwise it's empty and fleeting and has no reality.
Im not suggesting you are speculating, but this is a categorical issuea matter of the type of reasons we use in different cases. Sometimes we trust an impersonal process, science; and sometimes we have to make our own way, as in a moral situation, and I am saying he is confusing the two here.
that essentially means I have no ability to discern good science and conclusions from bad
Basically ive proven i can believe things with bad reasons and spin the story in my head.
My worry is that Ill just keep reading things that confirm my current set of beliefs and keep taking them in as true or at least likely true and end up with a warped sense of reality.
quotation of 83franks by @flannel jesus
Starting with the first sentence: either they are simply wrong (I assume that we can agree that we can have/gain the skill to tell good science from bad), or they are calling that into question, which, yes, on the face of it, they attribute to an inability to reason. But I am claiming that they are avoiding that a political/moral decision is (despite accurate science) always about aligning ourselves with a story, a community (and here I do not mean with or against science, or the science; i.e., it is more than a matter of reason, knowledge). For example, we trust the democratic process, not because it is perfect, but because its nature is (it calls for) allegiance, or disloyalty. We either give ourselves (our country) to it, or are, as Dewey puts it, treacherous. Those are our choices in that worldknowledge, as in certainty, is not how it works (though the process can be corrupted and bettered). The political and moral fields are not simply a matter of knowledge (absolving us of our part in, say, the social contract), but what we are willing to be responsible for. To fixate on the possibility that we can have bad reasons, or spin or warp ourselves, is to desire to find something certain, impersonal, say, reality, that would ensure we are never bad, wrong, or lost. The desire for certainty in the moral/political realm is a fantasy that knowledge could take the place of methe necessity of putting ourselves (trusting ourselves as I have put it) in the position of answering for our reasons and, if appropriate, for our reliance on a particular scientific finding. But he wants to trust science, not to be accurate, but to resolve our need to live the stories we choose to accept, which means we may be wrong (leaving us where I started, not with just belief compared to knowledgeepistemologybut with the processes of error, forgiveness, learning, etc.). But we have no recourse (other than avoidance) than to entrust ourselves with the responsibility for our opinions, stances, etc., and in this sense, to trust ourselves.
Im not saying he doesnt trust his own reasoning, Im saying that there is more involved than reasoning. The stories he is talking about are things up for debate, and because of that, are political/moral, which are the types of things we may not be able to resolve. But we could say he is politicizing his doubt in making it a reason to hold the opinions he does, or avoid being responsible to answer for them. Basically, Im calling this (his) BS, though I take it as a misunderstanding of the nature of fact compared to our political/moral lives. He is mixing up apples and oranges. Not being certain about our positions is not resolved by trust or doubt in science, or knowledge. It is a matter of bucking up and being responsible for what we decide to claim as our own, as these things are not a matter of certainty; they are not resolved as a claim of knowledge would be.
Well, that might be because of the historical picture of belief as a lesser version of knowledge, but I take it as a lack of interest (not a lack of ability) as you appear to just be saying the same thing over and over (which is fine). But without anything more than that, its hard to know what or how to explain.
I made this confusing. When I said my determination of whether you are in earnest instilled faith, I did not mean faith, as in: belief, as if blindly (nor as if it were an opinion). When I am considering whether you are earnest, I am making a judgment, based on evidence (your acts and words), as to whether they meet the ordinary ways someone demonstrates earnestness (criteria, which are autonomous, if I understand how you meant that). So my conclusion is not belief, nor a beliefI am convinced. I do not have faith in my judgment; I have faith in you. I have now given you my trust; I treat you as genuine.
Quoting ENOAH
I would say that these movements and feelings and actions do not follow from the word (as if I am earnest were a report of something in me, and not just in the sense of a promise, though only believed as much as Im not lying). Everything follows from my being convinced, my judging that you are earnest, which conclusion is triggered by the standards, or criteria, that we associate with earnestnessthe actions and words that demonstrate you are in earnest.
Quoting ENOAH
I would say that judging whether someone is earnest does take deliberation. And we are, in a sense, judging their intent, not as if to see in their mind, but (even stranger) to see into the future: whether they will trick us or fulfill the commitment that is made in claiming they are (will continue to be) earnest. To be taken as earnest is an expectation, and so does not involve the self in the sense of: a state, like dazed; or: a feeling, like sad. These are the version of self as in: my person. But a claim to be earnest does involve my self in the sense of: my character; who I am asking to be seen as, taken for, what I stake as collateral.
So we may even claim we are in earnest to ourselves, as we can make a promise to ourselves. It would seem we should know best if we intend to trick ourselves, or whether we are faking, but what is being earnest, or to really mean it, if not the further future demonstration of that commitment. Its not never feeling like a fake or like giving up or like we were deluded at the outset, but that we continue on, try harder, follow through.
So then what is trusting your own mind? If it is all just movements of [our] mind then we are left with the fact @Benj96 started with: Everyone can be rash, everyone can be stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason. Which is to say, how can we trust our self? as in: our brain, our habits, our weakness, our limitations? And this is trust in the sense of: be certain of, as in: that we arent deluded, tricked, wrong. But perhaps all this talk of earnestness helps us to see that our relation to ourself is not one of certainty. Not that it is blind belief that everything we think is right, but a matter of loyalty, not entrusting our selfas in our characterto others, to apathy, to knowledge, abandoning our judgment, relinquishing our voice, letting our consent be assumed. We may be rash, stupid, ignorant, irrational (@flannel jesus), but its a start. If we are asking, as @Banno framed it, What is true?, in this sense, we are true to ourselves; our trust is our not giving up.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Understood. In fairness to you, I likely jumped on my own interpretation of the word because the latter "fit." Fair clarification.
Ok, and I can't remember the pith of our most recent exchange. But with respect to trusting your own mind, the clarification doesn't alter my current thinking. I wonder if
a "deconstruct" as the following might better illustrate my current belief (that their is no Mind and no Trusting; that your mind moves autonomously as signifier chains/clusters/structures triggering feelings, in turn triggering more chains, ultimately triggering the feeling/action we call belief). Tracing backwards and extremely simplified:
1. You treat me as genuine. Because
2. You [r mind] have given [the object] me your trust. Because
3. A Signifier having surfaced (projected into the "world") to "signify"/trigger settle upon (believe) "trustworthy" (to be "true") Because
4. Trustworthy fits best Because
5. Following a dialectical process (in this case speedy but not lightning speed) structured by the autonomously driven projections of signifiers competing near the surface for projection into the world, a competing process structured over time by a conditioning response process involving the Organic feelings drives and actions to arrive at the most functional response. Because
6. Mind emerged that autonomous process over History and for each individual as having been input and processed through individual time. (And all of the signifiers input onto you, that individual, over time, aligned to trigger trust in the end)
The point being, the end result. Trusting me, though not predetermined, was not a choice made by an individual being, but rather one superimposed upon an individual being by a process both embodied and external, but not structured by atoms or cells, rather structured by the empty code triggering reconditioned responses. I.e. the experience is (in the) emptiness and not the being. The being feels intricately varying degrees of feeling, leading to given actions, but the experience is the Fictional story written in signifiers and believed as a final step in that process.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Me too. But as you can see above, for me "deliberation" is autonomous and so "trusting" your mind is almost absurd, "you" are your mind and have no choice. The question arises because we falsely believe there is an " I " centrally deliberating, when " I " is just that mechanism which evolved to connect that process with its organic host, the "real" you displaced and held captive by the process.
Quoting Antony Nickles
And that's where we're funny. How can we trust our hearts to beat? It is the process we trust. Whether we trust it or not is built in. Trust me. We trust it. We have no choice. We just think we do. Even thinking we do is a part of that process. A glitch which evolved, like the Subject, as fit for purpose. Mind would have collapsed early in its evolution if we weren't fooled by it.
And logic cannot help us figure out the truth because logic is part of the process. Another evolved mechanism which promoted Mind's prosperity. So the logic of, if we can't trust our minds we can be rash and stupid cannot address the truth of the process because it seem so much like we indeed can [/b]choose[/b] to be rash
But even choosing to be rash is a settlement arrived at following that dialectic. Someone inside this conversation will be equipped with the signifiers from history to so choose. Someone outside may never so choose because they were not input with this trigger (way oversimplified).
Ultimately, can I trust my mind? No, it's lying to you, it's not who you think you are. Yes, you have no choice. You are trusting your mind incessantly.
I don't recall saying anything like this. Can you clarify what you think my position along these lines is?
Sorry, seemed pretty straightforward. I must have just made up that interpretation.
No, he nailed it. I made it able to be understood without needing to stretch ones worldview.
You dont have to admit it. I know.
Step away from the philosophy.
Because you think your way of looking at things is obvious and mine is nonsense, like the world revolves around you. Because I spent my valuable time trying to explain myself to you and you didnt even try. Because you think I can just tell someone like you what it would take years of study for you to even start asking question that werent arrogant and mean, like: what the hell are you talking about?. You dont care, go away. Youre in the deep end.
Not self-aware either! I think the start of that might be the dizzying part for you. It was me who started saying rude things? (Your miss-using context BTW).
Is cruelty the level of insult it would have to rise to? Really? Not just dismissive, mocking, superior, flippant youre gonna have to give me a minute. Oh wait, did you actually want to know?
If you perceived me saying some post of yours read like a non sequitur to me as rude, just know, the point of me saying that is not rudeness or cruelty but to express that I don't understand how your reply to me makes sense given what I was saying. The correct response to that isn't for you to decide to start being cruel to me, the correct response is to either spell out why your reply does make sense, or to just disengage.
I was not actively trying to be cruel or rude to you, you were making posts directed at me that didn't make sense to me so I expressed that. There's nothing malicious in that.
Oh please. Get over yourself. I shouldnt have wasted my time trying to explain philosophy to you; Im gonna be able to convince you how youre a jerk? Do you know what a troll is?
Quoting flannel jesus
Well, I guess I am (bait took!). This is exactly your problem in a nutshell. I did not perceive you saying that; you said it. Which is straight arrogant and rude. Still, if you dont understand something you dont judge it. The whole point of not understanding is not that you dont grasp how your reply to me makes sense given what I was saying, but to imagine the possibility that you just do not understand what I am saying! which you skip over as if what others say is simple and easy to immediately understand, or, if it isnt, that it should be! To be respectful, try (humbly) to make some sense of it on its own terms (not in relation to you). Ask a question to clarify a distinction, to understand terms, to develop implications; paraphrase; ask for an example; etc. My responsibility is to answer, not to make what Im saying fit into your box. And definitely not to put up with something like this:
Quoting flannel jesus
If you don't have any desire to make clear what you think, I don't know what point there is for you to use language at all. What point is there to it, if not to make your thoughts clear?
You mean clear to you. Picture instructions are clear to everyone; do you want me to draw you a map? What words should I use? What dichotomies do you accept? Can I get you a beverage too?
You're writing paragraphs and paragraphs and how is "political", but it's really simple: it's on topic in literally the most straight forward possible way. The dude doesn't trust his own mind.
Oh you just wanted to point out something clever? Well done you.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/899246
Does it look like I'm trying to be clever?
It was, just not only in the way it wanted to be, so just be a little less judgey and bullying, yeah?
Just wanted to take this time to commend you style of contribution to the discussion. Its very refreshing and takes great skill, but most importantly its engaging.
Quoting Benj96
Thank you for the understanding and appreciation. I should try to remember to phrase it that: this is how I am taking what you are saying, as what I am actually doing is a provisional paraphrase, which should be presented as the question is this the sense in which you mean this? but I find that most people are more than ready to respond that thats not what they meant if clarification is needed. Unfortunately some times people dont acknowledge any further implications of what they have said even when there is evidence and context to make the connection.
And of course I am not trying to hijack your thread to say there are not legitimate concerns about how we can anticipate ways in which our conclusions are untrustworthy or how to recognize when we are wrong. I only wanted to point out that we have recourses so the anxiety to find truth does not hinge solely on finding a way to never make a mistake.
Well, yes, the brain/body does things on its own, or there are empty code triggering reconditioned responses. We may make a snap judgment, be unconscious of our reasons (even subconscious ones), even be responding to the bodys implicit biases (out of fear) (as in #5&6), or mindlessly adopting the judgments of others or society, but our judgment is more than a function or sense or instinct or conformity, because afterwards it is our decision (rather than a reaction, a prejudice, or trigger)as I take you to say, to be rash is a settlement arrived at following that dialectic (emphasis added). But the outcome is ours; we are responsible for its failings and reasons. We can make explicit, or draw out, the evidence applied to the criteria for, say, trusting, even if it is to say, I didnt like the look of his face. And we can say something was poor judgment, which is maybe more than it was wrong, but that it was hasty, not having considered everything, or perhaps not thought through it at all. This is not the (casual, choosing) I that you rightly remove from the equation, but, in a sense: me, as in: not you; not blaming something else for my claims and evaluations. It is the functioning of judgment that I must take ownership, with the alternative being that I try to slide out of it.
Quoting ENOAH
Yes, we are subject to our brain, our body, our culture. And to imagine we are fated to it seems a curse, but underneath that, we want it; its a relief. As I previously said, one way of wanting to avoid a decision being our judgment, is to wish to rely on knowledge. Thus trusting your mind turns our duty into an intellectual problem, such as: whether the outcomes are right or wrong, real or illusion, rational or emotional, etc. So if we can solve this manufactured probleme.g., an outcome could be known to be rightthen it would not be my judgment. Knowledge answers for it, not me. Thus our desire to trust in something (say, our mind) so that we can give up our continuing responsibility. Our disappointment with knowledge is because we are left holding the bag.
I'm suggesting (and in no way forcefully, presenting for commentary) that "unconscious of our reasons" is only obvious to us at the (may I call it?) Pavlovian "level" of the brain triggering responses. Im suggesting (and this is highly simplified To paraphrase Huineng, if I were to tell you the whole story it would take a lifetime) all organic behaviour operates in that Pavlovian way, from hearts beating, to designing the Eiffel tower; and that uniquely for humans, that process has reached such complexity and sophistication that it seems to involve what we call intent, will, deliberation (iwd). But each step in those processes (iwd) if traced, involves the autonomous movement of "code" (not code; simplified) leading ultimately to what receives signifiers like choice attached to them. It is, like our blood flowing, not chaotic nor random, but a beautifully ordered system. Thinking we have free will emerges out of same. Of course it is trustworthy; but it's not your mind. There's no your, no you.
Quoting Antony Nickles
And I both respect that, the profundity of it, and its truth, but only for that "system" which has been autonomously constructed over time and which we rightly look at as "us". That's why I'm also suggesting, that while from the perspective of the "products" of those autonomous process (as in from "our" perspective) the organism is real; from the organism's perspective (hypothetical; it has no "perspective" when used as "opinion") the products are Fictional; they come and go; they are empty "code" etc etc. But that is where the human organism lives its life; not in the natural Pavlovian reactions to nature; in the Fictional world we have constructed (and the "we" constructed thereby). I am definitely not judging it "bad" nor nihilistically justifying ignoring our responsibility in that world. Quite the opposite. We made our beds, or, rather, our beds are made...I'm just pointing out what I think the mind is, and why trusting it is not the question. The question (which I won't take the time here) is more like, how can I ensure I am input with the coding which will yield the most functional results for that very system (which I share with all minds) and for my body and my species? But every "choice" you make, even if you chose to employ that question, was only because it was triggered by something (like, and its much more of a microscopic analysis than I'm depicting, but, like you reading that question triggered you to employ it--for example).
Quoting Antony Nickles
I apologize. I'm overcomplicating what I now realize your intent might have been. Yes I agree--within this "system of code" Im stubbornly fixating on--we have duties, and the analysis of right and wrong, to put it simply, is a commendable process, and at the end of it, whether or not you feel this way, you have trusted your mind. Now, if minutes later you are doubting, you are again trusting your mind. But even if you doubted, that process will take place and you will trust it (as a doubt), and any subsequent process, all of them, your mind weighing code and triggering feeling/action, all based on prior triggering, and so on.
The answer to this question is not easy. The answer will cover the psychological, one's intelligence, and the epistemological, and that's just the beginning. People sometimes forget just how important the psychological is in the formation of our beliefs. What I mean is, for example, one's ego plays a role in what you believe is true, and it plays a role in what you're willing to reject in terms of your beliefs. When the ego gets involved, in many cases truth doesn't matter, what matters is protecting one's ego. Also, you have peer pressure which extends all the way up the ladder of life.
Second, one's ability to think through some of these difficult subjects is often beyond the ability of some. You have to know your limitations and be willing to learn. Even here the ego raises its ugly head. Some people think they have all the answers or at least more answers than they have a right to bloviate about. Also, I mentioned intelligence, and it's important, but more important is being knowledgeable. Sometimes people with less overall intelligence can be more knowledgeable about a certain subject. This is where hard work pays off.
A third problem is not having a good epistemological background. I can't overemphasize the importance of this subject. And since the subject is quite vast one has to seek out the best philosophers to study. I chose a Wittgensteinian approach because I don't think many philosophers can match his intellect.
One of the problems with epistemology is that some people have to narrow a view of epistemology, and others have to broad a view. In other words, some limit their epistemology to science, and others allow too much subjective nonsense into their thinking.
So where do you start? You have to examine your head. What are you trying to accomplish? How big is your ego? Are you afraid of being wrong? Do you love philosophy? And you have to seek out the best of the best and learn from them because 90% of what you'll read in philosophy is just bullshit. Moreover, in a philosophy forum, many people haven't even studied the subjects they're arguing for or against. So 98% percent of what you read in here is bullshit.
As I mentioned, much can be said on this topic, and I haven't scratched the surface.
And I agree with you here. Austin has a way of putting it that we project a self that has intention back into a situation, but only when it doesnt meet our ordinary expectations (Why did you do that (in that situation)?) But it is not a question that always has an answer because I dont have a will that causes my acts nor do I mean every word (I dont intend my raised arm to be the act of signaling a taxi.)
Quoting ENOAH
And I take this to suggest we have no recourse other than to rely on (trust) the human (brain/body/responses, etc). However, with the acknowledgment of the human propensity to undermine ourselves, hide from ourselves, delude ourselves, etc., or, in other words: our inevitable limitation and failings, we are driven to want to escape the human; to have knowledge take our placesomething certain we can count on (trust).
Quoting ENOAH
And this is a worthwhile question (and closer to part of @Benj96s OP). If we realize that: to be human we must turnas Socrates suggests in a cave, and Wittgenstein (PI #108) says around our real needtowards our humanity, per Nietszche (embracing what we actually can not nor should not escape) and attempt to perfect it, as rallied to by Emerson, what does that path look like? As humans? individually? (Which I believe we can take up with @Sam26 above)
Quoting Antony Nickles
Well said from where I'm standing. Especially the bit about knowledge displacing being.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Not to be "cute": that path doesn't "look" like anything. The "looking" is already an act within the cave. We happen to always be, and always already are on the path by being. Any turning or looking is looking away.
Quoting Sam26
I'd dare say the metaphysical (for humans) is the psychological.
Quoting Sam26
Note: any claim or assertion I make has the implied preface "In my opinion, but then, at tge end of the day, what do I know," notwithstanding any appearance to the contrary.
Quoting Sam26
And this is not facetious, isn't that residual 2% just our ego's demand for the comfort of certainty in knowledge, a thing we are constructing as we go? Isn't the 2% just well crafted bullshit?
Quoting Sam26
Always a pleasure Sam. Maybe we sometimes project our doubts to create a framework that only accepts an answer (and one of a particular kind).
The practice of philosophy is to improve our thinking, ourselves, like: look at the existing practices and dont generalize; use an example and examine the affects of changing context; know your limitations as @Sam26 says; describe the workings of how decisions are weighed; make explicit the criteria and distinctions imbedded implicitly in our practices.
So trusting our mind (@Benj96) is not a blind acceptance of ourselvesjudging without examining the terms and requirements we bring or impose, or without considering the hidden implications of what we do in what we say (before it pours out of ours mouth immediately to everyone).
To trust our mind is to rely on our potential to think better, which is an active striving, not abandoning thinking because it doesnt give us an "answer" of a certain form, like science; but doing the best investigation we can (not knowing in advance what that will mean in each case); to learn more about the world that does not respond to scientific objectivity, which is up to us, personally (not, subjectively) in being willing to reject our beliefs (@Sam26") in order to allow the world to come to us, not just be a reflection of ourselves (even our desire that everything be objective). As it were:
Quoting Thoreau, Waldron, 1854, 7p. 62
We should be unwilling to accept ourselves and our culture as we stand. But not jump to a strange uncertainty id. (general skeptical distrust of us entirely), and judge before examining, to hastily conclude, before knowing the individual terms and criteria on which we measure each thing.
So we should look at ourselves to make sure we attend to the matter at hand in the way it demands, which is a way of conducting ourselves. As with science, which ensures its facts through its method (repeatability), philosophy has methods of acting/thinking in order to be more cognizant of the part we play in looking at our world, thus learning how to get (our "ego" as @Sam26 says) out of our way so we can learn what actually matters about a thing, what the "essence" of it is, as in what is essential to our culture about it (what are the criteria and mechanics of this practice, situation).
So then virtues, or our better conduct, are a part of our learning about something, our epistemology, like having courage, not being afraid of being wrong as @Sam26 says, and empathy, a view cognizant to what matters in each instance (perhaps knowledge, perhaps different criteriaand not just lesser knowledge, say, belief).
Yes.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This is an excellent analysis.
Thanks. Austin to the rescue.
If the statement is comfortable, leading to progressive thinking on the matter(in that it makes sense and has a whole thought-wave associated with it), and is super-sound that it's logic appeals to reason (the fact it entertains/enlightens us to a certain perspective), it can be regarded as good conversation. Though this prospect would be based on probabilities, it's still possibly beneficent for multiple reasons(such as if it's false, it still may be possible, and that's negated if it's true). If we have conducted science, we can then [I]determine[/I] if it's true, and it ought be a trustworthy source based on comfort - if it fits or seems possible.