How do you know if you are right?

Remove all ads!

Patently absurd. Logic is always infallible. If logic is based on incorrect information, than the conclusion is wrong......not the logic. If information upon which a logical framework is found to be false or invalid, then the idea can be re-evaluated in light of new information. Logic is based on established facts as we understand them. It cannot be twisted, since, when making such twists, the logician in question is no longer using logic, but is, instead, employing a fallacy.

Faith, on the other hand, provides no such oversight. There are no testable assumptions in regards to faith. None. Faith can't be tested. It can't be proven or disproven. It is belief in something which cannot be tested. Faith has no more place determining the rate at which soil erodes than logic has determining the purpose of our existence.

 

Something I asked my friends when we were talking about this:

There's a red balloon.

Mr.X says it's red.
Mr.Y says it's black.
Mr.Z says it's green.

Logically, mr.X would be correct.

Mr.Y is colorblind, so the way he sees it, he's correct.

Mr.Z is pointing you with a .50 AE Desert Eagle that has diamod encrusted "death to my enemies" written on it.

Who's right?

 

In some cases, a consensus will decide certain facts are valid or invalid, such as a jury, for example. Facts sometimes do depend on consensus before they are accepted...

Only if your objective is to win points in a debate. I don't look at a score board here in the alleys.

Yes, but this comes with an understanding that your information is not perfect (which is why I dislike extrapolation from my beliefs), and that as we grow, we learn more of these beliefs. In this, mortal life, our knowledge will never be perfect and complete.

Ah yes, sophistry. I suck at that. That's why here in the alleys, I just let fly from the heart and stand by it.

Anything to support faith is personal and subjective. It does not mean that the person did not really have those experiences, but that, while they prove their faith for them, it proves it only for them. I can relate some of my experiences, and that I have had experiences that confirm my faith, and I defend my points from that. For me it works. If you believe that I am honest, then can that carry some weight?

And don't be surprised when such demands are unsatisfactory too...

Thanks NOG. I don't always make my points clearly. This was such a case.

And people vary with the degree of precision. For some, on the spot they would accept 22/7 for pi, while others would insist on 3.1415926535 or however far the calculator will take pi. When it was first introduced, pi was simply 3.14, but as I studies math further, I was exposed to pi further and further.

I'm not so sure of that. It's been 11 years since I last studied philosophy at a post secondary level. I was not particularly adept at it, and no doubt any skills I learned in regards to logic would have deteriorated through years of alcohol and drug use as well as lack of actual use on my part. We all have varying degrees of skill with logic as such.

In regards to your point about inaccurate information at the base, that is the fundamental flaw with logic. I freely admit that if I am wrong about God, then most of the ideas constructed from that faith will fail in quick succession. but if I am right, then my ideas are supported in as much as I've been diligent in my study and thought.

Faith and logic hold power in their respective elements. Faith holds little sway in science, and logic takes a back seat to faith in religion.

Trellheim: Tell Mr. Z. what he wants to hear so that he doesn't blow your head off. Once Mr. Z. leaves, Mr. Y should acknowledge his limitation, and could take Mr. X's word for it...

 

Exactly! You have no idea how much it pisses me off when people talk about respecting every opinion, every opinion being equally valid etc and they don't have a problem including mistaken knowledge of facts in it.

E.g. I'm sure we could find people who think believing in God is for children and idiots, while they have no problem choosing to believe in horoscopes.

 

@Drew:
Logic is fallable if it is improperly applied. Just like math is fallable if you do it wrong. As for the false assumptions, you're absolutely right, it is the conclusion that is wrong, not the logic, but it is really the conclusion we're talking about here, so that still applies as a failing of logic (i.e. logic leading you to a wrong conclusion).

Ah, but when a system of workings, founded on logic, is thoroughly enough entrenched, evidence that the original assumptions are wrong is more likely to lead to approximations that corrections.

Not quite right. Faith can potentially be proven wrong (or shown unreasonable) if it is contradictory to itself or the like. It cannot be proven right, however, and most will never be 'proven wrong' until the end.

Good to hear we're on the same page here.

@Trellheim:

Mr. Y's senses are decieving him, so while he may 'know he's right', he is actually wrong. Either that or he's using a different definition of the term 'black' than the others. Take your pick.

That doesn't make him right. I think we already concluded that neither might nor majority makes right.

 

Very well, so there are absolute facts and evidence of those absolute facts. Is it that they relate to each other only by chance? How can we know if a fact is indeed a fact?

I should have asked this much sooner: Are reason and faith separate things that have no relation between each other?

Does the relation between evidence and a fact rely on our senses?

Are you saying that we can rely on our senses but we cannot rely on the conclusions derived from the facts our senses give us?

The majority isn't right? Then the majority's senses must be poor.

You agree that the human mind is flawed, yet you say that limitations do not equate flaws. Is the human mind limited or flawed? And if the human mind is either, then how should truth be defined?

Is a binary definition of truth valid?

There is other sources of credibility than direct proof? I gather you mean the evidence our senses provide as this direct proof and that this indirect evidence is credible because some information given by this source is correct and none of the other claims this source makes are proven to be wrong? But as I understood, what is credible is not necessarily true.

A thing that is beyond belief or understanding. The opposite of credible. As you said, credibility is how much you trust something. If you do not trust something (to be true I assume, correct me if I'm wrong), then that something is incredible to you. I am willing to agree that there is no straightforward relation between credibility and facts. Credibility can also be understood as the degree to which the argument can stand up to scrutiny and disproof; the capacity for something to hold the greatest amount of truth as Death Rabbit said previously.

Exactly. And as it is possible that the quest for truth should be abandoned we can do just that.

I could have posed the question 'How do you know that you knowledge is the most accurate?' as the topic of this discussion. I'll try to spice things up a bit: The reason I asked 'How do you know if you are right?' is because it is not only a question about the relation of truth to your opinions or your knowledge. It is a question of ethics as well, and this has been noted by many of you.

So.

How do knowledge, truth, facts, credibility, faith, evidence and opinions relate to ethics? What does being right mean in the light of ethics?

 

Aha, chevallier, good catch!

I meant to say, "wise people realize they can't be 100 percent SURE they are correct." Of course a belief can be 100 percent correct, the point is only an omnipotent creature could be 100 percent confident in the belief.