Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

I think it is the low and high epistemic burden that is confusing you, and I don't know where you are getting that from in my view.    

Take your money example.... I don't believe there is a lower and higher sliding scale.  I think that there is a reasonable requirement to believe that you have X number of dollars.  If everything else is equal (no reason to doubt), I don't think that it matters what X is.  Perhaps it is the variance, that I was talking about, that is confusing though.  With this, I'm just saying, that I think there is some room for disagreement on what exactly the standard of measure should be (we can forget this for now, if it helps).  So take the other example, the claim that I have X living in my garage.  If X is a cat, then you might be more willing to make assumptions and accept my claim.  However you really have little more epistemic reason to do so.  The question I believe is what is required to know, that a claim of X is living in my garage.  And when dealing with epistemology, I don't' think you are just talking about simply believing, but justified belief or knowing.  And there is some confusion there.

Right, thanks for the clarification. So in the example with the variance of x number of dollars, I understand that there will always be disagreements with the standard of measure between us, for each of us to get a justified belief in the variance. All I wanted to know though, was what your standard of measure is to get a justified belief in a claim.

We can then use your standard between us to talk about other beliefs otherwise we will be arguing on two fronts, both what the standard should be (I am fine to use yours) and also whether a belief is justified (which is what I'm interested in). This is why I'm trying to understand your standard of measure even though you say that it's hard to draw a line.

Are you able to briefly explain your standard of measure even though it might be hard to pinpoint the exact nature of it?

I think that it needs to make the claim evident, beyond a reasonable doubt.  I realize, that is still not very specific, but as I think on it, and I touched on this briefly before, I don't think that it is all that easy to make a standard rule.   It could be an observation, or perhaps simple observation isn't enough.  It could be a number of circumstantial pieces of evidence, that are  weak individually, but collectively point strongly to a unified conclusion.  Perhaps principles would be a better word, but even then a lot can change in the details.   I am flexible and willing to compromise, perhaps you could start off what you are thinking of as a standard.

[Abaddon_ire]

Right, thanks for the clarification. So in the example with the variance of x number of dollars, I understand that there will always be disagreements with the standard of measure between us, for each of us to get a justified belief in the variance. All I wanted to know though, was what your standard of measure is to get a justified belief in a claim.

We can then use your standard between us to talk about other beliefs otherwise we will be arguing on two fronts, both what the standard should be (I am fine to use yours) and also whether a belief is justified (which is what I'm interested in). This is why I'm trying to understand your standard of measure even though you say that it's hard to draw a line.

Are you able to briefly explain your standard of measure even though it might be hard to pinpoint the exact nature of it?

I think that it needs to make the claim evident, beyond a reasonable doubt.  

You accept that? Because it has yet to happen anywhere.

[curiosne]

Right, thanks for the clarification. So in the example with the variance of x number of dollars, I understand that there will always be disagreements with the standard of measure between us, for each of us to get a justified belief in the variance. All I wanted to know though, was what your standard of measure is to get a justified belief in a claim.

We can then use your standard between us to talk about other beliefs otherwise we will be arguing on two fronts, both what the standard should be (I am fine to use yours) and also whether a belief is justified (which is what I'm interested in). This is why I'm trying to understand your standard of measure even though you say that it's hard to draw a line.

Are you able to briefly explain your standard of measure even though it might be hard to pinpoint the exact nature of it?

I think that it needs to make the claim evident, beyond a reasonable doubt.  I realize, that is still not very specific, but as I think on it, and I touched on this briefly before, I don't think that it is all that easy to make a standard rule.   It could be an observation, or perhaps simple observation isn't enough.  It could be a number of circumstantial pieces of evidence, that are  weak individually, but collectively point strongly to a unified conclusion.  Perhaps principles would be a better word, but even then a lot can change in the details.   I am flexible and willing to compromise, perhaps you could start off what you are thinking of as a standard.

Yes, I like the word principles so let's use that instead.

If you would like my principle, here it is:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity and quality of evidence for what I deem to be an out of the ordinary claim.
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

Does that sound like a good principle? If yes, let's move on otherwise please explain your reasoning.

---

I think that it needs to make the claim evident, beyond a reasonable doubt.  

You accept that? Because it has yet to happen anywhere.

I think RR79 might be talking about a court of law situation. Someone can only be convicted of murder if the evidence points to a conclusion that is beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't know the confidence percentage for reasonable doubt but it does not necessarily mean being 100% sure.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that it needs to make the claim evident, beyond a reasonable doubt.  I realize, that is still not very specific, but as I think on it, and I touched on this briefly before, I don't think that it is all that easy to make a standard rule.   It could be an observation, or perhaps simple observation isn't enough.  It could be a number of circumstantial pieces of evidence, that are  weak individually, but collectively point strongly to a unified conclusion.  Perhaps principles would be a better word, but even then a lot can change in the details.   I am flexible and willing to compromise, perhaps you could start off what you are thinking of as a standard.

Yes, I like the word principles so let's use that instead.

If you would like my principle, here it is:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity and quality of evidence for what I deem to be an out of the ordinary claim.
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

Does that sound like a good principle? If yes, let's move on otherwise please explain your reasoning.

Your #2 I would agree with, and would add that we need to weigh anything against. 

The first principle , is where we disagree, as I have been discussing.    By out of the ordinary; do you mean frequency of occurrence?  How does that effect your knowledge of what happened?     It seems to me, that statistics of frequency may be useful when you do not have knowledge (to bolster assumptions or possibly predictions), but have little weight when evidence points towards the less ordinary.   These bolster assumptions based on probability, but have little to do when talking about knowledge and epistemology.

I work quite a bit, troubleshooting  machine controls.  Frequency of certain types of failures often come up as a starting point, but then I need to look for evidence and reason to support and gain knowledge.  I'm not a happy camper, when I have to rely on just that initial guess or what may ordinarily occur.  Also the out of the ordinary happens quite often.  Working as a contractor, I often am involved in the out of the ordinary.  Where the average customer may have the odd problem maybe once a year or so, I am often called in, because the solution is  particularly difficult to find.  And sometimes they knew the solution, but didn't want to consider it; because it was out of the ordinary, and I get to be the hero when they did all the work.

[curiosne]

Yes, I like the word principles so let's use that instead.

If you would like my principle, here it is:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity and quality of evidence for what I deem to be an out of the ordinary claim.
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

Does that sound like a good principle? If yes, let's move on otherwise please explain your reasoning.

Your #2 I would agree with, and would add that we need to weigh anything against. 

The first principle , is where we disagree, as I have been discussing.    By out of the ordinary; do you mean frequency of occurrence?  How does that effect your knowledge of what happened?     It seems to me, that statistics of frequency may be useful when you do not have knowledge (to bolster assumptions or possibly predictions), but have little weight when evidence points towards the less ordinary.   These bolster assumptions based on probability, but have little to do when talking about knowledge and epistemology.

I work quite a bit, troubleshooting  machine controls.  Frequency of certain types of failures often come up as a starting point, but then I need to look for evidence and reason to support and gain knowledge.  I'm not a happy camper, when I have to rely on just that initial guess or what may ordinarily occur.  Also the out of the ordinary happens quite often.  Working as a contractor, I often am involved in the out of the ordinary.  Where the average customer may have the odd problem maybe once a year or so, I am often called in, because the solution is  particularly difficult to find.  And sometimes they knew the solution, but didn't want to consider it; because it was out of the ordinary, and I get to be the hero when they did all the work.

It doesn't matter if it's frequency, it's what ever variable you're looking at that you deem to be out of the ordinary. However, maybe out of the ordinary isn't a good word to use in this case. Let's rephrase #1 to:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity/quality of evidence for a claim where you have low confidence of it's truth...ie to get from low to high confidence, you would thus need more evidence.
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

Do you agree with the rephrased principle?

[RoadRunner79]

---

Your #2 I would agree with, and would add that we need to weigh anything against. 

The first principle , is where we disagree, as I have been discussing.    By out of the ordinary; do you mean frequency of occurrence?  How does that effect your knowledge of what happened?     It seems to me, that statistics of frequency may be useful when you do not have knowledge (to bolster assumptions or possibly predictions), but have little weight when evidence points towards the less ordinary.   These bolster assumptions based on probability, but have little to do when talking about knowledge and epistemology.

I work quite a bit, troubleshooting  machine controls.  Frequency of certain types of failures often come up as a starting point, but then I need to look for evidence and reason to support and gain knowledge.  I'm not a happy camper, when I have to rely on just that initial guess or what may ordinarily occur.  Also the out of the ordinary happens quite often.  Working as a contractor, I often am involved in the out of the ordinary.  Where the average customer may have the odd problem maybe once a year or so, I am often called in, because the solution is  particularly difficult to find.  And sometimes they knew the solution, but didn't want to consider it; because it was out of the ordinary, and I get to be the hero when they did all the work.

---

It doesn't matter if it's frequency, it's what ever variable you're looking at that you deem to be out of the ordinary. However, maybe out of the ordinary isn't a good word to use in this case. Let's rephrase #1 to:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity/quality of evidence for a claim where you have low confidence of it's truth...ie to get from low to high confidence, you would thus need more evidence.
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

Do you agree with the rephrased principle?

Curiosne,

First, I do want to thank you, for the enjoyable conversation. 

If I am understanding correctly, I see two ways to interpret your first point.  One would be the inclusion of evidence or reasons against, in weighing the evidence towards a conclusion.  This I would agree with.  If you have a reason to have low confidence in the evidence, then that should be accounted for.

However, from the previous part of the discussion about moving the bar, I suspect that this is not what you are talking about.  I think that what you are talking about is not reasons against it, but some other subjective thing;  could be feelings, personal aversion to the conclusion, or just plain old incredulity.  That while not saying that it is false, because of your incredulity, you are going to stack the deck against it, by "raising the bar".  

Now if it is the first, description, then I would agree.  We need to account for all the evidence, both for and against.  If for some reason you have low confidence some of the evidence, then that should certainly be weighed.  It is also these type of things, that I think it is difficult to come up with some hard and fast rule.  On the other hand, if it is the second interpretation I gave; then I do have issues with it.  For one; what you are basing the conclusion on, largely is the result of the individual, not the external evidence and reasons.  Second, as we touched on before, if you are talking about logic and reason, then I think that similar inputs, should produce a similar result.  The conclusion will follow from the premises and be independent (as much as possible) of the individual. I think that with a good epistemology, that we should be doing are best to avoid such biases.   Would you disagree?

I think in your re-phrasing, it's going to depend what the reason for the low confidence is.  If it is personal bias, incredulity, or something else based on you the individual, then I think we should be trying to avoid that in a good epistemology.  If you provide good reason for the low confidence and support it with objective facts and logic,  then that is fine.   I think that low confidence is something which is arrived at, based on the evidence, not something which is started with, and needs to be overcome.  If this is correctly representing your view, then how do you justify the prominence of the subjective in speaking towards the objective truth of the matter.

I look forward to your response.

Brian

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be interesting to see a believer present evidence for and against their own god (since that's important, apparently)..starting with the "against", and then applying a little criticism to items in both columns and see what remains in either.

[downbeatplumb]

Hey curiousne, what interests you about street epistemology?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-GRjNocLs8

[The Grand Nudger]

Hopefully, practicing to speed it up so that you don't get hit by a slow moving bus when you try it in the "street".



This is just my opinion..but when it comes to epistemology, an apologist is always going to prefer dragging it out over resolution. The reason is simple. "Unresolved" is a more tenable rationalization for holding some absurd belief than "resolved and absurd". If they can't claim truth, they'll settle for maybe not false.

Non answers, half answers, endless qualifiers and constant reversals, all of these things are better than terse and prompt summaries of ones actual thought process, from that POV.

[curiosne]

---

---

It doesn't matter if it's frequency, it's what ever variable you're looking at that you deem to be out of the ordinary. However, maybe out of the ordinary isn't a good word to use in this case. Let's rephrase #1 to:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity/quality of evidence for a claim where you have low confidence of it's truth...ie to get from low to high confidence, you would thus need more evidence.
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

Do you agree with the rephrased principle?

Curiosne,

First, I do want to thank you, for the enjoyable conversation. 

If I am understanding correctly, I see two ways to interpret your first point.  One would be the inclusion of evidence or reasons against, in weighing the evidence towards a conclusion.  This I would agree with.  If you have a reason to have low confidence in the evidence, then that should be accounted for.

However, from the previous part of the discussion about moving the bar, I suspect that this is not what you are talking about.  I think that what you are talking about is not reasons against it, but some other subjective thing;  could be feelings, personal aversion to the conclusion, or just plain old incredulity.  That while not saying that it is false, because of your incredulity, you are going to stack the deck against it, by "raising the bar".  

Now if it is the first, description, then I would agree.  We need to account for all the evidence, both for and against.  If for some reason you have low confidence some of the evidence, then that should certainly be weighed.  It is also these type of things, that I think it is difficult to come up with some hard and fast rule.  On the other hand, if it is the second interpretation I gave; then I do have issues with it.  For one; what you are basing the conclusion on, largely is the result of the individual, not the external evidence and reasons.  Second, as we touched on before, if you are talking about logic and reason, then I think that similar inputs, should produce a similar result.  The conclusion will follow from the premises and be independent (as much as possible) of the individual. I think that with a good epistemology, that we should be doing are best to avoid such biases.   Would you disagree?

I think in your re-phrasing, it's going to depend what the reason for the low confidence is.  If it is personal bias, incredulity, or something else based on you the individual, then I think we should be trying to avoid that in a good epistemology.  If you provide good reason for the low confidence and support it with objective facts and logic,  then that is fine.   I think that low confidence is something which is arrived at, based on the evidence, not something which is started with, and needs to be overcome.  If this is correctly representing your view, then how do you justify the prominence of the subjective in speaking towards the objective truth of the matter.

I look forward to your response.

Brian

Ok, let's stick to the first description and disregard personal incredulity. I can see where you're coming from in terms of "stacking the deck" when it comes to personal biases so we'll stick to an objective view of all claims and evidences to support it (we can talk about my views later if you like).

So getting back to why I started this thread in the first place, you mentioned that you believe in the Judeo / Christian God.

Can you let me know how confident you are that your belief is true (from 0 to 100% sure) and what evidence has led you to your confidence level?

---

Hopefully, practicing to speed it up so that you don't get hit by a slow moving bus when you try it in the "street".



This is just my opinion..but when it comes to epistemology, an apologist is always going to prefer dragging it out over resolution.  The reason is simple.  "Unresolved" is a more tenable rationalization for holding some absurd belief than "resolved and absurd".  If they can't claim truth, they'll settle for maybe not false.

Non answers, half answers, endless qualifiers and constant reversals, all of these things are better than terse and prompt summaries of ones actual thought process, from that POV.

lol...yes, I hope it'll be a lot faster in real life when I'm talking to people

But you might be right with apologist and other irrational thinkers. I might just be getting constantly frustrated with this.

---

Hey curiousne, what interests you about street epistemology?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-GRjNocLs8

IT Crowd

My favourite show