4 ms·

I think this is spot on for futurology, although this is not what we will see in the news. We will see other stories in reaction to these events. However.... I

by chippy 11y ago

I think this is spot on for futurology, although this is not what we will see in the news. We will see other stories in reaction to these events. However.... I have a theory that when I read something like "you must read the following literature to understand what I am saying" it really means "what I am saying is based on faith - the beliefs of which you also must believe to take what I am saying as good". When I read this appeal, my defences go up. For example in this essay: > (Note: As usual, there's a lot of meat in the hyperlinks. You won't get the most out of this essay unless you are familiar with their content.) It's saying "invest your time reading this selected literature and you too will understand my beliefs". Is it just me or is this an accurate rule of thumb, this appeal to the necessary canon as indicating that the views are beliefs on faith rather than logic and rationality?

bjterry 11y ago
You have to provide people with background information if you have a view that is not mainstream. Since most people with views that aren't mainstream are probably wrong, it is a weak signal that their beliefs are wrong, too. But it is probably only a weak signal, and if you try to use it in an argument, you are being a very rude arguer. They can always respond, "Yes, I understand my ideas are not mainstream, that's why I have to provide you with background knowledge that you don't receive through education and zeitgeist. There is no other way to convince you than to provide you evidence." This doesn't directly address whether there is a difference between peoples beliefs being grounded in faith vs. logic, however. For that, I think that what you are really seeing is that in certain fields, like sciences, you can make complete arguments grounded in logic without referring to extensive outside information, or outside information that is beyond criticism. In arguments that are based on soft fields like social trends, you have to make arguments based on many examples and extrapolations. I think these arguments will necessarily seem more faith-based. The evidence in these fields is so wishy-washy, that everyone is essentially operating on faith, because there is usually not enough information to justify anyone's certainty.
- chippy 11y ago
  Thanks!

by chippy 11y ago

bjterry 11y ago

You have to provide people with background information if you have a view that is not mainstream. Since most people with views that aren't mainstream are probably wrong, it is a weak signal that their beliefs are wrong, too. But it is probably only a weak signal, and if you try to use it in an argument, you are being a very rude arguer. They can always respond, "Yes, I understand my ideas are not mainstream, that's why I have to provide you with background knowledge that you don't receive through education and zeitgeist. There is no other way to convince you than to provide you evidence." This doesn't directly address whether there is a difference between peoples beliefs being grounded in faith vs. logic, however. For that, I think that what you are really seeing is that in certain fields, like sciences, you can make complete arguments grounded in logic without referring to extensive outside information, or outside information that is beyond criticism. In arguments that are based on soft fields like social trends, you have to make arguments based on many examples and extrapolations. I think these arguments will necessarily seem more faith-based. The evidence in these fields is so wishy-washy, that everyone is essentially operating on faith, because there is usually not enough information to justify anyone's certainty.

chippy 11y ago
Thanks!