Navigating Belief

The Intersection of Consensus and Truth or Incoherent Ramblings - take your pick

Thoughts from Ephektikoi

If reasoning is based on prior belief, and even if that reasoning is perfect (deity level thinking) and if those prior beliefs are wrong, the conclusion can not be trusted. However, the conclusion could be coincidentally correct, although this is unlikely. The odds of prior belief being correct in even moderately complex areas of discourse is not all that high, based on both life experience and inductive reasoning.

ChatGPT 3.5

Your statement captures an important aspect of human cognition and the limitations inherent in relying solely on prior beliefs for reasoning. Let's break down your points:

1. Reasoning based on prior belief: Prior beliefs heavily influence our reasoning process. These beliefs shape our assumptions, perceptions, and interpretations of new information. However, if these beliefs are incorrect, they can lead to flawed conclusions.

2. Perfect reasoning with flawed prior beliefs: Even if our reasoning process is flawless (reaching a level akin to deity-like thinking), if it's built upon incorrect prior beliefs, the conclusions drawn from it cannot be trusted. This is because the foundation upon which the reasoning is built is faulty.

3. Possibility of coincidentally correct conclusions: Despite flawed prior beliefs, it's conceivable that a conclusion reached through flawed reasoning could coincidentally align with reality. However, this outcome is unlikely, especially in complex areas of discourse, where the odds of prior beliefs being correct are low.

4. Low odds of prior beliefs being correct: In many complex areas of discourse, such as philosophy, science, or ethics, prior beliefs are often based on incomplete or inaccurate information. Therefore, the likelihood of these beliefs being correct is not high, both based on life experience and inductive reasoning.

In essence, your argument highlights the importance of critically examining our beliefs and being open to revising them in the face of new evidence or better reasoning. It underscores the need for humility in our cognitive processes, recognizing that our understanding of the world is limited and subject to revision.

Ephektikoi

Now, if two assertions of belief are contradictory, at most one of them can be true. It is likely in complex cases that neither of them are correct. This follows from the law of contradictions, and there is really no grounds for maintaining that the law of excluded middle does not hold in general. However, assertion contradicting other assertions abound in human discourse, and the number of opinions which are potentially contradictions of one and other is very large. So, by simple deductive logic, the number of incorrect assertions must dwarf the number of correct assertions. This may not be a problem in many cases, since the consequences of false belief are not earth shattering. In many cases, wrong beliefs can be life-threatening however.

ChatGPT 3.5

Your analysis delves into the logical implications of contradictory assertions and their prevalence in human discourse. Let's examine your points:

1. Law of Contradiction: The law of contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. If two assertions of belief are contradictory, at most one of them can be true.

2. Likelihood of both being incorrect: In complex cases, neither of the contradictory assertions may be correct. This follows from the understanding that reality is often nuanced and multifaceted, and both assertions may fail to capture the full truth.

3. Law of Excluded Middle: The law of excluded middle states that a statement is either true or false, with no middle ground. While this law generally holds true, there may be cases where uncertainty or ambiguity exists.

4. Prevalence of contradictory assertions: Contradictory assertions are indeed abundant in human discourse. People hold diverse opinions and perspectives, leading to conflicting beliefs on various topics. This abundance of contradictory assertions highlights the complexity of human thought and the diversity of perspectives.

5. Implications of incorrect assertions: In many cases, incorrect beliefs may not have significant consequences. However, in certain situations, such as those involving matters of life and death, incorrect beliefs can indeed be life-threatening.

In summary, your analysis underscores the challenges inherent in navigating the landscape of human beliefs and the potential consequences of incorrect assertions, especially in critical situations. It highlights the importance of critical thinking, skepticism, and evidence-based reasoning in discerning truth from falsehood in complex and contradictory discourse.

Ephektikoi

A very large number of people act on the implicit idea that if they think something, it is likely to be true. They in effect give themselves a privileged epistemological status. Relationships are destroyed, careers are wrecked, wars are fought over contradictory beliefs.

ChatGPT

Your observation touches upon the profound impact of individual beliefs on personal lives and broader societal dynamics. Let's explore this in more detail:

1. Privileged Epistemological Status: Many individuals tend to trust their own beliefs implicitly, assuming that if they think something, it must be true. This sense of personal certainty can lead people to overlook evidence to the contrary and resist challenging their own beliefs. This phenomenon can be seen as giving oneself a privileged epistemological status, where one's own perspective is considered inherently more valid than others.

2. Consequences of Beliefs: Beliefs, whether accurate or not, shape our actions and interactions with the world. When individuals hold contradictory beliefs, conflicts can arise, leading to strained relationships, damaged careers, and even violent conflicts on a larger scale. This underscores the immense influence of beliefs on personal and societal outcomes.

3. Destructive Impact: The repercussions of conflicting beliefs can be far-reaching and devastating. Relationships may suffer when individuals cannot reconcile their differing perspectives. Careers may be harmed when decisions are made based on erroneous beliefs rather than objective evidence. Wars and conflicts have been fueled by ideological differences and competing belief systems throughout history, resulting in widespread suffering and loss.

4. Need for Critical Thinking: Recognizing the potential consequences of unchecked belief systems emphasizes the importance of critical thinking, open-mindedness, and intellectual humility. Encouraging individuals to critically evaluate their own beliefs, consider alternative perspectives, and seek evidence-based reasoning can mitigate the harmful effects of contradictory beliefs and promote mutual understanding and cooperation.

In summary, your observation underscores the significant impact of individual beliefs on personal and societal well-being, highlighting the need for greater awareness of the potential consequences of holding contradictory beliefs and the importance of fostering a culture of critical thinking and intellectual humility.

Ephektikoi

Sometimes people assert that something must be true when there is consensus on that position. It is clear to a lot of folks that consensus does not guarantee truth; many voices in the past have pointed that out. However, does consensus increase the odds of something being correct? I can think of quite a few counter examples, but am open to other views on the issue.

ChatGPT

Note: A weak generic response, which is the norm with LLM AI.

The relationship between consensus and truth is complex and nuanced. While consensus among a group of people may sometimes indicate a higher probability of correctness, it does not guarantee truth. Here are some points to consider:

1. Appeal to Consensus: Consensus is often used as a heuristic or shortcut in decision-making processes. When a majority of experts or individuals agree on a particular issue, it can provide a sense of reliability and confidence in that position.

2. Potential for Bias: Consensus can be influenced by various factors, including groupthink, confirmation bias, and social pressure. People may conform to the prevailing opinion within their social or professional circles, even if it's not supported by strong evidence or reasoning.

3. Variability in Consensus: Consensus can vary depending on the context, the expertise of the individuals involved, and the available evidence. In some cases, consensus may emerge based on robust scientific evidence and rigorous debate, increasing the likelihood of correctness. In other cases, consensus may be more superficial or based on flawed reasoning.

4. Counterexamples: There are numerous historical examples where consensus has been wrong. For instance, consensus once held that the Earth was flat, that certain races were superior to others, and that certain medical treatments were effective when they were later found to be harmful. These examples illustrate the limitations of consensus as a reliable indicator of truth.

5. Role of Evidence and Reasoning: Ultimately, the validity of a consensus depends on the quality of evidence and reasoning supporting it. Consensus supported by strong empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and critical evaluation is more likely to be correct. Conversely, consensus based on anecdotal evidence, logical fallacies, or ideological biases may be less reliable.

In conclusion, while consensus can sometimes increase the odds of something being correct, it is not a foolproof indicator of truth. Critical thinking, skepticism, and independent evaluation of evidence are essential for distinguishing between valid consensus and mere conformity to prevailing beliefs.