"Everything I believe is provable"

[Bak]

SeVeR said something interesting in the religion topic, figured I'd split rather than get off topic.

 

All my beliefs are based on probable truths obtained through observation and logic.

 

This statement implies the belief that observation and logic lead to provable truths. Is that belief also based on observation and logic? If so, it is a circular argument as logic is used to prove the truth of logic. If not, then the original statement is false, and we wonder why observation and logic result in truth statements.

 

As a side note, observation doesn't necessarily result in truths, since we may be hallucinating. The question is really about logic.

[Dr Brain]

In a sufficiently complex system, there are truths that cannot be proved. Conversely, in a sufficiently complex system if all truths can be proved then there are things that are not true that can be proved. This is the incompleteness theorem, in a (very small) nutshell.

[Bak]

I don't think the claim is that SeVeR believes everything that is true, but rather, everything that is believed is true and based on logic. but that brings up the question regarding the truth of logic

[Dr Brain]

Logic itself proves that logic is not enough. That's all I was getting at. Only believing provable things isn't enough.

[Bak]

enough for what? I mean, there may be true things that logic can't prove, but those things may not be important, or inconsequential. It may be functionally enough to only believe provable things, and better than the alternative of believing false things.

[Dr Brain]

It's like saying he's only going to believe in things that are green. That's SeVeR's decision, but he shouldn't expect the rest of us to bow before his superior intellect.

[SeVeR]

In what you quoted i said "probable truths" not "provable truths" as you said in your first post.

 

All my beliefs are based on probable truths obtained through observation and logic.

This statement implies the belief that observation and logic lead to provable truths.

How on Earth can saying probable truths' date=' a statement that directly establishes uncertainty, imply something that can be proven?

 

I feel i've been taken out of context here. This is what i originally said:

I don't have any faith in the beliefs i hold. All my beliefs are based on probable truths obtained through observation and logic. I don't have faith that my observations are correct' date=' I don't have faith that I am right. [b']I freely admit that i could know absolutely nothing.[/b]

 

So what i meant was the complete opposite to what you've selectively quoted and implied.

 

I don't believe anything can be proven beyond doubt, and I don't hold any beliefs that I am certain of.

Edited April 6, 2009 by SeVeR

[SeVeR]

Nothing is provable... who are you quoting in the thread title?

[»Lynx]

I think Bak?

 

nevermind.

[Bak]

Ahh you're right SeVeR, I misread what you wrote. However, the point still stands, why do logic and observation result in probable truths?

[NBVegita]

Well if we're going to start doing some philosophical dissecting, I might as well join in.

 

First Sever, I would say that this statement in itself is an oxymoron.

 

I don't have any faith in the beliefs i hold. All my beliefs are based on probable truths obtained through observation and logic. I don't have faith that my observations are correct, I don't have faith that I am right. I freely admit that i could know absolutely nothing.

 

Both faith and belief are synonymous with confidence in something. In order to hold a belief, philosophically you have to have faith in that belief. Not saying you need to have blind faith in said item. If you believe that your observations are correct, or more so true, or as true as a belief can be, then you also have at least enough faith in your beliefs to feel that they are more so correct than false.

 

Your last sentence is just reiterating all of man's philosophical position concerning truth. Everything we "know" as true could ultimately be false and vice versa.

 

Philosophically I would state that you cannot possibly have a belief without having faith in it being, or at least slightly leaning towards it being correct. Even if these beliefs are obtained through observation and logic, you have faith that your observation and logic will bring you to the proper belief, or conclusion. I think the problem philosophically is that every associates faith with either religion, or putting your trust in something that cannot be reasonably determined. I also stand to say that philosophically it is impossible to have a belief without personally having faith/opinion/feeling that it is more likely true than false. Even if you state that your belief by observation and logic, is likely to be false, if you believe in it, you believe it to be more true than false.

[SeVeR]

No human being will ever know the truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even know they had done so. That is my epistemology thanks to Xenophanes. However, that which appears apparent or intuitive, that which comes from observation or through logical laws that stand up to the scrutiny of observation, or that which we put our very survival in the hands of, are probable truths. I would call this wisdom, or the sum of all deductive reasoning on our quest to find truth. Now if you follow, the wisest words i could speak are that i have no knowledge (or justified true belief), as all my deductive reasoning has led to that conclusion. Wisdom is what is useful, knowledge is an illusion, truth is unattainable.

 

But i could be wrong of course

[SeVeR]

Both faith and belief are synonymous with confidence in something. In order to hold a belief' date=' philosophically you have to have faith in that belief. Not saying you need to have blind faith in said item. If you believe that your observations are correct, or more so true, or as true as a belief can be, then you also have at least enough faith in your beliefs to feel that they are more so correct than false.

 

Your last sentence is just reiterating all of man's philosophical position concerning truth. Everything we "know" as true could ultimately be false and vice versa.

 

Philosophically I would state that you cannot possibly have a belief without having faith in it being, or at least slightly leaning towards it being correct. Even if these beliefs are obtained through observation and logic, you have faith that your observation and logic will bring you to the proper belief, or conclusion. I think the problem philosophically is that every associates faith with either religion, or putting your trust in something that cannot be reasonably determined. I also stand to say that philosophically it is impossible to have a belief without personally having faith/opinion/feeling that it is more likely true than false. Even if you state that your belief by observation and logic, is likely to be false, if you believe in it, you believe it to be more true than false.[/quote'] It's semantics. I have always defined faith as 100% certainty in a belief being true. This is the state of the religious mind, and they call this faith. I would happily use another word for it if there was one.

 

You are right that i have confidence in observations and logic as these have proven successful tools in the past (at least by my approximation)... we all trust what is tried and tested. Every observation is accompanied with doubt though, so this is where the scientists method differs from the priests, and therefore i cannot call myself, or any others who share this common view, religious.

Edited April 6, 2009 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

But the big problem is that simply because you define faith as 100% doesn't mean that is the definition of faith.

 

I've never found a definition of faith stating it is 100% certainty, or any other paraphrased manner of such.

 

Again you're presenting faith as only absolute certainty for the religious, which is not what faith is.