Be a good little atheist...

[Mister Agenda]

This is problematic in many ways. The first, and most obvious, problem is that a lot of people do torture children for several reasons, pleasure being one of them. Millions of mothers and fathers do abuse their children physically, for no other discernible reason than a desire to do so. How do you explain this, if there is some objective part of reality that should prevent such things from happening?

Agreement that something is evil does not equal it never heppening. A sociopath will correctly identify torturing children as evil, but that ability won't necessarily prevent him or her from doing it anyway; because the sociopath is not much restrained from knowingly doing wrong...and there is some evidence that a deficiency in the prefrontal cortex is involved in their lack of restraint.

That said, we can't get from 'is' to 'ought', as Hume realized. We have to accept an axiom at some point (such as 'treating others as they deserve to be treated') before a morality can be logically supported. The ground of our morality is to be found in our nature as human beings; not coded in the laws of physics. It's not satisfying to some that we can't find deeper roots for figuring out what's wrong or right than that; but there it is.

As far as 'invention' vs. 'discovery' of morality; sure, you can invent any morality you want. When you try to implement it, you will discover how useful it is compared to other moral systems.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Agreement that something is evil does not equal it never heppening. A sociopath will correctly identify torturing children as evil, but that ability won't necessarily prevent him or her from doing it anyway; because the sociopath is not much restrained from knowingly doing wrong...and there is some evidence that a deficiency in the prefrontal cortex is involved in their lack of restraint.

Of course; remember that this was in response to the claim that we can know for sure that there is such a thing as justice because people consistently say torturing children is wrong.

I'm also not convinced that sociopaths will necessarily think they are doing something evil. I'm certain they can understand that it is considered evil by other people, but do they actually see it that way themselves?

Admittedly, I haven't really spent time with diagnosed sociopaths. I have spent time with several schizophrenics with violent histories, however, and from what little I could learn of them, my impression was that they clearly did not understand the concepts of justice like most people do.

There is also a better example in my post; that of female circumcision. The people practicing this truly do not believe what they are doing is evil. I believe this more or less proves that there is no universal, objective morality - there is nothing that would make all people accept a common definition of evil, apart from the people themselves.

That said, we can't get from 'is' to 'ought', as Hume realized. We have to accept an axiom at some point (such as 'treating others as they deserve to be treated') before a morality can be logically supported. The ground of our morality is to be found in our nature as human beings; not coded in the laws of physics. It's not satisfying to some that we can't find deeper roots for figuring out what's wrong or right than that; but there it is.

I'm not entirely certain I agree we should look for the ground of morality from our nature as human beings. From what I've seen, the human nature isn't so perfect a thing as to make me want to live by it. Rather, I would like to base morality on human intelligence, human endeavour, human desire to be better than nature made us.

What "better" means is an arbitrary decision, of course - but it's an arbitrary decision reached after millenia of thought, debate and experimenting. By thinking, passing on information and working to find a solution that works for all, I believe we can create a system of morality that is, from our subjective point of view, better than anything that could be drawn out by simply observing our human nature.

You could still say that such a system is based on human nature, and you'd be right, of course. Still, I think the best path is not to burrow into the secrets of nature for the answers, but rather to use nature as a springboard to reach them.

As far as 'invention' vs. 'discovery' of morality; sure, you can invent any morality you want. When you try to implement it, you will discover how useful it is compared to other moral systems.

I've no qualms with this. My point was simply that all moral systems have to be invented.

 

[Piscivore]

No, I'm not just asserting it. The same way I wouldn't just be "asserting" that the sky really is blue.

There is widespread agreement on the fact that the sky is blue such that even absent an understanding of why or how the sky is blue,

Except the sky isn't "really blue". Sometimes it is black, grey, white, brown, and/or various shades between red, yellow, and orange.

It depends entirely on who is looking, and the conditions at the time of observation. You grudgingly acknowledge this below, but I don't think you realise the implications.

I can be reasonably sure that anyone who says the sky and the grass always look the same color to them is either lying or broken.

Has someone done that?

ETA: (and, as an aside, "grass" comes in many shades of greens, browns, yellows, reds, whites, and greys... even, allegedly, blue. I hope your conception of morality isn't as simplistic as your understanding of "colour")

Take it out of the analogy (because I think you've stretched it way to far), and explain to me what this means in real, actual, moral terms. Give me an example of a moral statement that someone has presented that is so obviously, universally incorrect as your analogy, there. I don't think one exists.

Similarly, there is widespread agreement that, for example, torturing children for pleasure is wrong.

"Widespread agreement" doesn't mean "objective". 10,000 Elvis fans can be wrong.

There have been and still do exist people (and societies) that find it perfectly okay to torture children- for pleasure, to please their gods, sexual gratification... lots of reasons. You can dismiss them as "broken" because you don't agree with their values, but what you are doing there is asserting that your particular values apply to every human being regardless of circumstance.

Do they?

Is this a coincidence? Is it magic?

It's irrelevant.

I've tried to do my best, but fail in many of the ways you'd imagine.

I don't know what you think I'd imagine, but you fail because you are trying to find objective truth in something completely subjective.

I have problems similar to those you'd have if you tried to use color without a good scientific understanding of it.

For example, the sky doesn't always look blue. And color varies based on lighting. So how much of that color is inherent in the sky?

None of it. the appearance of colour in the sky is a relationship between the light, the gasses in the atmosphere, whatever other crap is floating around up there, and the observer.

That last part is important, because if any quality is particular to one observer- and potentially different to another observer, then it is subjective.

Just like "morality".

While people generally agree torturing children for pleasure is wrong, how much of that is from objective properties of torturing children for pleasure.

What would be some of these "objective properties of torturing children for pleasure"?

How much of that is from other sources (including errors of all kinds)? It's hard to say without a more precise theoretical foundation.

It's hard to create a "precise theoretical foundation" out of scratch when one it trying to fit it to a particular conclusion (torturing children for pleasure is wrong)... which is what you're trying to do here.

However, that I am capable of error and certainly have made and continue to make many errors doesn't mean that I'm wrong when I say I'm nearly certain about something.

"Certainty"- to any degree- is not a test for fact.

You have to refute the actual argument used to make that case.

Make one. You haven't explained why you think these things are true (in fact, you claim no one else would understand why), you've just asserted they are.

Again, as I said, a rational theory of morality is beyond what could be explained in this forum and I doubt you and I have enough common ground to get very far on it anyway.

If it is something so particular to yourself and your point of view you can't even explain what it is to other people, it's probably not objective.

I'm perfectly willing to admit what the limitations of my knowledge and reasoning are, but it is utterly invalid for you to claim that because I have limitations, I can be wrong when I an reasonably certain that I am not.

No, it isn't. In fact, understanding "I can [still] be wrong [even] when I am reasonably certain that I am not" is a key part of critical thinking.

 

[Piscivore]

A sociopath will correctly identify torturing children as evil, but that ability won't necessarily prevent him or her from doing it anyway;

Maybe, maybe not. It is probably closer to the truth to say a sociopath will correctly identify torturing children as something other people see as "evil", but is unconcerned with adhereing to such value judgments if they conflict with his own desires- to derive pleasure for himself, acting out against what he sees as "conformity", to extort financial gain... what have you.

 

[bokonon]

It is never the case that we "must make an assumption". Assumptions are always an error (unless properly tracked as assumptions and conclusions based on them identified as dependent on the assumption).

You aren't consistent from one sentence to the next.

You aren't even consistent from one half of a sentence to the next.

NEVER the case. ALWAYS an error, (unless ... ).

The fact is, we rarely have complete and perfect knowledge, and are almost always making assumptions. When I eat a salad, I assume it is free of pathogens which will make me ill. When I take a breath, I assume I won't be breathing toxic fumes from a nearby accident; in fact, I assume no such accident has occurred. When I drive my car through an intersection, I assume the cross traffic will remain stopped because of the red light I assume the drivers are seeing. When I go to bed at night, I assume none of the people with whom I share my home will kill me as I sleep. When I attend a political event at a shopping mall, I assume no deranged killer will open fire with a semi-automatic weapon.

I don't know what world you live in, in which people never have to make assumptions. Certainly, for thousands and thousands of nights, the assumption that the people with whom I share lodging would not kill me as I slept has apparently not been an error.

You seem very certain of your principles, which are almost certainly erroneous.

 

[marplots]

You seem very certain of your principles, which are almost certainly erroneous.

Bokonon, your phrase reminded me of what I see as a fundamental flaw in the religious. There seems to be a drive among some to have clarity and certainty at all costs. Almost as if being sure and certain about something were a good unto itself. To me, it reeks of hubris and turns into a mind-killer.

I sense they ignore much to keep their pristine "knowing" the least bit alive. It's like an essential cornerstone for the whole edifice of their worldview -- "If I am wrong here, it all falls apart. Hence, I cannot, and will not, be in error."

Isn't that a sad state of affairs? When I have been wrong in my beliefs about how the world works and discover the mistake, I get an initial shock, but then my horizons expand a little and the world becomes just that much more interesting. Imagine the sterile desert they must live in to have no new growth, no surprises and where they die believing essentially the same things they did as a teenager.

But I'm a good little atheist, as I admitted. My reaction isn't hate or anger, just pity and sadness. Not for me is the library with one book, studied endlessly and held up as Truth with a capital t. Not for me is the ever constricting community of like-minded people and the flight from a confusing world. Call me greedy for not wanting final solutions to deep questions when good questions keep arising. Call me selfish because I pine for the next episode in a continuing story.

Certainty comes with a price that is too much and a comfort that is too little.

 

[Piscivore]

Bokonon, your phrase reminded me of what I see as a fundamental flaw in the religious. There seems to be a drive among some to have clarity and certainty at all costs. Almost as if being sure and certain about something were a good unto itself. To me, it reeks of hubris and turns into a mind-killer.

I sense they ignore much to keep their pristine "knowing" the least bit alive. It's like an essential cornerstone for the whole edifice of their worldview -- "If I am wrong here, it all falls apart. Hence, I cannot, and will not, be in error."

Isn't that a sad state of affairs? When I have been wrong in my beliefs about how the world works and discover the mistake, I get an initial shock, but then my horizons expand a little and the world becomes just that much more interesting. Imagine the sterile desert they must live in to have no new growth, no surprises and where they die believing essentially the same things they did as a teenager.

But I'm a good little atheist, as I admitted. My reaction isn't hate or anger, just pity and sadness. Not for me is the library with one book, studied endlessly and held up as Truth with a capital t. Not for me is the ever constricting community of like-minded people and the flight from a confusing world. Call me greedy for not wanting final solutions to deep questions when good questions keep arising. Call me selfish because I pine for the next episode in a continuing story.

Certainty comes with a price that is too much and a comfort that is too little.

Seconded.

Indeed, my experiences thus far have led me to adopt the aphorism "Once you start to feel certain something is true and/or simple, start looking for what you missed."

 

[bokonon]

Bokonon, your phrase reminded me of what I see as a fundamental flaw in the religious. There seems to be a drive among some to have clarity and certainty at all costs. Almost as if being sure and certain about something were a good unto itself. To me, it reeks of hubris and turns into a mind-killer.

Yes, the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" fundamentalist has chosen to forsake critical thinking.

Certainty comes with a price that is too much and a comfort that is too little.

Most religious people have no such certainty. Their faith comes with doubts, and their day-to-day adventures of discovery and critical thinking are much the same as yours and mine.

 

[marplots]

I said, "Certainty comes with a price that is too much and a comfort that is too little."

Most religious people have no such certainty. Their faith comes with doubts, and their day-to-day adventures of discovery and critical thinking are much the same as yours and mine.

I partially disagree. To avoid cognitive dissonance there are two remedies on offer for them. In the day-to-day, I think you are right -- the Venn diagram with their religious belief has no overlap and finding the lowest price for gasoline becomes just that with no Jesus involved. Of course, this varies by how deeply religious dictates are woven into their lives. But I agree that they are as human as I in these situations. So one remedy is to keep categories separate and avoid any black/white think. It's simply easier to say that the Bible's dictate to give your shirt as well as your cloak, or to turn the other cheek, doesn't apply.

The second remedy is the one that I pity. That has to do with what their beliefs tell them about how the world works. For instance, if someone believes that all men are saved by the grace of Jesus and any who refuse this gift are willful sinners following their own selfish ends... and then they run hard up against an otherwise altruistic and decent person (sans Jesus) -- what are they to think? They are bound to reshape the experience to fit the ideal they have.

I am just as much run by certain fundamental beliefs about how the world works. The difference is that my beliefs are about the world as it has been explored and illuminated. Gravity might be a erroneous idea, but I hold that such a thing exists and, although I would look for another explanation if it seemed to be violated, I have a middle ground they do not. I can fall back on holding my opinion uncertain and suspect there is a flaw in me and the way I see the world.

When you have ultimate and final authority from God, you are not allowed to simply say, "Well, in this, God might be mistaken." So, while they can use all the same critical thinking skills and judgment I use, they cannot attack the basis for the judgments -- believe me, I have seen some pretty twisted rationales in the service of these "immutable truths."

I should say this varies by religious practice, with Spinoza's God the most forgiving.

 

[JoelKatz]

You aren't consistent from one sentence to the next.
You aren't even consistent from one half of a sentence to the next.

NEVER the case. ALWAYS an error, (unless ... ).

There is no contradiction. Assumptions are something we never have to make, and they are always an error except in one narrow circumstance. (In that narrow circumstance they're not an error, but we still don't have to make them.)

 

[JoelKatz]

You seem very certain of your principles, which are almost certainly erroneous.

Quite the reverse, I'm perfectly willing to point out the weaknesses (that I know of) in my own position, discuss what I've done to repair those weaknesses, and to justify why those weaknesses don't call into question the conclusions that I claim to be reasonably sure of.

On the other hand, your argument seems to be basically that because I'm almost definitely wrong about some things, I cannot be reasonably sure I'm right about anything. That's, I think it's obvious, totally incorrect.

 

[JoelKatz]

Except the sky isn't "really blue". Sometimes it is black, grey, white, brown, and/or various shades between red, yellow, and orange.

Exactly. Sometimes it really is red. Sometimes it really is yellow. The color is not whatever someone says it is. It is the result of the interaction of a number of things all of which really happen and really do produce the result that the sky is sometimes really blue.

It depends entirely on who is looking, and the conditions at the time of observation. You grudgingly acknowledge this below, but I don't think you realise the implications.

The implications are that it is not an inherent property of the sky. You won't find some 'blueness' itself in the physical nature of sky. That we assess it as blue results from an interaction between properties of the sky, properties of us, properties of the lighting conditions, and so on. All of this results in the objective result that under certain conditions, to people with normal vision, the sky really does appear blue for reasons that are comprehensible and objective.

ETA: (and, as an aside, "grass" comes in many shades of greens, browns, yellows, reds, whites, and greys... even, allegedly, blue. I hope your conception of morality isn't as simplistic as your understanding of "colour")

That's precisely correct. There is no "green" essence in grass just as there is no "evil" essence in torturing children for pleasure itself. These are emergent properties, not inherent ones.

Take it out of the analogy (because I think you've stretched it way to far), and explain to me what this means in real, actual, moral terms. Give me an example of a moral statement that someone has presented that is so obviously, universally incorrect as your analogy, there. I don't think one exists.

There probably is no such thing. As I said, morality is not an inherent property but an emergent one, just as "appears blue" is. There is no object that will appear blue or "really be blue" under all circumstances.

To make it always true, you have to make it non-universal. For example, "to a person with normal vision, the sky always appears blue on a sunny day unless there's dust in the sky or ..."

Emergent properties like "looking blue to a person with normal vision" and "being wrong for a human being" result from interactions of a large number of factors.

"Widespread agreement" doesn't mean "objective". 10,000 Elvis fans can be wrong.

It usually does, you simply pick one thing that it does not make objective and claim that therefore it makes nothing objective. With near certainty, we can say that something accounts for the fact that Elvis has a fan base that exceeds the fan bases of most other musicians and that his fans are particularly dedicated. With some investigation, we can surmise that a significant factor has to do with his music, but certainly other things are objectively involved factors as well. These include social factors about the time he was performing, and many other things.

Yes, 10,000 Elivis fans doesn't make "Elvis was the greatest performer of all time" objectively true. But it would be an idiot who would assume that there aren't important objective factors that account for Elvis' popularity.

There have been and still do exist people (and societies) that find it perfectly okay to torture children- for pleasure, to please their gods, sexual gratification... lots of reasons.

Of course. That doesn't mean it *is* okay for them to do so. Nor does it mean it isn't okay. Again, emergent properties depend on many factors.

You can dismiss them as "broken" because you don't agree with their values, but what you are doing there is asserting that your particular values apply to every human being regardless of circumstance.

I don't dismiss them all as broken because they are evaluating objectively different things in objectively different circumstances.

I don't conclude you are broken if you say the sky and the grass look the same color to you. Maybe you out on a moonless night. On a moonless night, they really do present the same colors to the human eye. However, if you are right next to me, I see the sky is blue and the grass is green, and you swear they look the same color to you, all I can do is say that you are either broken or lying (or something very unusual that I do not know of or understand is at work). It would be most irrational of me to conclude immediately that the color of things must be subjective and have nothing to do with the things. That would leave me unable to explain the agreement on color, the ability of people to pick things based on color, and so on.

I don't know what you think I'd imagine, but you fail because you are trying to find objective truth in something completely subjective.

Then why is there widespread agreement in the United States that torturing children for pleasure is worse than feeding a hungry person? How do you explain it? Coincidence? Magic? I've asked this four times and you've dodged it each time.

The only rational explanation is that something objective about how people are constructed, how our society is constructed, how we are constructed, the nature of feeding hungry people and the nature of torturing children for pleasure causes us to detect one as good and one as evil as with grass and sky we detect one as green and the other as blue.

None of it. the appearance of colour in the sky is a relationship between the light, the gasses in the atmosphere, whatever other crap is floating around up there, and the observer.

Exactly. But even before we knew that, we could use color vision just the same. Even though some jerk could come along and say "Color is just subjective. You say the sky is blue but you can't prove it. I say it's all in your head."

That last part is important, because if any quality is particular to one observer- and potentially different to another observer, then it is subjective.

Nonsense. That would make height subjective. That would make sky color subjective.

Just like "morality".

Exactly.

What would be some of these "objective properties of torturing children for pleasure"?

We don't really know yet, just as we once didn't know what about the sky made it appear blue. The best I can do is make speculations akin to "something about the light coming from it must interact with our vision in some particular way". Future science may have more to say about this.

It's hard to create a "precise theoretical foundation" out of scratch when one it trying to fit it to a particular conclusion (torturing children for pleasure is wrong)... which is what you're trying to do here.

That's not what I'm doing. If you notice the sky looks blue, you try to explain why it looks blue. You try to figure out what about the sky, about our vision, and about the circumstance in which it does look blue explain why it looks blue.

You can, in principle, reach conclusions akin to that the sky "isn't really blue". There's a very real sense in which our understanding of color has lead us to realize that the human names for colors are just as much artifacts of how we see colors as how the world is colored (because of what frequencies we are sensitive to). So it's certainly possible that a better understanding of morality could lead to at least some changes in how we understand right and wrong. Nevertheless, of course, the properties of normal human color vision are also objective facts about reality, so to would be such properties about morality.

 

[quadraginta]

There is no contradiction. Assumptions are something we never have to make, and they are always an error except in one narrow circumstance. (In that narrow circumstance they're not an error, but we still don't have to make them.)

I disagree.

I think assumptions are something we always have to make. We might not acknowledge it, but that is what we do. We might attach varying degrees of doubt or conviction to them, and at times that conviction may approach near certainty, but it is still never anything more than an assumption.

I assume that the sun will clear the eastern horizon tomorrow morning. This is a remarkably likely assumption. Is there a chance that the sun will go nova while I am asleep? Not much of one, but it is still non-zero. I can say "I am certain that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.", but I'm really just 'pretty darn sure'. I'm assuming it will.

It is when a personal certainty refuses to allow any consideration of doubt that errors are more likely. You might be certain that God will find fault with you for eating pork or drinking alcohol, wearing cotton mixed with wool, or marrying a black person, and that's fine for you. ( That's the indefinite usage of "you", BTW. In case there was any question. ) But if that certainty also gives you the conviction that you have the right to tell me what to wear, or what to eat, or who to marry then there will be some conflict resulting from your assumptions.

 

[Beth]

We all believe falsehoods. Sometimes we are able to learn the truth, sometimes the errors get stuck in our brains. Does that mean there is no good in honesty?

To the extent a person believes falsehoods that affect the claims they make and things they do, their honesty is no good. A juror who does his best to reach a just verdict but convicts an innocent man out of dishonesty does not more harm than one who reaches an unjust verdict because he believes falsehoods through inexcusable error.

What do you consider to be an inexcusable error?

Is it better that he genuinely, but irrationally, believes it is safe for no reason than if he lies and tells you it's safe knowing it's not?

Yes, it’s better if he genuinely believes something safe than if he knowingly falsely tells you it is safe.

I would treat them differently, but neither is particular better or worse. If the people willfully chose to ignore evidence that his brakes were bad or through negligent inaction failed to acquire information he should have, the fault attributable to the person is roughly equal.

I think we will simply have to disagree on this. I will agree that the resultilng outcome may be no different but I think a deliberate lie is worse than a falsehood told from ignorance.

False beliefs undermine all other virtues when they affect them. Willful or inexcusable false beliefs are as morally chargeable to those who act on them as these other ways they could cause the same harms.

What constitutes a willful or inexcusable false belief? Apparently you agree that beliefs such as ‘all men are created equal’ should not be counted as a false belief (I agree) though it is clearly not literally true. Could you give some examples and criteria for determining such beliefs.

However, what I'm saying is that we can, and must, judge people who base their actions on falsehoods for which there is no excuse.

How do you determine what falsehoods have no excuse?

It is never the case that we "must make an assumption". Assumptions are always an error (unless properly tracked as assumptions and conclusions based on them identified as dependent on the assumption).

Again, I’ll simply have to disagree with you. I think it is ALWAYS the case that we make assumptions. There is very little of which we can be absolutely certain in this world. I do agree that it is a good idea to identify those assumptions and the conclusions based on them.

For example, a materialist makes the assumption that there is nothing outside the four dimensions we exist in and the matter and energy contained therein. Other world views make different starting assumptions. Such assumptions are usually termed axioms, a term that identifies statements that are assumed to be true without requiring justification.

When someone makes the claim the don't have any starting assumptions, I conclude they are either unaware of what their starting assumptions are or unaware that the basic axioms they hold about the world might be false.

Sometimes we don't realize that we made an assumption because we have no idea there was any other way something could be. In a sense, that's not really an error if we had no reason to suspect that there were other possibilities.

I agree, but I would go even farther with this thought. Even if we have reason to suspect other possibilities, reality often requires we act without knowing for certain which possibility is correct. Guessing wrong occasionally is inevitable and not indicative of a moral failure.

I'm not saying every mistake is a moral failure. But some definitely are.

Hey, we agree on something anyway.

 

[JoelKatz]

I assume that the sun will clear the eastern horizon tomorrow morning. This is a remarkably likely assumption. Is there a chance that the sun will go nova while I am asleep? Not much of one, but it is still non-zero. I can say "I am certain that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.", but I'm really just 'pretty darn sure'. I'm assuming it will.

Why do you assume it will? It doesn't gain you anything, believing it will rise to precisely the extent that it has been rationally demonstrated to be so would be just as good for practical purposes. And should you ever be in a circumstance where there's good evidence the Sun will not rise tomorrow, your assumption would lead you to error.

What does the assumption do for you?

It is when a personal certainty refuses to allow any consideration of doubt that errors are more likely. You might be certain that God will find fault with you for eating pork or drinking alcohol, wearing cotton mixed with wool, or marrying a black person, and that's fine for you. ( That's the indefinite usage of "you", BTW. In case there was any question. ) But if that certainty also gives you the conviction that you have the right to tell me what to wear, or what to eat, or who to marry then there will be some conflict resulting from your assumptions.

That is why I reject assumptions on principle. One should not assume anything.

If X is only true if Y is true, one should track this dependency and not simply assume Y is true. If there's good evidence that Y is almost certainly true, one should track this as well.

Maybe we mean something different by an assumption. I'm not talking about formal assumptions where you do things like: "Assume x is an integer ...". Here we expressly know that whatever conclusion we reach is only true if the assumptions are true. And I don't call something an assumption if we believe the likelihood that something is so is precisely what the evidence suggests.

What I mean by an assumption is when we divorce a conclusion from the evidence that justifies it. This doesn't help us at all. If the evidence was good enough, we believed the thing assumed anyway. If the evidence was weak, the risk of error harms us. When we assume something, we become unable to reject the assumption even if the evidence changes such that it no longer justifies it.

One of the key things about being a rational person is to endeavor to keep conclusions one has accepted tethered to the evidence and reasoning that justified accepting the conclusions. That way if the evidence changes or you realize the reasoning was faulty, you know how to adjust your conclusions.

Also important is to avoid a "binary" mentality of conclusions reaching a threshold and then being "blessed" into assumed truth or "cursed" into certain falsehood. Rationality requires trying to believe that conclusions are true to the extent they have been rationally demonstrated to be true. And this is a continuum. (That doesn't mean that we can't sometimes be certain something is true or false, of course. Most of our conclusions fall close to, but not at, the ends of the confidence spectrum.)

As assumption is this kind of "blessing" of a truth. We've proven it well enough, so we immunize it from any further scrutiny. How does that help us?

To further explain the one narrow case where an assumption is not an error, consider the assumption people made for centuries that space was continuous. Not even realizing there was any possibility space could be quantized, this assumption was made without anyone even realizing they had assumed anything. This was not, of course, necessary. Had anyone thought up the possibility of quantized space, it would be rational to say "maybe space is not continuous". However, it wasn't really error because there was nothing to make it clear that we had in fact made an assumption.

 

[bokonon]

There is no contradiction. Assumptions are something we never have to make, and they are always an error except in one narrow circumstance. (In that narrow circumstance they're not an error, but we still don't have to make them.)

I'm perfectly willing to point out the weaknesses (that I know of) in my own position, discuss what I've done to repair those weaknesses, and to justify why those weaknesses don't call into question the conclusions that I claim to be reasonably sure of.

Since I provided several illustrations of assumptions required in everyday decisions, and rather than address any of them you simply repeated the erroneous assertion, I tentatively assume your claim that you're willing to discuss the weaknesses in your position is bogus.

On the other hand, your argument seems to be basically that because I'm almost definitely wrong about some things, I cannot be reasonably sure I'm right about anything.

No, my argument is that your "assumptions are never necessary" and "assumptions are always an error" principles are erroneous. I have taken no position at all on any of your hypothetical "certainties" which were not quoted in my post.

In this case, I suppose, your assumption that I had taken such a position WAS an error. I assume that not all of your assumptions are so mistaken, but that assumption may be erroneous.

 

[JoelKatz]

The fact is, we rarely have complete and perfect knowledge, and are almost always making assumptions.

Nonsense.

When I eat a salad, I assume it is free of pathogens which will make me ill.

If you really do this, you're an idiot because the salad could be full of pathogens and might make you ill. Instead, you should be open to the possibility that it might be contaminated and follow up on any evidence that suggests the contrary.

When I take a breath, I assume I won't be breathing toxic fumes from a nearby accident; in fact, I assume no such accident has occurred.

Again, if you really do this, you're an idiot. The first time you're near an accident, instead of doing the sensible thing and realize that you shouldn't breathe there, you'll stay put, breathe toxic fumes, and die.

When I drive my car through an intersection, I assume the cross traffic will remain stopped because of the red light I assume the drivers are seeing.

If so, then you're an idiot. Some day, you may have the opportunity to notice that cross traffic is not remaining stopped and your assumption will prevent you from pressing on the brake.

When I go to bed at night, I assume none of the people with whom I share my home will kill me as I sleep.

I don't know who lives in your house, but I assume you have nearly conclusive evidence to justify this belief and you don't actually believe it's impossible but instead believe that it's very unlikely because this is what the evidence justifies.

When I attend a political event at a shopping mall, I assume no deranged killer will open fire with a semi-automatic weapon.

Why? What would happen if you didn't make this assumption? I presume you'd still go to the event, right? Since you know the probability of that happening is very low. So what does this assumption do for you?

However, if you had some evidence that might have allowed you to tip the authorities off to a suspicious individual, this assumption might have lead you to ignore it rather than acting on it. What a shame that would have been.

I don't know what world you live in, in which people never have to make assumptions. Certainly, for thousands and thousands of nights, the assumption that the people with whom I share lodging would not kill me as I slept has apparently not been an error.

No, it has not been in error. But how has it helped you? And I hope you shed it should you ever have any reason to. I'm sure there are many people who were lead to their grave by their irrational refusal to shed that assumption.

You seem very certain of your principles, which are almost certainly erroneous.

I try to accurately convey my level of confidence in the claims I make. I'm certain I've made many erroneous claims even in this thread. As I have made clear many times, we are discussing things that we have to deal with for obvious practical reasons that we do not completely understand. This process is fraught with error, and I am happy to acknowledge that I am muddling through it as we all must.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Maybe we mean something different by an assumption.

<snip>

What I mean by an assumption is when we divorce a conclusion from the evidence that justifies it.

<snip>

You're right.

We don't mean the same thing by "assumption".

I'll have trouble with your posts until we share a common language, I expect.

 

[JoelKatz]

I'll have trouble with your posts until we share a common language, I expect.

As I said previously, I suspect we don't have enough of a common reasoning base to have this discussion. I'd be interested to hear what you mean by "assumption" though.

If it doesn't refer to "blessing" a conclusion as immune from doubt and it doesn't mean divorcing a conclusion from the evidence that justifies it, what's left? (Obviously, the logic definition "a formal assumption" cannot be right. We clearly don't ever need formal assumptions.)

I see you wrote this:

I assume that the sun will clear the eastern horizon tomorrow morning. This is a remarkably likely assumption. Is there a chance that the sun will go nova while I am asleep? Not much of one, but it is still non-zero. I can say "I am certain that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.", but I'm really just 'pretty darn sure'. I'm assuming it will.

But I guess I don't get it. Is an assumption "something we conclude is very, very likely"? That would be an awesomely non-standard use. You're pretty darn sure it will, you're not certain. So what would the difference be if you didn't assume it? You'd still be pretty darn sure it will rise, right? The evidence shows that. You still wouldn't be certain, right?

 

[bokonon]

What I mean by an assumption is when we divorce a conclusion from the evidence that justifies it.

We don't mean the same thing by "assumption".

I'll have trouble with your posts until we share a common language, I expect.

I agree. Enough time wasted.

For the record, what I mean by an assumption is something we regard as true despite the recognition that we do not have complete and perfect knowledge of the facts leading up to, or the consequences which will follow, any of our decisions. Each of those decisions rests on a cascade of assumptions, which we have acquired over a lifetime of learning and experience.

Obviously, some people are so keen to see themselves as unswervingly rational that they will even take the irrational position that they never assume anything, even if that requires their own personal definition of what an assumption is.