Persuasion as Proof

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:04 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;131081 wrote:
Define what you would consider a "better reason", because there are those who would think Jane had the best reason, she saw a ghost. Try to go beyond the example, or at least fill in the gaps, because Jane still doesn't know it was really an alien.


No reasonable person would assume, at first guess, that what they see is a ghost. But we often mistake things for what they are not. For instance, I went in my garage the other day and thought I saw a snake on the floor. As I approached it, I realized it was just some rope coiled up. But my reason for thinking it was a snake was because, well, first, I know snakes exist, and secondly, I know snakes often get locked in my garage.

What about "better reason" do you want me to define? Do you want me to give you a better reason than ad populum for not believing ghosts exist? Sure thing: There is no evidence for ghosts having existed. But, stop right there, because I already know what you're thinking - you think I'm saying ghosts don't exist. But I'm not. Note that I said "for not believing ghosts exist", not "for believing ghosts do not exist". There is a big difference. In fact, it is the difference between a weak and strong atheist. And it is the difference between committing the fallacy argument from ignorance, and not.

Do you have a specific question to ask me?
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:13 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;131083 wrote:
No reasonable person would assume, at first guess, that what they see is a ghost.


Zeth this is a nit picky little thing and has nothing to do with the rest of your post.

However, there are groups of people who belong to cultures and or subcultures where assuming the immediately unexplainable is a ghost is the most reasonable thing. These people aren't unreasonable, they are not stupid, or even uneducated within the sphere of their experience.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:21 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;131086 wrote:
Zeth this is a nit picky little thing and has nothing to do with the rest of your post.

However, there are groups of people who belong to cultures and or subcultures where assuming the immediately unexplainable is a ghost is the most reasonable thing. These people aren't unreasonable, they are not stupid, or even uneducated within the sphere of their experience.


Oh, it doesn't seem nit picky at all. And it actually has a lot to do with my post.

Why do you think they aren't unreasonable? People that immediately assume that something unexplanable is a ghost, are reasonable to you? I'm not saying it's their fault. Becoming reasonable takes time, and often education. And some cultures do not have this benefit. Some are too poor to get any sort of education. And though this is sad, it does not mean they aren't being unreasonable when they assume at first glance that things are ghosts.

We can extend courtesy to certain stupid peoples, but that doesn't make them not stupid just because we do. Would you agree?
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:32 pm
@Zetherin,
Zeth you are positing that there is only one basic type of reason. If that is where you are coming from then in all reality the only truely reasonable people already agree with you on just about everything. Reasoning is a process using X criteria to come to Y conclusion. Obviosuly anyone who doesn't use one person's X criteria are not going to come up with that person's Y conclusion. The process of reason using another person's X criteria will naturally result in that person's Y conclusion and is only unreasonable if you dissallow that person's X criteria.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:37 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;131095 wrote:
Zeth you are positing that there is only one basic type of reason. If that is where you are coming from then in all reality the only truely reasonable people already agree with you on just about everything. Reasoning is a process using X criteria to come to Y conclusion. Obviosuly anyone who doesn't use one person's X criteria are not going to come up with that person's Y conclusion. The process of reason using another person's X criteria will naturally result in that person's Y conclusion and is only unreasonable if you dissallow that person's X criteria.


But with this view, every one is reasonable. For they are just using their 'X criteria' to come to their 'Y conclusion'. In other words, no one is wrong, every one is right. This is where you stand?

There's a difference between understanding why someone has reached the conclusion they have and accepting that their conclusion is correct simply because how they came to their conclusion is understandable.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:51 pm
@Zetherin,
Add the parameters of socio-cultural, religious, institutional normality, not everyone would be reasonable although they might have their reasons.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:56 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;131101 wrote:
Add the parameters of socio-cultural, religious, institutional normality, not everyone would be reasonable although they might have their reasons.


Wait, so you agree with me now? You're confusing me. Do you believe everyone is reasonable?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:58 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;131081 wrote:
Define what you would consider a "better reason", because there are those who would think Jane had the best reason, she saw a ghost. Try to go beyond the example, or at least fill in the gaps, because Jane still doesn't know it was really an alien.



But Jane certainly did not see a ghost. She thought she saw a ghost. But if I were at a magic show, I might think I saw a lady being cut in half, too. But I would not call for the police, since I would realize it was only a trick, and I would have better reasons to think that no lady was being cut in half. You wouldn't call for the police in those circumstances, would you? And, as an educated person, you wouldn't think that what you saw was a ghost, would you?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:05 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131108 wrote:
But Jane certainly did not see a ghost. She thought she saw a ghost. But if I were at a magic show, I might think I saw a lady being cut in half, too. But I would not call for the police, since I would realize it was only a trick, and I would have better reasons to think that no lady was being cut in half. You wouldn't call for the police in those circumstances, would you? And, as an educated person, you wouldn't think that what you saw was a ghost, would you?


You may be surprised by the answers you receive!
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:15 pm
@Zetherin,
lol not everyone is reasonable but in the same vein "
No reasonable person would assume, at first guess, that what they see is a ghost." is also a gross generalization. Which was what I was trying to show. Indeed everyone can show their reasoning but in the realm of societal living not everyone can be 'reasonable'. would you rather I present the previous post as if Jane cam from a culture/relligion/family where base interpretational theory of the immediately unexplainable has parameters (X) are within the realm of normality which produce through the process of reason parameters (Y) and Jane's experience is with in (X) parameters and her conclusion is within (Y) parameters thus making her conclusion 'reasonable within her culture/society/family/religion's acceptable expectations. yet Jane's Y does not correspont with John's Y because she was not reasoning her Y off of the (X) which John's culture uses. and it would seem the same elitist reason situation presents itself. The only reasonable people are those who interpret the immediately unexplainable with your (X). The nitpicking was about the generalization of "no reasonable person" I have worked and lived among several groups of people who were fully intelligent and reasonable who would likely if in the same situation say that Jane was experiencing an apparition or supernatural phenomena of some kind. Saying that they are unreasonable people is much the same as calling them mentally deficient, or uncapable of common human rational function. Some of these people are highly educated, even in the western educational system. Tenured professors in reputable unis. Its not like we can claim the uneducated card.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:19 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;131109 wrote:
You may be surprised by the answers you receive!


No. Not on this forum. Although I will probably be astonished by some of them.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:30 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;131083 wrote:
No reasonable person would assume, at first guess, that what they see is a ghost. But we often mistake things for what they are not. For instance, I went in my garage the other day and thought I saw a snake on the floor. As I approached it, I realized it was just some rope coiled up. But my reason for thinking it was a snake was because, well, first, I know snakes exist, and secondly, I know snakes often get locked in my garage.

What about "better reason" do you want me to define? Do you want me to give you a better reason than ad populum for not believing ghosts exist? Sure thing: There is no evidence for ghosts having existed. But, stop right there, because I already know what you're thinking - you think I'm saying ghosts don't exist. But I'm not. Note that I said "for not believing ghosts exist", not "for believing ghosts do not exist". There is a big difference. In fact, it is the difference between a weak and strong atheist. And it is the difference between committing the fallacy argument from ignorance, and not.

Do you have a specific question to ask me?


No you've got me all wrong, I'm not assuming you are saying ghosts don't exist. The point is who told you it is unreasonable to believe in ghosts? Who taught you to think in such a way? Sure it makes good sense that believing in ghosts is unreasonable, but based on what grounds? Does it not come back to nature vs. nurture? Nurture represents ad populum and nature relies on one's experience.

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 02:32 PM ----------

kennethamy;131108 wrote:
But Jane certainly did not see a ghost. She thought she saw a ghost. But if I were at a magic show, I might think I saw a lady being cut in half, too. But I would not call for the police, since I would realize it was only a trick, and I would have better reasons to think that no lady was being cut in half. You wouldn't call for the police in those circumstances, would you? And, as an educated person, you wouldn't think that what you saw was a ghost, would you?


I wouldn't, but we're talking about Jane here Razz and Jane could have all sorts of ideas about what it is reasonable to believe.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:34 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;131122 wrote:
No you've got me all wrong, I'm not assuming you are saying ghosts don't exist. The point is who told you it is unreasonable to believe in ghosts? Who taught you to think in such a way? Sure it makes good sense that believing in ghosts is unreasonable, but based on what grounds? Does it not come back to nature vs. nurture? Nurture represents ad populum and nature relies on one's experience.

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 02:32 PM ----------



I wouldn't, but we're talking about Jane here Razz and Jane could have all sorts of ideas about what it is reasonable to believe.


I am afraid I don't know Jane. Is she the same Jane who is affiliated with Tarzan?
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:36 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131124 wrote:
I am afraid I don't know Jane. Is she the same Jane who is affiliated with Tarzan?


If she is she may find it reasonable to believe animals of all kinds can talk in English.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:40 pm
@Reconstructo,
Scottydamion wrote:

No you've got me all wrong, I'm not assuming you are saying ghosts don't exist. The point is who told you it is unreasonable to believe in ghosts? Who taught you to think in such a way? Sure it makes good sense that believing in ghosts is unreasonable, but based on what grounds? Does it not come back to nature vs. nurture? Nurture represents ad populum and nature relies on one's experience.


I told you. It's based on evidence, or a lack thereof. There is no evidence that ghosts exist, so if I see a shadowy figure, I'm not going to assume it is a ghost. Who taught me to be reasonable? Professors. Some intelligent peers. Myself, through reading and thinking.

Why do you continue to bring ad populum into this? No one has ever claimed that you should even present that argument when it comes to ghosts. I've actually spoken against it. And I will again, more explicitly this time. It is fallacious to assume that ghosts don't exist simply because most people do not believe they do.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:42 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;131129 wrote:
If she is she may find it reasonable to believe animals of all kinds can talk in English.


I certainly hope they do. It will be hard for them to get along in the world unless they do. English is now the lingua franca, you know.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:58 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;131132 wrote:
I told you. It's based on evidence, or a lack thereof. There is no evidence that ghosts exist, so if I see a shadowy figure, I'm not going to assume it is a ghost. Who taught me to be reasonable? Professors. Some intelligent peers. Myself, through reading and thinking.

Why do you continue to bring ad populum into this? No one has ever claimed that you should even present that argument when it comes to ghosts. I've actually spoken against it. And I will again, more explicitly this time. It is fallacious to assume that ghosts don't exist simply because most people do not believe they do.


Do you not think your beliefs are pinned to what your teachers have taught you is reasonable and to your natural ability to be reasonable? Try looking at a subtler example:

(Think back to the Columbus period)
It is not reasonable to believe in The New World.

It is obvious to us that it is reasonable to believe there is such a thing as The New World, but to them it was obvious that is was not reasonable to believe in The New World.

The subtle point being our ability to have hindsight concerning their beliefs but not our own. So it may seem reasonable that our beliefs are more reasonable since we have hindsight, but we rely on our sense of reason nonetheless. It is easy to get tripped up on the example I gave, but try to think of the example as a metaphor for metareasoning.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:02 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;131143 wrote:
but to them it was obvious that is was not reasonable to believe in The New World.



But what is reasonable "to them" is not the issue. The issue is what is reasonable.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:09 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131147 wrote:
But what is reasonable "to them" is not the issue. The issue is what is reasonable.


Let me just manipulate that quote:

But what is reasonable "to us" is not the issue. The issue is what is reasonable.

Did that make anything click? That it will always be what a person deems as reasonable, whether or not it is?

I'm trying to develop a subtle point about having an open mind, I'm not trying to say nothing is reasonable.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:13 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;131148 wrote:
Let me just manipulate that quote:

But what is reasonable "to us" is not the issue. The issue is what is reasonable.

Did that make anything click? That it will always be what a person deems as reasonable, whether or not it is?

I'm trying to develop a subtle point about having an open mind, I'm not trying to say nothing is reasonable.


Nope, because what someone thinks is reasonable, and what is reasonable need not be the same thing. And open minds and empty heads are different too.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 10:30:10