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.

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.

While we agree I have little doubt you would turn around and say "it is unreasonable to believe in ghosts". I think it important to practice the use of IMO frequently for the same reason that smiling actually makes you feel happier, to help avoid dogmatic viewpoints.

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.

While we agree I have little doubt you would turn around and say "it is unreasonable to believe in ghosts". I think it important to practice the use of IMO frequently for the same reason that smiling actually makes you feel happier, to help avoid dogmatic viewpoints.

Yes, it may have been reasonable for people to believe that the Americas did not exist, bearing the knowledge of the world at that time. We often see this sort of thing in science - we turn out to be wrong about something, but we did make a reasonable assumption. A website gives a good example: At one time scientists concluded that DNA would not crystallize because after extensive testing, there was no proof that it would. This conclusion is not fallacious even though now it is known that DNA will crystallize. These scientists were being reasonable, even though they were wrong.

But the key is, during any period of time, during any point in our learning about the world, there are beliefs which are reasonable and those which are not.

I think it points out the importance of suspension of judgment. It is more reasonable, IMO, to figure out where the boundaries of research currently are and suspend judgment on views beyond that boundary. It is not to advocate an "empty head", by all means hold opinions, but don't hold them with any weight until they're provable.

Not every belief is dogma. That's a mistake that recovering religious people often make. They are so scarred from having beliefs forced on them, they now think that every belief that someone proclaims is true is dogma. But this is not true.

You, like Reconstructo, must begin to distinguish faith from justified belief. They are very different.

I think it points out the importance of suspension of judgment. It is more reasonable, IMO, to figure out where the boundaries of research currently are and suspend judgment on views beyond that boundary. It is not to advocate an "empty head", by all means hold opinions, but don't hold them with any weight until they're provable.

That's no doubt very true... I am probably preaching to the choir concerning dogma, when I mean to be preaching to myself.

However, I'm also trying to talk about suspension of judgment, but it is very possible I'm still preaching to the choir.

No, that is silly. We would be suspending judgment indefinitely then, since we're always progressing. Think about what you're saying. It's inevitable that we may be wrong at some point, but that's no reason to stop hypothesizing.

And of course we should hold some opinions with more weight than others. Again, think about what you're saying.

We shouldn't suspend judgment simply because we could be wrong. We should still come to conclusions, but we can temper those conclusions with the understanding that we are fallible. That is reasonable, isn't it?

As the American philosopher Peirce pointed out, all of us know that some of our beliefs are false, because we know we are not infallible. But, on the other hand, none of us know which of our beliefs is false for the very good reason that if we did know which they were, we would not hold them in the first place.

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?

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, 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 no evidence that ghosts exist, so if I see a shadowy figure, I'm not going to assume it is a ghost.

If we say that the world is not made of qualia, but something else, what are we saying? We theorize a something, that causes qualia. And it's perhaps a necessary theory, persuasive in its necessity. Of course we don't absorb it as a theory but as common sense.
I'm not in the least interested in denying the something that causes qualia. I'm just pointing out that this unconsidered embrace of reality as singular and definite tends to bleed into our understanding of more abstract forms of truth.
Just as the ethical-self-concept only gets interesting when a complex mind is being considered, so does persuasion-as-proof only become interesting when we look at more complicated assertions than A = A.

Much of our experience of reality is conceptual, as "reality" itself is a concept. If a person experiences an idea as reality, who can speak from a neutral dominant standpoint and exclude this from reality? This is where the relationship between truth and power should be considered. Whether a man is locked up as mad or not depends on how reality is socially conceived, especially perhaps by those in power.
As one of my many conceptions of philosophy is the "consciousness" of freedom, I find it pleasurable to reject the daily teaspoon, when that teaspoon's medicine seems like poison. It's also just a laugh.

As the American philosopher Peirce pointed out, all of us know that some of our beliefs are false, because we know we are not infallible. But, on the other hand, none of us know which of our beliefs is false for the very good reason that if we did know which they were, we would not hold them in the first place.

No one has responded to this. Where do qualia fit in?

There is no evidence for ghosts existing, and this is why the other nine girls shouldn't believe Jane. And Jane shouldn't believe there is no ghost there simply because the other nine don't believe in ghosts. Who ever said that she should?

And, finally, the other nine girls were right - it wasn't a ghost. Jane was wrong. It was an alien who stole the predator's cloaking device.

Everywhere O.o

The idea of qualia is the ultimate humbling factor to me. I don't have anything to add however... except perhaps in asking if you follow the Youtube channel "QualiaSoup"?

Sure, but if it was impossible to improve on knowing which beliefs were false we would not have the advancements of science.

But the key is, during any period of time, during any point in our learning about the world, there are beliefs which are reasonable and those which are not.

We can extend courtesy to certain stupid peoples, but that doesn't make them not stupid just because we do. Would you agree?

6.363 The procedure of induction consists in accepting as true the
simplest law that can be reconciled with our experiences.


6.3631 This procedure, however, has no logical justification but only a
psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing
that the simplest eventuality will in fact be realized.


6.36311 It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this
means that we do not know whether it will rise.


6.37 There is no compulsion making one thing happen because another has
happened. The only necessity that exists is logical necessity.


6.371 The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the
illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of
natural phenomena.


6.372 Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as
something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages.
And in fact both are right and both wrong: though the view of the
ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged
terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything
were explained.


6.373 The world is independent of my will.


6.374 Even if all that we wish for were to happen, still this would
only be a favour granted by fate, so to speak: for there is no logical
connexion between the will and the world, which would guarantee it, and
the supposed physical connexion itself is surely not something that we
could will.


6.375 Just as the only necessity that exists is logical necessity, so
too the only impossibility that exists is logical impossibility.

Sure, but if it was impossible to improve on knowing which beliefs were false we would not have the advancements of science. I'm trying to improve on stemming the tide of false beliefs by figuring out where to draw the line in holding weight to beliefs so that they don't become harder to rid oneself of if and when they are later discovered to be false. Just as we are able to decide what is more reasonable compared to the people of Columbus's age, we should also be able to decide which pathways to belief are more reasonable using the same historical evidence.

But who said it was impossible to prove that beliefs are false? Haven't we decided for some time how to tell whether one belief is more reasonable than another? By the use of logic and perception. That is, science.

I have little doubt we share a fairly common view of what pathways to belief are more reasonable than others, but I do not think most people think this stuff through. That is part of the problem, in this information age people can google "proof that I am right" and find lousy justification for all sorts of beliefs. How does one confront this since science and philosophy are a small percentage of careers?