How are false or incoherent beliefs defended?

How are false or incoherent beliefs defended?
professional knower
That's what I do, I know
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 09, 2013
Location: Inside my mommy

Total Topics: 115
Total Posts: 1354
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 3:55 AM:
Subject: How are false or incoherent beliefs defended?
For every philosophical position there is almost always at least one counter-position, where at least one of those positions have to be false. Yet people on both sides of a philosophical debate often are able to defend their beliefs (with great certitude). So we know that false beliefs are defended, and therefore we know that false beliefs can be defended. My question is - how are false beliefs defensible? Are there patterns common to defending false beliefs? Perhaps you have experience of someone defending beliefs that are demonstrably false?

Edited by Purple Pond on Aug 26, 2013 - 4:17 AM
On Aug 26, 2013 - 5:14 AM, mayor of simpleton responded: :

How are false or incoherent beliefs defended?

Simple... by whatever means one can get away with.
On Aug 26, 2013 - 5:32 AM, professional knower responded: You make it sound like they know it's false and that they are doing it on purpose.
On Aug 26, 2013 - 5:35 AM, mayor of simpleton responded: On purpose... maybe on (rare) occasion (lawyers and politicians), but quite often such arguments are more derived from passion combined with ignorance; thus the incoherence and the stubborn willful will of hammering the point home by hook or crook.
On Aug 26, 2013 - 5:49 AM, professional knower responded: Is this how you view all people who disagree with you?
On Aug 26, 2013 - 6:08 AM, mayor of simpleton responded: No, not at all. It's how I view people that preach or write manifestos. Those who dismiss any and all scientific indications of evidence for the sake of an appeal to what they desire to be so. Those who dismiss fallacies as being trivial nit-picking.
Thaos
Forum Veteran
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2013

Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 509
#2 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 4:18 AM:

Reliance on the oppositions lack of knowledge, use of terms the opposition doesn't understand, basically just hoping the opposition is stupid enough to fall for your argument and not wise enough to investigate and question your jargon.
mal4mac
Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2004

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 243
#3 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 4:21 AM:

All "false" beliefs are defensible. You can always drum up some argument to support the strangest beliefs, and if those arguments are defeated there is always another position you can take, even with the strongest evidence against you. For instance, fundamentalists can argue that God created the universe, a few thousand years ago, to look like evolution had occurred.

This might be too ridiculous for you take seriously, but there is no way of proving it false.

Think of parents telling skeptical little kids how Santa Claus gets down a chimney, when there isn't a chimney ("he comes through the crack in the door...")

Eventually such stories become too silly, even for little kids (but not for fundies!)
professional knower
That's what I do, I know
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 09, 2013
Location: Inside my mommy

Total Topics: 115
Total Posts: 1354
#4 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 4:25 AM:

Thaos wrote:
Reliance on the oppositions lack of knowledge, use of terms the opposition doesn't understand, basically just hoping the opposition is stupid enough to fall for your argument and not wise enough to investigate and question your jargon.
Your assuming that the people who defend false beliefs are dishonest. Why would anyone want to be dishonest when defending their beliefs?
ragus
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2513
#5 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 4:44 AM:

Purple Pond wrote:

For every philosophical position there is almost always at least one counter-position, where at least one of those positions have to be false.

Is your claim a philosophical position? And what of that "almost"?

professional knower
That's what I do, I know
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 09, 2013
Location: Inside my mommy

Total Topics: 115
Total Posts: 1354
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 5:02 AM:

ragus wrote:
Is your claim a philosophical position?
What difference does it make? I don't know what qualifies as a philosophical position.

And what of that "almost"?
I don't understand the question.

Edited by Purple Pond on Aug 26, 2013 - 5:19 AM
ragus
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2513
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 5:11 AM:

Purple Pond wrote:
What difference does it make? I don't what qualifies as a philosophical position.

Did you mean to say "I don't know what qualifies as a philosophical position."? If you did, then how can you make claims about them?

professional knower
That's what I do, I know
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 09, 2013
Location: Inside my mommy

Total Topics: 115
Total Posts: 1354
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 5:16 AM:

ragus wrote:
Did you mean to say "I don't know what qualifies as a philosophical position."?
Yes, I'm not paying much attention because I'm tired.

If you did, then how can you make claims about them?
I don't see any inconsistencies. Anyways, the fact that I mentioned "philosophical" is unimportant, my question isn't strictly about philosophical positions, it could be any positions.

Edited by Purple Pond on Aug 26, 2013 - 5:23 AM
apokrisis
semper politice rectam!
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 27, 2010

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 3617
#9 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 5:16 AM:

Purple Pond wrote:
For every philosophical position there is almost always at least one counter-position, where at least one of those positions have to be false.


Yes, all metaphysics must arrive at dichotomies. A thesis can only be definite to the extent it is matched by antithesis. But then the error is thinking that one of the two identified limits on what can be the case must be "false" when of course you need both to describe reality completely.

mcdoodle
Forum Veteran

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 13, 2012

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 979
#10 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Aug 26, 2013 - 5:29 AM:

Purple Pond wrote:
For every philosophical position there is almost always at least one counter-position, where at least one of those positions have to be false. Yet people on both sides of a philosophical debate often are able to defend their beliefs (with great certitude). So we know that false beliefs are defended, and therefore we know that false beliefs can be defended. My question is - how are false beliefs defensible? Are there patterns common to defending false beliefs? Perhaps you have experience of someone defending beliefs that are demonstrably false?

You believe then, a priori, that there are things called 'false beliefs' and that one position at least in any debate can be so characterised. From what philosophical position do you argue this? Can you then give an example of a false belief which all reasonable people are likely to agree as false? Does your proposition that there are false beliefs somehow stand outside this circle of debate?
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Recent Internal Replies
On Aug 26, 2013 - 8:30 AM, ragus replied internally to ragus's Thanks - that make....
On Aug 26, 2013 - 6:21 AM, mayor of simpleton replied internally to ragus's Thanks - that make....
On Aug 26, 2013 - 6:08 AM, mayor of simpleton replied internally to professional knower 's For every philosophi....
On Aug 26, 2013 - 5:49 AM, professional knower replied internally to professional knower 's For every philosophi....
On Aug 26, 2013 - 5:37 AM, mayor of simpleton replied internally to Gen11's Fridge Logic? .
On Aug 26, 2013 - 5:35 AM, mayor of simpleton replied internally to professional knower 's For every philosophi....
On Aug 26, 2013 - 5:32 AM, professional knower replied internally to professional knower 's For every philosophi....
On Aug 26, 2013 - 5:14 AM, mayor of simpleton replied internally to professional knower 's For every philosophi....

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.