Rational beliefs should be able to withstand scrutiny and opposing arguments. The inability to do so indicates that the belief is more about personal bias and emotional investment rather than objective analysis.
Rational beliefs should be able to withstand scrutiny and opposing arguments. The inability to do so indicates that the belief is more about personal bias and emotional investment rather than objective analysis.
I didn’t originally state that past observations are rigorous; that is the conclusion of the entire body of science and human understanding since its inception. I absolutely get what you are saying, but unless you can cite a really good point-by-point takedown of John Locke, David Hume, Karl Popper, and the like, none of this holds any water.
Put very simply, the common epithet, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” has its roots in meaningful philosophy. Past experience is literally all we have, and any system of thought that discounts this is operating on less than nothing.
Sadly, you seem really out of your depth here. I won’t argue any further because of this, sorry.
I recommend reading up on basic philosophy of science, human knowledge, and methodology.
It’s not controversial to accept that all reasoning requires making some basic assumptions. You do understand that I’m just pointing out that a counter-argument exists and I don’t actually take it to be damning. It is the same as in all fields; there are assumptions. We assume non-contradiction and an excluded middle. This is reasonable because we can’t do much without the assumption. You can call it a properly basic belief. But that doesn’t make it objectively true. A person who doesn’t make these assumptions—if one exists—could be ridiculed, called less than nothing, even. Such a person could form no coherent views. So? I agree that all useful though must make these presupposition. But perceived utility does not a truth make.
Listing philosophers doesn’t do much. I’ll freely admit to not having read much of theirs, and I certainly won’t consume their corpora for an internet discussion. However I would be delighted to learn the mistake I’ve made, because I’m certainly no expert philosopher. If you don’t wish to continue, have a great day. If you do, I look forward to it.
To clarify, my original thesis was: “If I said I had a sincere counterargument I’d be lying” and that’s all I am speaking to.
Counterarguments exist for sure. So maybe we agree. But if I told you I could sincerely counterargue or even entertain them (as OP suggests is necessary) I would be lying. That’s all I was saying. :)