6 ms·

I disagree with your claim that most philosophies don't equate 'inconsistent' with 'false.' I think it is, in fact, widely accepted in philosophical circles tha

I disagree with your claim that most philosophies don't equate 'inconsistent' with 'false.' I think it is, in fact, widely accepted in philosophical circles that one cannot rationally hold inconsistent beliefs, because the law of the excluded middle tells you that one of them has to be false (unless we're talking about another kind of 'philosophy'--the kind one finds in religious texts or self help books). But the insight that underlies the claim that one cannot falsify a belief is that true logical inconsistency is rare, and cannot be generated at all from empirical data. This is because what might have seemed inconsistent can always be made consistent by adopting or rejecting other auxiliary hypotheses. WVO Quine, in my view, showed this the most persuasively. So accepting or rejecting beliefs becomes a far more sophisticated exercise in choosing among competing systems of interlocking beliefs--a decision that is not easily reduced to simple logical operations. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/#QuiAlt https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/#QuiAlt

Retric 10y ago
Many, non western philosophies are are not necessarily religious and do hold that A and not A can both be true. Many non religious western philosophers hold similar beliefs as do most religious western philosophers. Now you could argue that a majority of non religious western philosophers agree with the excluded middle, but that's a fairly weak argument. PS: Read some of the crap that showed up from poor understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  Sure, but does any of this establish that "most philosophies" don't observe the law of the excluded middle? > you could argue that a majority of non religious western philosophers agree with the excluded middle, but that's a fairly weak argument. But perhaps pretty strong when my claim was only that it is "widely accepted." :) At any rate, no need to argue further about what "most" people believe. I just wanted to make it clear that, at least in the philosophical circles I'm familiar with, the law of the excluded middle is almost universally accepted.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Ok, 'Most philosophies' might be overkill, but it's well past a simple majority. That said, it can feel like non religious western philosophy makes up the majority of thought systems, but it's actually a surprisingly 'small minority'. :-)
    - pdabbadabba 10y ago
      > it can feel like non religious western philosophy makes up the majority of thought systems Definitely. And alarmingly so. The unsettling fact is that I don't feel like I have any idea at all whether most people believe in things like the law of the excluded middle--despite the fact that I'd be hard pressed to come up with a proposition that is more basic to my own view of the universe, or that of virtually everyone I know (including both people I know personally, and people whose work I've read). The world is really big.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Many, non western philosophies are are not necessarily religious and do hold that A and not A can both be true. As, for that matter, does fuzzy logic, insofar as one defines "true" as "has a non-zero truth value".

Retric 10y ago

Many, non western philosophies are are not necessarily religious and do hold that A and not A can both be true. Many non religious western philosophers hold similar beliefs as do most religious western philosophers. Now you could argue that a majority of non religious western philosophers agree with the excluded middle, but that's a fairly weak argument. PS: Read some of the crap that showed up from poor understanding of Quantum Mechanics.

pdabbadabba 10y ago
Sure, but does any of this establish that "most philosophies" don't observe the law of the excluded middle? > you could argue that a majority of non religious western philosophers agree with the excluded middle, but that's a fairly weak argument. But perhaps pretty strong when my claim was only that it is "widely accepted." :) At any rate, no need to argue further about what "most" people believe. I just wanted to make it clear that, at least in the philosophical circles I'm familiar with, the law of the excluded middle is almost universally accepted.
- Retric 10y ago
  Ok, 'Most philosophies' might be overkill, but it's well past a simple majority. That said, it can feel like non religious western philosophy makes up the majority of thought systems, but it's actually a surprisingly 'small minority'. :-)
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    > it can feel like non religious western philosophy makes up the majority of thought systems Definitely. And alarmingly so. The unsettling fact is that I don't feel like I have any idea at all whether most people believe in things like the law of the excluded middle--despite the fact that I'd be hard pressed to come up with a proposition that is more basic to my own view of the universe, or that of virtually everyone I know (including both people I know personally, and people whose work I've read). The world is really big.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Many, non western philosophies are are not necessarily religious and do hold that A and not A can both be true. As, for that matter, does fuzzy logic, insofar as one defines "true" as "has a non-zero truth value".