There is no such thing as being open or closed to a belief.

It is completely possible for a subject to be certain that X is true.
It is illogical to claim that X must be true in order for a subject to be certain that X is true.
There is no such thing as being open or closed to an antithesis position. It is a fallacy to claim that a subject is closed to an antithesis position regardless of how certain they are of their current position.

FALLACY 1:
I am completely certain that X is true.
Therefore, I am closed to the position that X is false.

FALLACY 2:
My position is X is true.
I am open to the position that X is false.
Therefore, I am not completely certain that X is true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your first and third statements appear to conflict.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could you define what being closed and open to an anthithesis position each would mean?

 

It's not easy to define as it's a completely illogical concept. It simply means being open or closed to being incorrect about your position.

A subject is of then position that X is true.
The subject supposedly can be open or closed to being incorrect about their position upon justification compelling him to switch to the position that X is false.

And the fallacy is that if you are open to being incorrect, then you are uncertain of your position.

However, there is simply no such thing as being open or closed to being incorrect. If a subject takes a position on any matter, it is impossible for that subject not to switch to the antithesis position if compelled to do so. It is impossible to be immune from ever being compelled to switch to the antithesis position. Thus, the concept of being open/closed to being incorrect has no meaning.

 

You could try the rule used in hypothesis testing.

When you test the null hypothesis and it fails the test, you reject it. If it does not fail the test, you fail to reject it.

The failure to reject a hypothesis, does not mean that you have accepted it. It means that with the model and the variables you possess, you cannot as yet, reject it. The underlying assumption here is that the model is inherently falsifiable and you will keep testing it till you reach a point where you have theoretically falsified it.

 

That might be something different. I think what you're referring to seems to be delusional rationalization?

The point I am presenting is in regards to somebody that has already accepted a position. For whatever reason, the person holds the position that X is true. No matter what the position is, that person must take up the antithesis position if provided with material that compels that person to make the switch. Assuming a sane and rational mind, there is no such thing as an inability to switch to the antithesis position no matter how certain one is of their current position.

This is in fact a necessary basis for all discussion.

 

Yeah, so I hold the position that swans are white. I clearly hold that position. I test it over and over and over and only find white swans. So my position is made more definitive.

Then I find a black swan.

 

I think he's actually discussing pure logic, though, and not sampling.

 

Hard to say, given that he's yet to present us with any actual position beyond:

which is just obvious (and should really have been noted in the OP).

 

Is there a point to this thread, or just some confusing diatribe in the OP followed by a statement of the obvious later on?

 

Given the OP and his history, I suspect there is no point.
Alas, I've been accused of being a bit to quick on the trigger as of late, so I'll give 'luke awhile to attempt to clarify...

 

I don't know. I think there are many that would still rather beileve beliefs over facts.

Than again, there aren't too many constant absolutes in our situational experiences anyway

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I remember in a debate class where we never got to choose our side, we had to draw for it. Plenty of times I had to argue for something I didn't believe in. I am pretty open to just about anything that doesn't contradict my truth. But no ones truth is the same, and it is much harder to see the complete truth - we only see our experiences and situations - there are many situations and experiences we don't know nor understand.

I don't see black or white, I see lots of grey.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If your saying everyone should be able to change there stance when new knowledge shows something different then what they believe, sure they should. But if the belief is strong, people will take beliefs over facts that they don't understand, anyday - sad but true.

 

Well said Pipes.

And welcome.

 

Given this, then what is the point of presenting this?:

 

In my experience people are immune to having their minds changed by evidence, logic, experience.....In fact I would say we all are to varying degrees. I mean, people have clearly died before giving up on their ideas that were incorrect despite evidence. Hitler was fairly immune to evidence that he was not an overconfident and fallible military leader.

You are also incorrect in relation to me. I can be absolutely sure of this since it relates to me. I have beliefs that it would take incredible processes to disuade me of. I have other beliefs that are not remotely as solid. In fact many beliefs are to some degree ad hoc: I do not have the time and resources to be thorough (or the interest) and so I go on my best guess and would say 'well, I believe....' but I can easily imagine having my mind changed.

My belief that I exist is much more certain than my belief that I am a sexy person.

My belief that Kennedy was killed by much more than a lone gunman is not as solid as my belief that Obama is the current president of the USA. (though my certainty levels are closer than one might guess on these two issues)

 

This was a rather enormous omission in the OP. And it either reduces the whole thing to a tautology, because your definition of a rational and sane mind make it so, I would guess.

I cannot see the use of this idea now at all though it might end up agreeing with it.

and notice the two words bolded here. Another tautology. If it compels them, of course they must. This is like saying if it makes them do it they do it.

If we go back to the thread title I think it is clear it is not correct. People have varying degrees of investment in beliefs, so this creates varying degrees of what is necessary to compel them. Hence they can be and are less and more certain.

Further, as I pointed out earlier, I have beliefs where I can feel that I am not as sure. I can feel/intuit that my process of arriving at a certain belief has less foundation than other beliefs of mine have. Perhaps I wish I had more direct experience of whatever the belief relates to. Or I have read arguments against the belief that I am not sure I can completely counter, but do not compel me to the antithesis position. And it has been this way for over 20 years.

Some beliefs I have could almost go either way, take some related to certain political issues, where I feel pros and cons on each side, have made my choice on my gut, but am vastly more open than I am say to child pornography.

People are not machines, nor are they unified wholes.

 

This has nothing to do with the gut, evidence, experience, or any other method in which one is compelled to a belief. It doesn't matter what the subject believes. 1+1=2. Obama is president. If somebody presents an opposing position, they must produce material compelling enough for the subject to change to the antithesis. 1+1 does not equal 2. Obama is not president. If the material compels the subject, the subject takes the antithesis belief.

The point is the linguistic irrelevance in defining any position as open/closed to change.

 

luke,

Do go back and read the earlier criticisms of your OP.
As you've stated it, it's nothing but a pure tautology, and therefore, pointless.
If we're misinterpreting something, it's up to you to make that clear.
Otherwise, I'll have to shut it down.

 

The nightmare has begun again.

Please don't feed the monster. There is no hope.