Is holding an unjustified belief illogical?

[UndercoverElephant]

In another thread, Godless Dave and PixyMisa, among others, have repeatedly insisted that it is illogical to hold a single unjustified belief.

Here is an example: "Viking explorers reached Mexico."

The example has been chosen because (a) we have no evidence to suggest that they did reach Mexico but (b) it is entirely possible that they did and we have no firm reason to assert that they didn't. We simply don't know. The Vikings themselves may not have known, since the explorers could have reached Mexico but never made it back home again.

The question is this: Is it actually illogical to hold this unjustified belief, or is it merely unjustified?

I make no secret of my own position: Dave and PixyMisa are wrong. Logical contradictions can only occur when you have more than one claim and there is a logical inconsistency between those multiple claims. For example: we know from satellite data that there are no peaks on the Earth higher than Everest, so if I were to believe that there was a mountain higher than Everest then I'd believe something illogical - there would be a logical inconsistency between the satellite data and my claim. In the case of the Vikings, there is only one claim being considered. There is no equivalent of the satellite data, just a big unknown.

It's very simple, folks: One claim/belief can't be illogical. You can only have a logical contradiction or inconsistency between multiple claims/beliefs. If we have no firm evidence to support the claim/belief that Vikings never reached Mexico then it is not illogical to believe that they did. It may well be wrong and inadvisable to believe such a thing, but illogical it is not.

[Third Eye Open]

Why would someone hold the belief "Viking explorers reached Mexico."? They must have some basis or "justification." If that justification is not a logical one, then it is not a logical belief.

If someone chooses to believe that Viking explorers reached Mexico simply because they have Viking ancestry and like the idea, I would consider that illogical.

If they believe it based on some piece of evidence, then that is a different story.

[godless dave]

In another thread, Godless Dave and PixyMisa, among others, have repeatedly insisted that it is illogical to hold a single unjustified belief.

Here is an example: "Viking explorers reached Mexico."

The example has been chosen because (a) we have no evidence to suggest that they did reach Mexico but (b) it is entirely possible that they did and we have no firm reason to assert that they didn't. We simply don't know.

I've bolded the part that explains why holding the belief is illogical.

[UndercoverElephant]

Why would someone hold the belief "Viking explorers reached Mexico."? They must have some basis or "justification."


Not necessarily. Some people believe things for no reason: it's called "faith."

It doesn't matter why they hold the belief. The question is whether or not such a belief can, in itself, be illogical, if no other claims/beliefs are being evaluated.


If someone chooses to believe that Viking explorers reached Mexico simply because they have Viking ancestry and like the idea, I would consider that illogical.


Then please add your name to the "Yes, it's illogical" list.

There is nothing illogical about believing things because you like the idea. It only becomes illogical if the belief actually contradicts some other known fact.

[UndercoverElephant]

I've bolded the part that explains why holding the belief is illogical.

"We don't know" means WE DON'T KNOW. It doesn't mean "We know they didn't." Therefore there is no logical contradiction.

[godless dave]

Not necessarily. Some people believe things for no reason: it's called "faith."

It doesn't matter why they hold the belief. The question is whether or not such a belief can, in itself, be illogical, if no other claims/beliefs are being evaluated.

Once it's a belief, it's no longer by "itself". Believing something to be true carries the assumption that the premise you believe to be true is consistent with known facts about reality.

[sphenisc]

I've bolded the part that explains why holding the belief is illogical.

That would make it alogical rather than illogical.

[Third Eye Open]

I've bolded the part that explains why holding the belief is illogical.

This is probably, once again, going to come down to semantics. Some people consider the word 'believe' to mean 'I am absolutely certain about this and there is no way anyone can change my mind ever because this is my belief!"
And tend to go on tangents about "how we can believe anything", and "why should you point out how my beliefs are dumb when you don't know FOR SURE."

This is not what 'believe' means to most people. I don't know if anyone is using it like this, but it tends to crop up in discussions about beliefs.

I decide whether I believe something based on the evidence at hand. If someone had told me (before I read this post) that the Vikings had visited Mexico, I would probably believe them, it sounds plausible, and I have bad knowledge of history. I may even go on believing it for a long time, as it has no effect on my life. I would not consider that kind of belief illogical.

Once it has been challenged however, and pointed out to me that there is no reason to believe this, and if I choose to continue believing based on nothing other than the fact that this is what I have believed until now, then it is illogical.

If you have no knowledge of something, the logical move is to have no opinion of it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Once it's a belief, it's no longer by "itself". Believing something to be true carries the assumption that the premise you believe to be true is consistent with known facts about reality.

Sure. And as I keep asking you, and you keep not answering....which fact about reality do you think this example is inconsistent with?

We have no relevant fact. WE DON'T KNOW. We do know that Everest is the highest mountain. Therefore believing there is a higher one would be illogical. We do not know whether or not the Vikings reached Mexico.

[DC]

It doesn't matter why they hold the belief.

well then its illogical.

[godless dave]

"We don't know" means WE DON'T KNOW. It doesn't mean "We know they didn't." Therefore there is no logical contradiction.

If you admit that we don't know, then it is inconsistent to claim that you do know. That's the contradiction.

Sure. And as I keep asking you, and you keep not answering....which fact about reality do you think this example is inconsistent with?

We have no relevant fact. WE DON'T KNOW.

As I explained in the other thread, "we don't know" is the fact about reality that this example is inconsistent with.

It is contradictory to say that you don't know and then to claim that you do know.

[Yoink]

Seems obvious to me that it's a classic case of an unjustified belief. I suspect that when people call it "illogical" they're really thinking of any possible arguments you might make to defend preferring that unjustified belief to any other unjustified belief. Most people with unjustified beliefs quickly descend into illogic in support of them.

I suppose the obvious follow up question to the statement "I hold X belief, which I know to be unjustified" is always "well, why do you hold it, then"? If the answer is something like "I just don't want to live in a world in which the Vikings didn't discover Mexico" then you've immediately strayed into illogic. The world is as the world is. Your unjustified belief makes Viking discovery of Mexico no more or less likely to have actually occurred, so that is not a "reason" to believe, merely a statement of why nonbelief is personally painful to you.

[UndercoverElephant]

That would make it alogical rather than illogical.

Yes. Neither logical nor illogical. It's an unjustified belief and that is all.

[UndercoverElephant]

well then its illogical.

Add your name to the list, please...

Logical contradictions don't magically appear because of a lack of justification. They require two or more claims/beliefs which actually contradict each other. How they are or are not justified is totally irrelevant.

[Third Eye Open]

It is contradictory to say that you don't know and then to claim that you do know.

I think this bears repeating.

[godless dave]

Add your name to the list, please...

Logical contradictions don't magically appear because of a lack of justification. They require two or more claims/beliefs which actually contradict each other.

First of all, the word "illogical" covers a lot more than just logical contradictions. Holding a belief that can't be justified logically is illogical just because it can't be justified logically. "Il-" means "not". It doesn't mean contradiction.

But in this case we do have a contradiction between two claims.

Claim 1: We don't know whether Vikings made it to what is now Mexico.
Claim 2: Vikings made it to what is now Mexico.

Those two claims directly contradict each other.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you admit that we don't know, then it is inconsistent to claim that you do know. That's the contradiction.


Nope, that's not a logical contradiction either. I don't know whether my cat is asleep on my bed, but I believe that he is. I haven't seen him walk past me and he's usually asleep on my bed around now. There is absolutely nothing illogical about this.


As I explained in the other thread, "we don't know" is the fact about reality that this example is inconsistent with.


No Dave, "we don't know" is the abscence of a fact about reality.

[godless dave]

Nope, that's not a logical contradiction either. I don't know whether my cat is asleep on my bed, but I believe that he is. I haven't seen him walk past me and he's usually asleep on my bed around now. There is absolutely nothing illogical about this.

If you had said "I suspect my cat is asleep on my bed", then you would be right.



No Dave, "we don't know" is the abscence of a fact about reality.

No, it's a fact that we don't know. Our lack of knowledge is a fact about our knowledge.

[UndercoverElephant]

Seems obvious to me that it's a classic case of an unjustified belief.


Yep, textbook example.


I suspect that when people call it "illogical" they're really thinking of any possible arguments you might make to defend preferring that unjustified belief to any other unjustified belief. Most people with unjustified beliefs quickly descend into illogic in support of them.


Maybe, but that's not what we were discussing.


I suppose the obvious follow up question to the statement "I hold X belief, which I know to be unjustified" is always "well, why do you hold it, then"? If the answer is something like "I just don't want to live in a world in which the Vikings didn't discover Mexico" then you've immediately strayed into illogic. The world is as the world is. Your unjustified belief makes Viking discovery of Mexico no more or less likely to have actually occurred, so that is not a "reason" to believe, merely a statement of why nonbelief is personally painful to you.

All of which is just circumstantial psychoanalysis. It makes no difference to the fact that the belief itself is merely unjustified an a-logical, not illogical.

[ponderingturtle]

In another thread, Godless Dave and PixyMisa, among others, have repeatedly insisted that it is illogical to hold a single unjustified belief.

Ah another of these threads. Ok what do we mean by Illogical and what do we mean by unjustified belief?

Is the belief that all men are created equal justified or not? There is a lot of evidence against it. Can we even prove that equality before the law is purely beneficial, and how do we define beneficial?


It's very simple, folks: One claim/belief can't be illogical. You can only have a logical contradiction or inconsistency between multiple claims/beliefs. If we have no firm evidence to support the claim/belief that Vikings never reached Mexico then it is not illogical to believe that they did. It may well be wrong and inadvisable to believe such a thing, but illogical it is not.

Depends. This gets into if a belief is supported by evidence or how much evidence we would expect to see.

You can be a YEC and fully except all the scientific evidence, all you need to have is a supernatural agency planting evidence to test your faith. This belief is unfalseafiable. The only way to falsefy it would be to find evidence for YEC.

So in general an argument or a position can be illogical in that it contains logical fallacies. Of course just because someone supports their position with logical fallacies does not mean they are wrong. I think a lot of people would talk about many scientific principles with logical fallacies, that does not mean that the science behind those beliefs is wrong.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think this bears repeating.

Yes, it is illogical to simultaneously claim you do and don't know something. But that is not implied in the example. The person making the claim either only believes this to be true, and doesn't say he knows, or he says he knows but can't tell us how or why.

[Third Eye Open]

Nope, that's not a logical contradiction either. I don't know whether my cat is asleep on my bed, but I believe that he is. I haven't seen him walk past me and he's usually asleep on my bed around now. There is absolutely nothing illogical about this.

Of course not. You have the evidence of past experiences with your cat as reason to believe that.



No Dave, "we don't know" is the abscence of a fact about reality.

Wrong. 'We don't know' is a fact. It is a true statement about the current state of our knowledge.

[godless dave]

Yes, it is illogical to simultaneously claim you do and don't know something. But that is not implied in the example.

It most certainly is. In the example, you are simultaneously saying that we don't know if Vikings made it to Mexico and that you do know Vikings made it to Mexico.

[Third Eye Open]

Yes, it is illogical to simultaneously claim you do and don't know something. But that is not implied in the example. The person making the claim either only believes this to be true, and doesn't say he knows, or he says he knows but can't tell us how or why.

Hmm... ok... What is the difference to you, between believing something and knowing something?

[sphenisc]

First of all, the word "illogical" covers a lot more than just logical contradictions. Holding a belief that can't be justified logically is illogical just because it can't be justified logically. "Il-" means "not". It doesn't mean contradiction.

But in this case we do have a contradiction between two claims.

Claim 1: We don't know whether Vikings made it to what is now Mexico.
Claim 2: Vikings made it to what is now Mexico.

Those two claims directly contradict each other.

No, they don't.

[UndercoverElephant]

It most certainly is. In the example, you are simultaneously saying that we don't know if Vikings made it to Mexico and that you do know Vikings made it to Mexico.

I said "We don't know" in the commentary, explaining why the example had been chosen. The person who is making the claim is NOT ME. UndercoverElephant doesn't believe the Vikings reached Mexico.

This is just a derail, Dave. Shall I fix the example so you can't derail it?

Hypothetical person Ben says: "I believe Viking explorers reached Mexico. It's just an intuition."

The example has been chosen because (a) we [the scientific community and general public] are unaware of any evidence to suggest that they did reach Mexico but (b) it is entirely possible that they did and we have no firm reason to assert that they didn't. We simply don't know.

NOW...is Ben's belief illogical, or merely insufficiently justified for anybody else to take seriously?

[Yoink]

Yep, textbook example.



Maybe, but that's not what we were discussing.



All of which is just circumstantial psychoanalysis. It makes no difference to the fact that the belief itself is merely unjustified an a-logical, not illogical.

Um, if you're going to be a stickler about what is "logical" and "illogical" (and I agree with you on those points), I'll come back and be a stickler about what is "psychoanalysis" and what isn't. What I provided had nothing to do with "psychoanalysis." I was saying that any argument in defense of maintaining an unjustified belief would be illogical. That's a claim about logic, not psychology. You could prove me wrong, of course, by providing a counterexample. Try to defend holding an unjustified belief which you know to be unjustified without committing an error of logic.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This reminds me of similar discussions we've had (usually on theism) that hinged on the meaning of the word rational. If you use rational or logical as a term of art (meaning not having an internal contradiction--that is something akin to merely possible), then these beliefs aren't illogical or irrational. That is, the ONLY beliefs that are illogical are round squares, four-sided triangles and other flat-out contradictions.

If you use the terms in their everyday language usage where they mean something more like reasonable, then such beliefs are not logical or rational.

The problem is, you can easily run into the argumentative fallacy of ambiguity. If I agree that holding such beliefs is not illogical (as the term of art--a very very limited meaning), you can't then turn around and use the proposition in a context that suggests you meant logical to mean reasonable.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you had said "I suspect my cat is asleep on my bed", then you would be right.



No, I actually believed it too...although I was wrong, because I just checked and he's out in the garden.

This is all irrelevant. I suspect, I believe, I know....these words don't make any difference to the substance of the claim. They don't affect the logic. All that matters is the phrase "my cat is asleep on my bed". THAT is what we are applying the logic to, but in this case, as in the case of the Vikings reaching Mexico, we have no other statement to compare it to.

[Third Eye Open]

NOW...is Ben's belief illogical, or merely insufficiently justified for anybody else to take seriously?

I would say that it is illogical to make positive claims based on 'intuition', yes.

Not saying I don't do it, but yes, illogical.

[UndercoverElephant]

No, they don't.

Hooray! :D

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would say that it is illogical to make positive claims based on 'intuition', yes.

Not saying I don't do it, but yes, illogical.

Not if illogical is used in its stricter meaning. In that case, it's irrelevant how or why you came to espouse a proposition. All that matters is the proposition doesn't contain a contradiction to say that the proposition is logical.

Now if you're addressing a logical proof (which we're not as this has been presented), then you need only examine the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. You could well have a logical argument that concluded something wholly contrary to fact--if you started out with contrary to fact premises.

Again, the problem hinges on the ambiguity in the term logical.

You can't use it in its stricter meaning (not internally contradictory) AND simultaneously in its more common sense of something like reasonable.

ETA: Merriam Webster gives what I've been calling the term of art or more strict meaning as meaning number 1 and the other as meaning number 2:
1 a (1) : of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic (2) : skilled in logic b : formally true or valid : analytic, deductive
2 : capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion <a logical thinker>

[UndercoverElephant]

Um, if you're going to be a stickler about what is "logical" and "illogical" (and I agree with you on those points), I'll come back and be a stickler about what is "psychoanalysis" and what isn't. What I provided had nothing to do with "psychoanalysis." I was saying that any argument in defense of maintaining an unjustified belief would be illogical.


Why?


That's a claim about logic, not psychology. You could prove me wrong, of course, by providing a counterexample. Try to defend holding an unjustified belief which you know to be unjustified without committing an error of logic.

OK, I accept this. "Defence" and "justification" essentially mean the same thing in this context. If the belief is known to me to be unjustified then it also must be known to me that it is impossible to defend myself against the accusation that it is unjustified. Is that what you meant?

[godless dave]

I said "We don't know" in the commentary, explaining why the example had been chosen. The person who is making the claim is NOT ME. UndercoverElephant doesn't believe the Vikings reached Mexico.

Yes, I know that. I'm only using "you" because that's how you worded the example. I am not trying to derail anything, I am just using the example you provided.


Hypothetical person Ben says: "I believe Viking explorers reached Mexico. It's just an intuition."

The example has been chosen because (a) we [the scientific community and general public] are unaware of any evidence to suggest that they did reach Mexico but (b) it is entirely possible that they did and we have no firm reason to assert that they didn't. We simply don't know.

NOW...is Ben's belief illogical, or merely insufficiently justified for anybody else to take seriously?

It is illogical. Ben is making a claim that is not logically justifiable.

[Third Eye Open]

Not if illogical is used in its stricter meaning. In that case, it's irrelevant how or why you came to espouse a proposition. All that matters is the proposition doesn't contain a contradiction to say that the proposition is logical.

Now if you're addressing a logical proof (which we're not as this has been presented), then you need only examine the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. You could well have a logical argument that concluded something wholly contrary to fact--if you started out with contrary to fact premises.

Again, the problem hinges on the ambiguity in the term logical.

You can't use it in its stricter meaning (not internally contradictory) AND simultaneously in its more common sense of something like reasonable.

ETA: Merriam Webster gives what I've been calling the term of art or more strict meaning as meaning number 1 and the other as meaning number 2:

Ok then, in regards to:

X+Y=7

Is it logical to say X=4?

It certainly could equal 4.

[Richard Masters]

First of all, the word "illogical" covers a lot more than just logical contradictions. Holding a belief that can't be justified logically is illogical just because it can't be justified logically. "Il-" means "not". It doesn't mean contradiction.

But in this case we do have a contradiction between two claims.

Claim 1: We don't know whether Vikings made it to what is now Mexico.
Claim 2: Vikings made it to what is now Mexico.

Those two claims directly contradict each other.

Both claims can be true simultaneously, therefore they do not contradict each other.

[godless dave]

No, I actually believed it too...although I was wrong, because I just checked and he's out in the garden.

This is all irrelevant. I suspect, I believe, I know....these words don't make any difference to the substance of the claim. They don't affect the logic. All that matters is the phrase "my cat is asleep on my bed". THAT is what we are applying the logic to, but in this case, as in the case of the Vikings reaching Mexico, we have no other statement to compare it to.

We do have a statement to compare it to - your statement that you are not looking at your bed right now.

[Yoink]

Statements that are not illogical:

God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.
Vikings discovered Mexico.
Sarah Palin is more intelligent than Einstein.
My oven would not work if it were not for the elves that live under my house.
Frank Sinatra was an alien from alpha centauri.
Bigfoot is the only thing keeping humanity safe from the Reverse vampires.

None of these statements is "illogical" and therefore it could not be said that belief in any of these statements was illogical per se. But so what? That and $3.75 buys you a venti latte at Starbucks. The only thing that really matters is whether it is justified to hold any of these beliefs. And the answer to that is clearly no.

[UndercoverElephant]

This reminds me of similar discussions we've had (usually on theism) that hinged on the meaning of the word rational. If you use rational or logical as a term of art (meaning not having an internal contradiction--that is something akin to merely possible), then these beliefs aren't illogical or irrational. That is, the ONLY beliefs that are illogical are round squares, four-sided triangles and other flat-out contradictions.

If you use the terms in their everyday language usage where they mean something more like reasonable, then such beliefs are not logical or rational.

The problem is, you can easily run into the argumentative fallacy of ambiguity. If I agree that holding such beliefs is not illogical (as the term of art--a very very limited meaning), you can't then turn around and use the proposition in a context that suggests you meant logical to mean reasonable.

Yes, maybe some people are misinterpreting "logical" to mean "reasonable". I meant "logical" in a strict, technical sense.

[godless dave]

Yes, it is illogical to simultaneously claim you do and don't know something. But that is not implied in the example. The person making the claim either only believes this to be true, and doesn't say he knows,

Claiming to believe something is claiming to know it.

[Third Eye Open]

Statements that are not illogical:

God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.
Vikings discovered Mexico.
Sarah Palin is more intelligent than Einstein.
My oven would not work if it were not for the elves that live under my house.
Frank Sinatra was an alien from alpha centauri.
Bigfoot is the only thing keeping humanity safe from the Reverse vampires.

None of these statements is "illogical" and therefore it could not be said that belief in any of these statements was illogical per se. But so what? That and $3.75 buys you a venti latte at Starbucks. The only thing that really matters is whether it is justified to hold any of these beliefs. And the answer to that is clearly no.


Serious question: Does 'not illogical' equal 'logical'?

[godless dave]

No, they don't.

You're right. I'll correct my phrasing:

Claim 1: We don't know if Vikings made it to Mexico.
Claim 2: I believe that Vikings made it to Mexico.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok then, it regards to:

X+Y=7

Is it logical to say X=4?

It certainly could equal 4.
Exactly.

X=4 could be entirely false, but there is no contradiction in it like there is in a statement like "X=4 and X!=4".
So "X=4" is a logical statement, but "X=4 and X!=4" is an illogical statement.

But it would be unreasonable without further information to believe that X=4 and not any of the infinite number of other possible values.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, I know that. I'm only using "you" because that's how you worded the example. I am not trying to derail anything, I am just using the example you provided.



It is illogical. Ben is making a claim that is not logically justifiable.

Dave, I think it would be better to let some other people take over the debate with you. I'm not getting very far.

[godless dave]

Dave, I think it would be better to let some other people take over the debate with you. I'm not getting very far.

You're not getting very far because you're wrong.

The statement "Vikings reached Mexico" is not illogical by itself. The belief that "Vikings reached Mexico" is illogical.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Serious question: Does 'not illogical' equal 'logical'?

No. The way Yoink is using "illogical" is the stricter meaning. That is, something is logical if it is merely possible (that is, it is logical if there is no contradiction in the statement).

Using the term that way in no way should imply that the statements are reasonable.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ah another of these threads. Ok what do we mean by Illogical and what do we mean by unjustified belief?

Is the belief that all men are created equal justified or not? There is a lot of evidence against it.


This would lead to a discussion about morality and ethics. I used the example of the Vikings reaching Mexico because it is a fact about the physical world, and therefore we don't have to worry about the pitfalls of applying logic to ethical judgements. That's a whole additional can of worms.

[Yoink]

Why?



OK, I accept this. "Defence" and "justification" essentially mean the same thing in this context. If the belief is known to me to be unjustified then it also must be known to me that it is impossible to defend myself against the accusation that it is unjustified. Is that what you meant?

Right. Therefore nothing can be based on this belief, nothing can follow from it, you can't use it as the premise for any course of action you may or may not take, you can't derive any consequent truths from it.

It is, in fact, purely a statement about the believers' psychological condition ("this person's mind is constructed in such a way that X unjustified proposition 'feels true' to him even though he knows perfectly well that there is no reason to believe it to be true") and of no further consequence either to the believer or to others.

[UndercoverElephant]

Statements that are not illogical:

God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.
Vikings discovered Mexio.
Sarah Palin is more intelligent than Einstein.
My oven would not work if it were not for the elves that live under my house.
Frank Sinatra was an alien from alpha centauri.
Bigfoot is the only thing keeping humanity safe from the Reverse vampires.

None of these statements is "illogical" and therefore it could not be said that belief in any of these statements was illogical per se. But so what? That and $3.75 buys you a venti latte at Starbucks. The only thing that really matters is whether it is justified to hold any of these beliefs. And the answer to that is clearly no.

I agree. But this discussion came about because two people repeatedly insisted that the belief that Vikings reached Mexico was illogical. That it is unjustified wasn't what we were arguing about. Everyone agrees it is unjustified.

[Richard Masters]

Claiming to believe something is claiming to know it.

Not necessarily. You would enter the realm of equivocation.

A) I believe (with some certainty), that I won't die tomorrow.
B) I know (100% certainty), that I won't die tomorrow.

While the statements can be equivalent, any variance in the certainty in A will render the statements non-equivalent.

In other words, know implies 100% certainty, while believe implies X% amount of certainty.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're not getting very far because you're wrong.

The statement "Vikings reached Mexico" is not illogical by itself. The belief that "Vikings reached Mexico" is illogical.

Only if you use "illogical" in the sense of "unreasonable"--or, in the stricter sense, if someone presented a logical argument for that belief and you spotted a flaw in the logic.

Note, the following is a logical argument with a logical conclusion:

P1. If I were 10' tall, I would be king of the universe.
P2. I am 10' tall.
C. I am the king of the universe.

It is of course based on false premises and the conclusion is false. It would be unreasonable for me to believe that conclusion, but not illogical (in the stricter meaning of the word).

Again, we ran into this problem with the term rational where most of us were using the everyday meaning--where it too means something like reasonable--but a couple of people were using it in the stricter meaning (something more like logically possible).

The trouble is when you use the term ambiguously--you can suggest that because something is logical (in the strict sense) that you are being logical (in the common sense of reasonable) to believe it.

[godless dave]

Let me give an other example.

If I make the statement "My cat is asleep on my bed", the statement, evaluated by itself, is not illogical because we have nothing to compare it to.

But if I make the statement "I believe my cat is asleep on my bed", we can evaluate whether it is logical for me to hold that belief. To do that, we have to know whether I even have a cat, not to mention a bed.

As it happens I have two cats. Based on past experience, I can predict that at this time of day, one or both of them is probably asleep on my bed. But because I can't look in my bedroom from where I am at work, it would be illogical for me to believe that one of my cats is asleep on my bed right now. I have no way of verifying it, so it is illogical for me to believe it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Serious question: Does 'not illogical' equal 'logical'?

Maybe. It can mean "logical" or it can mean "a-logical".

[godless dave]

Not necessarily. You would enter the realm of equivocation.

A) I believe (with some certainty), that I won't die tomorrow.
B) I know (100% certainty), that I won't die tomorrow.

While the statements can be equivalent, any variance in the certainty in A will render the statements non-equivalent.

In other words, know implies 100% certainty, while believe implies X% amount of certainty.

I don't usually see "believe" used that way other than in occasional colloquial usage.

[UndercoverElephant]

You're not getting very far because you're wrong.

The statement "Vikings reached Mexico" is not illogical by itself. The belief that "Vikings reached Mexico" is illogical.

No it isn't, Dave. Not in the abscence of any evidence which contradicts it. Remember the example of Everest? We don't have an abscence of evidence about which is the tallest peak on the Earth, therefore it is illogical to believe there is a mountain higher than Everest. We can't scan history to determine whether or not Vikings ever reached Mexico, therefore you are free to believe they did or they didn't without any danger of believing something illogical. Logic can only be applied to statements, not the abscence of statements.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree. But this discussion came about because two people repeatedly insisted that the belief that Vikings reached Mexico was illogical. That it is unjustified wasn't what we were arguing about. Everyone agrees it is unjustified.

But if you didn't clarify how you were using the term logical, they could have taken it in the second meaning (more like reasonable--or the term you're using justified which is another way, I think, of saying reasonable).

This is the problem of ambiguity. You end up with disagreements that aren't very important. (I almost said "disagreements that aren't justified", but I thought better of it!)

[Yoink]

Serious question: Does 'not illogical' equal 'logical'?

No. To say that some chain of reasoning was "logical" is a positive affirmation that there is no false reasoning involved in the various steps of the argument. To say of a proposition that it is "not illogical" is simply to note that the question of "logicality" is yet to arise because so far no argument has been advanced.

To say that a kilometer is "not immature" is not to say that it is "mature."

[Richard Masters]

I don't usually see "believe" used that way other than in occasional colloquial usage.

Maybe we also have to make a distinction between believe that, and believe in, but I haven't thought about where that takes us.

[godless dave]

No it isn't, Dave. Not in the abscence of any evidence which contradicts it.

What about the absence of evidence that supports it? Isn't it illogical to believe something with no supporting evidence? I consider that illogical for both the colloquial and technical meanings of "illogical".

[godless dave]

but if you didn't clarify how you were using the term logical, they could have taken it in the second meaning (more like reasonable--or the term you're using justified which is another way, i think, of saying reasonable).

This is the problem of ambiguity. You end up with disagreements that aren't very important.

iawtc.

[UndercoverElephant]

Right. Therefore nothing can be based on this belief, nothing can follow from it, you can't use it as the premise for any course of action you may or may not take, you can't derive any consequent truths from it.


Err...?

I think you can. If I believe that my cat has been on my bed since I last washed the sheets, then I can say that I also believe there may be fleas on my bed. The latter belief is consequent from the former, and both are unjustified.


It is, in fact, purely a statement about the believers' psychological condition ("this person's mind is constructed in such a way that X unjustified proposition 'feels true' to him even though he knows perfectly well that there is no reason to believe it to be true") and of no further consequence either to the believer or to others.

Yes, I think I agree with that.

[Third Eye Open]

I don't usually see "believe" used that way other than in occasional colloquial usage.

I disagree. Believe is hardly even meant as 'I am one hundred percent certain of this'.

If my friend tells me his car was stolen, I believe him. I believe him based on my past experience of him always telling me the truth. I do not 'know' that his car was stolen, but I believe it. I don't consider this illogical, because I have reasons to believe him. I have evidence of his capability to accurately convey to me what is going on.

In the same way, if my cat is generally asleep on my bed at noon, then based on those experiences, I may expect to find my cat asleep on my bed. I would 'believe' it. That is reasonable.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let me give an other example.

If I make the statement "My cat is asleep on my bed", the statement, evaluated by itself, is not illogical because we have nothing to compare it to.

But if I make the statement "I believe my cat is asleep on my bed", we can evaluate whether it is logical for me to hold that belief. To do that, we have to know whether I even have a cat, not to mention a bed.


Really, all you've done is highlight the two different meanings of logical/illogical. In the first one that I bolded you're using M-W's meaning 1. In the second one, you're using meaning 2.

Yes, when you switch from the proposition itself, to the statement "I believe the proposition" you're pretty necessarily talking about meaning 2 because now we're no longer using logical to describe the proposition, but more like your way of thinking (again--something more akin to reasonable).

[godless dave]

I disagree. Believe is hardly even meant as 'I am one hundred percent certain of this'.

Except when talking about religious claims. Most believers, when saying they believe their god exists, seem to be using it to mean 100% sure. Since this is the R&P subforum, and since we are evidently using the strict definitions of words here, that's the meaning I was operating under.

Personally, I try to use the word to mean "100% sure" all the time, which is why I rarely say I believe things.

[Third Eye Open]

Except when talking about religious claims. Most believers, when saying they believe their god exists, seem to be using it to mean 100% sure. Since this is the R&P subforum, and since we are evidently using the strict definitions of words here, that's the meaning I was operating under.

Personally, I try to use the word to mean "100% sure" all the time, which is why I rarely say I believe things.

This is why it is so frustrating to have these kinds of discussions. Nothing is one hundred percent certain.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. To say that some chain of reasoning was "logical" is a positive affirmation that there is no false reasoning involved in the various steps of the argument. To say of a proposition that it is "not illogical" is simply to note that the question of "logicality" is yet to arise because so far no argument has been advanced.

Just to play devil's advocate. . . .but now you're ignoring the possibility of M-W's meaning number 2 of logical.

Actually, as pointed out by godlessdave, meaning number 2 really applies more to a way of thinking rather than the formal argument or a proposition itself. But people do speak that way--where they say something is logical but actually mean it's logical (in meaning number 2) for one to believe it.

FWIW, by the time the discussion has advanced this far, it should be obvious that there is an ambiguity in how the term is being used.

[godless dave]

Really, all you've done is highlight the two different meanings of logical/illogical. In the first one that I bolded you're using M-W's meaning 1. In the second one, you're using meaning 2.

Yes, when you switch from the proposition itself, to the statement "I believe the proposition" you're pretty necessarily talking about meaning 2 because now we're no longer using logical to describe the proposition, but more like your way of thinking (again--something more akin to reasonable).

But if you apply the strict definition to the second one, the question becomes is the belief logically consistent with other things the believer knows? If the believer knows that there is no evidence the Vikings reached Mexico (premise), then his belief that Vikings did reach Mexico (premise) is inconsistent with other premises.

[UndercoverElephant]

But if you didn't clarify how you were using the term logical, they could have taken it in the second meaning (more like reasonable--or the term you're using justified which is another way, I think, of saying reasonable).

This is the problem of ambiguity. You end up with disagreements that aren't very important. (I almost said "disagreements that aren't justified", but I thought better of it!)

You're right. I was assuming "logical" meant what that word means technically. I accept that some people might use it to mean something more like "reasonable", but given that I was contrasting it with "unjustified", I don't think there should have been any doubt about what I meant. I am taking "illogical" to mean "is logically contradictory", not "isn't sensible."

[JoeTheJuggler]

Except when talking about religious claims. Most believers, when saying they believe their god exists, seem to be using it to mean 100% sure. Since this is the R&P subforum, and since we are evidently using the strict definitions of words here, that's the meaning I was operating under.

Personally, I try to use the word to mean "100% sure" all the time, which is why I rarely say I believe things.

There's another issue here, but it's related. I think many believers use the term rational or logical to mean reasonable in their everyday life, but when they enter into a discussion here, suddenly those words become strictly the term of art and mean something much more limited (like merely possible or not contradictory).

Similarly, many theists have very specific (and easily debunked) god-beliefs that they assert all the time, but when they get into a discussion here, they suddenly become more like a Deist.

[UndercoverElephant]

What about the absence of evidence that supports it? Isn't it illogical to believe something with no supporting evidence?


No. Unreasonable and inadvisable, but not illogical.


I consider that illogical for both the colloquial and technical meanings of "illogical".

Technically, there is nothing illogical about believing something without evidence.

"If I was ten feet tall then I would be King of the Universe" is perfectly logical. If you combine it with "There's no such thing as King of the Universe" then you have a logical contradiction. You still can't say which statement is wrong, but you can say that at least one of them is.

[godless dave]

I am taking "illogical" to mean "is logically contradictory", not "isn't sensible."


I was using it to mean "does not conform to the rules of logic". "Il-" = "not".

I also recognize that logic is the only reliable method for evalutating the factualness of beliefs. If a belief cannot stand up to logical evaluation, then it seems to me that it's illogical.

[Yoink]

Let me give an other example.

If I make the statement "My cat is asleep on my bed", the statement, evaluated by itself, is not illogical because we have nothing to compare it to.

But if I make the statement "I believe my cat is asleep on my bed", we can evaluate whether it is logical for me to hold that belief. To do that, we have to know whether I even have a cat, not to mention a bed.

As it happens I have two cats. Based on past experience, I can predict that at this time of day, one or both of them is probably asleep on my bed. But because I can't look in my bedroom from where I am at work, it would be illogical for me to believe that one of my cats is asleep on my bed right now. I have no way of verifying it, so it is illogical for me to believe it.

GD, you're mixing up whether the belief is "warranted" and whether it is, in itself, "illogical." To affirm "my cat is asleep on the bed" may be, say, strongly warranted in the absence of direct evidence by an appeal to prior experience, but it cannot be made more "logical" by that appeal. The chain of reasoning in support of the belief may or may not be logical (i.e. "cats are creatures of habit...my cat's habit is to sleep on the bed from 10AM to 12AM--the time is 11AM--therefore I believe my cat is asleep on the bed"--that's perfectly good logic; "cats like fish--my cat's habit is to sleep on the bed from 10AM to 12AM--the current time feels kinda fishy--therefore my cat is asleep on the bed" would be poor logic), but the belief by itself is neither logical nor illogical--it is simply a proposition.

All you're doing is restating the fact that an unjustified proposition is unjustified.

As for

There is no evidence for X.
I affirm X.

There is no logical contradiction between those two statements (as can be shown simply by writing them out as a single statement: "I affirm that for which there is no evidence.") You have to expand them (which is what you are doing, without realizing it) before you arrive at problems of logic:

I know that there is no reason to believe X.
I have good reason to affirm X.

That, certainly, is a contradiction, but to get to that point you've had to move the goalposts. Simple affirmation of a belief need not logically (although in the real world it almost always does in practice) entail the claim that the belief is in any way supportable.

[godless dave]

GD, you're mixing up whether the belief is "warranted" and whether it is, in itself, "illogical." To affirm "my cat is asleep on the bed" may be, say, strongly warranted in the absence of direct evidence by an appeal to prior experience, but it cannot be made more "logical" by that appeal. The chain of reasoning in support of the belief may or may not be logical (i.e. "cats are creatures of habit...my cat's habit is to sleep on the bed from 10AM to 12AM--the time is 11AM--therefore I believe my cat is asleep on the bed"--that's perfectly good logic; "cats like fish--my cat's habit is to sleep on the bed from 10AM to 12AM--the current time feels kinda fishy--therefore my cat is asleep on the bed" would be poor logic), but the belief by itself is neither logical nor illogical--it is simply a proposition.

All you're doing is restating the fact that an unjustified proposition is unjustified.

I'm trying to go beyond that, to say that believing an unjustified proposition is true is illogical. You know it's unjustified but you believe it anyway. That's definitely irrational, but I think it's illogical too.


That, certainly, is a contradiction, but to get to that point you've had to move the goalposts. Simple affirmation of a belief need not logically (although in the real world it almost always does in practice) entail the claim that the belief is in any way supportable.


See, I think it does. To affirm a belief is to imply that you think the belief is supportable.

[Eyeron]

So only logic can justify a belief? Nothing else can?

[JoeTheJuggler]

But if you apply the strict definition to the second one, the question becomes is the belief logically consistent with other things the believer knows?
I'm not sure the strict definition can apply to the "I believe" part--but only the proposition itself.

Otherwise you could get lost in "I believe that I believe. . . . the proposition".

Now, if they were putting forth a logical argument and this other information were part of the argument, you could analyze the logic of the argument and determine whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. But again, if the premises--that other information--are true or false doesn't really figure into the question of whether the conclusion logically follows, that is, whether the conclusion is logical in meaning 1.

The example I used above: "I am the king of the world" is both logical and logically follows from the premises I gave (meaning 1.) If I said that I believe that proposition, you could say I am not being logical (meaning 2).

[godless dave]

So only logic can justify a belief? Nothing else can?

Nothing I can think of.

[UndercoverElephant]

But if you apply the strict definition to the second one, the question becomes is the belief logically consistent with other things the believer knows?


Yes, but not what with what he doesn't know.


If the believer knows that there is no evidence the Vikings reached Mexico (premise), then his belief that Vikings did reach Mexico (premise) is inconsistent with other premises.

I didn't stipulate whether or not the believer knows this. It doesn't make any difference. Logic can only be applied to a set of statements. We have one statement "The Vikings reached Mexico." We have another statement "It is unknown whether the Vikings reached Mexico." Apply logic to these statements and you will find no logical contradictions. It is entirely possible that both statements are true - that the Vikings reached Mexico and that there is no evidence to support that statement.

[Yoink]

Err...?

I think you can. If I believe that my cat has been on my bed since I last washed the sheets, then I can say that I also believe there may be fleas on my bed. The latter belief is consequent from the former, and both are unjustified.

Wait, weren't you stipulating that the believer knows the belief to be unjustified? This, I assure you, is not logical:

"Cats sometimes have fleas."
"I have no reason to believe that the cat has slept on my bed."
"My bed is now likely to have fleas."

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're right. I was assuming "logical" meant what that word means technically. I accept that some people might use it to mean something more like "reasonable", but given that I was contrasting it with "unjustified", I don't think there should have been any doubt about what I meant. I am taking "illogical" to mean "is logically contradictory", not "isn't sensible."

And there are others here who were assuming logical only means reasonable.

It's like the Buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant. One feels the elephant's tusk and says an elephant is like a spear. Another feels the elephant's side and says, "You're wrong, an elephant is like a wall." Another feels a leg and says, "You're wrong, an elephant is like a tree." They're only wrong in claiming that the other is wrong.

It really is an ambiguity.

[UndercoverElephant]

I was using it to mean "does not conform to the rules of logic". "Il-" = "not".


Then you are using the technical definition, and JoeJuggler's point about terminology doesn't apply to you.


I also recognize that logic is the only reliable method for evalutating the factualness of beliefs. If a belief cannot stand up to logical evaluation, then it seems to me that it's illogical.

But this belief does stand up to logical evaluation. For something to not stand up to logical evaluation you need an actual contradiction, and in this case we don't have one. If we don't know whether or not Vikings reached Mexico, then no belief about whether they did or did not can be illogical, because we don't have enough bits of information to show a logical contradiction.

[SumDood]

So back to the original example, there is no evidence what so ever supporting that vikings made it to mexico and no evidence what so ever supporting that they did not make it mexico. Which of the following would be the most logical statement for me to make:

"Vikings made it to Mexico."

"Vikings did not make it to Mexico."

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm trying to go beyond that, to say that believing an unjustified proposition is true is illogical. You know it's unjustified but you believe it anyway. That's definitely irrational, but I think it's illogical too.

And there's another one. You're using the word irrational the way I prefer to use it, but as cj and some others have pointed out, there's a term of art where anything that is logically possible is rational.

I understand what you're saying, though, but it still hinges on this ambiguity.

In the stricter sense, evaluating whether or not a proposition or an argument is logical doesn't say anything about whether the conclusion is true or false or whether it's reasonable to believe that proposition. It really is a very very limited thing to say something is logical in the strict meaning.

[UndercoverElephant]

Wait, weren't you stipulating that the believer knows the belief to be unjustified?

No.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which of the following would be the most logical statement for me to make:

"Vikings made it to Mexico."

"Vikings did not make it to Mexico."
Sigh. Your question is ambiguous.

In the strict meaning of logical (meaning 1) both are equally logical statements. (Yes, both statements "P" and "not P" are equally logical, but the statement "P AND not P" is not logical.)

In the more common meaning (meaning 2), it is more logical to accept the second statement.

If you could clarify the ambiguity I could tell you which answer is correct.

[SumDood]

So only logic can justify a belief? Nothing else can?

Nothing I can think of.


Emotions? Brainwashing? I guess it really depends on how strongly you define 'justify'. Can i 'justify' my love of my wife with logic? Not really, but i do.

[Yoink]

I'm trying to go beyond that, to say that believing an unjustified proposition is true is illogical. You know it's unjustified but you believe it anyway. That's definitely irrational, but I think it's illogical too.

See, I think it does. To affirm a belief is to imply that you think the belief is supportable.

Well as a matter of psychology or anthropology I largely agree with you. You don't usually have to push far with someone who says "Oh, of course there's no evidence for God's existence, I just believe regardless!" before you find them saying that the world just wouldn't make sense if it weren't for a Divine Being.

But actual practice and logic are separate things. Of course it is unreasonable (in the everyday sense) to affirm a belief you know to be unjustified, but it's not "illogical" in the philosophical sense. The question of "logic" only applies to the chain of reasoning you bring in in support of your belief, not to the belief itself.

[UndercoverElephant]

So back to the original example, there is no evidence what so ever supporting that vikings made it to mexico and no evidence what so ever supporting that they did not make it mexico. Which of the following would be the most logical statement for me to make:

"Vikings made it to Mexico."

"Vikings did not make it to Mexico."

Neither. Both are logical. You can't have "more logical." A set of propositions is either logically consistent (there's no contradiction) or it isn't (there's a contradiction.)

[Glockjaw]

A belief can be justified by things other than logic such as faith. Now for most people here faith does not influence many, if any, beliefs that you have. But, at the same time, you cannot deny that faith is real and actually does help people to come to a belief. You believe their belief is unjustified but to them, it is justified enough to the point that they may even be certain about it.

Belief is really a general term. And all justified beliefs were unjustified beliefs at one time.

Example: We now know why we stand on the earth and do not simply float away. But, before this was known it could be considered that expecting not to float away was an unjustified belief.


Some beliefs need to be believed even if they are considered 'unjustified'. I am not saying this is the case with god, certainly not, but some things for survival. Like your beliefs about the opposite sex and a particular person influence how you would interact with them and develop a relationship.

Isn't taste a belief? Is it logical for me to say a cheeseburger is delicious (especially with bacon and jalepeno, mmm)? At the same time a vegetarian could think the complete opposite. But they're both beliefs and no logic is needed, though it always helps. One could see this as necessary for survival because someone who believes that dog poop tastes delicious probably won't survive very long :(

[UndercoverElephant]

And there's another one. You're using the word irrational the way I prefer to use it, but as cj and some others have pointed out, there's a term of art where anything that is logically possible is rational.

I understand what you're saying, though, but it still hinges on this ambiguity.

In the stricter sense, evaluating whether or not a proposition or an argument is logical doesn't say anything about whether the conclusion is true or false or whether it's reasonable to believe that proposition. It really is a very very limited thing to say something is logical in the strict meaning.

Indeed, but it is considerably less limited to say that something is illogical, which is what caused this argument in the first place. If you are going to accuse somebody of holding illogical beliefs then you are saying that something they believe is definately wrong. If so, then you'd better be able to identify the contradiction...

[JoeTheJuggler]

Neither. Both are logical. You can't have "more logical." A set of propositions is either logically consistent (there's no contradiction) or it isn't (there's a contradiction.)

But you're ignoring the possibility of meaning 2, and he couched it in terms of "which is more logical for me to make"--which is a version of godlessdave's "I believe the proposition" statement that makes meaning 2 a possibility in this context.

That's why I answered that his question is ambiguous rather than assume he meant meaning 1.

[Richard Masters]

Another problem with justification, is that you have to examine the entire chain of reasoning that led to a belief. That's pretty much impossible, so to simplify our lives, we use hidden assumptions and degrees of certainty.

Then there's the use of logical and illogical, which can mean that an argument follows from its assumptions, and illogical can mean, colloquially, that the assumptions are unreasonable.

In a strict mathematical sense, not logical is the same as illogical. In speech where there is more ambiguity it's difficult to use absolutes.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Indeed, but it is considerably less limited to say that something is illogical, which is what caused this argument in the first place. If you are going to accuse somebody of holding illogical beliefs then you are saying that something they believe is definately wrong. If so, then you'd better be able to identify the contradiction...

If you're dealing with meaning 1, it's still limited. A conclusion that is completely true could also be illogical (meaning 1). Here's an example:

P1. If I were 10' tall, I would be king of the world.
P2. I'm 10' tall.
C. I'm not the king of the world.

C is illogical, but completely true. (At least one of the premises is false, however, but analyzing the logic doesn't resolve that question.) In meaning 2 it would be logical of me to accept the conclusion, but in meaning 1, given this argument, it is an illogical conclusion.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another problem with justification, is that you have to examine the entire chain of reasoning that led to a belief. That's pretty much impossible, so to simplify our lives, we use hidden assumptions and degrees of certainty.

Then there's the use of logical and illogical, which can mean that an argument follows from its assumptions, and illogical can mean, colloquially, that the assumptions are unreasonable.

In a strict mathematical sense, not logical is the same as illogical. In speech where there is more ambiguity it's difficult to use absolutes.

That's exactly the point I've been making.

[Richard Masters]

So back to the original example, there is no evidence what so ever supporting that vikings made it to mexico and no evidence what so ever supporting that they did not make it mexico. Which of the following would be the most logical statement for me to make:

"Vikings made it to Mexico."

"Vikings did not make it to Mexico."

One may be more reasonable (but not more logical) than the other; depending on your assumptions and chain of reasoning.

[UndercoverElephant]

A belief can be justified by things other than logic such as faith. Now for most people here faith does not influence many, if any, beliefs that you have. But, at the same time, you cannot deny that faith is real and actually does help people to come to a belief. You believe their belief is unjustified but to them, it is justified enough to the point that they may even be certain about it.


Faith isn't really a justification for a belief. Faith is the name we give to a belief which isn't justified at all.

[Third Eye Open]

Example: We now know why we stand on the earth and do not simply float away. But, before this was known it could be considered that expecting not to float away was an unjustified belief.




I would not consider that unjustified. Even if we didn't know why people didn't float away, we still knew that they didn't float away, just from observation alone. It is completely justified to believe that I will not float away if everyone ever observed before in my entire life has not floated away.

[SumDood]

Which of the following would be the most logical statement for me to make:

"Vikings made it to Mexico."

"Vikings did not make it to Mexico."


Sigh. Your question is ambiguous.

In the strict meaning of logical (meaning 1) both are equally logical statements. (Yes, both statements "P" and "not P" are equally logical, but the statement "P AND not P" is not logical.)

In the more common meaning (meaning 2), it is more logical to accept the second statement.

If you could clarify the ambiguity I could tell you which answer is correct.

I honestly was not trying to be a smart ass and come down on one side of this argument or the other. I'm really having a hard time getting it straight in my head. I agree that both statements are equally logical, but I also see that one would need evidence to believe the first statement. ("Vikings made it to Mexico"). This is making my brain hurt. I love it!

I don't see how ambiguity arises except for the definition of 'logical'.

[drkitten]

I didn't stipulate whether or not the believer knows this. It doesn't make any difference. Logic can only be applied to a set of statements. We have one statement "The Vikings reached Mexico." We have another statement "It is unknown whether the Vikings reached Mexico." Apply logic to these statements and you will find no logical contradictions. It is entirely possible that both statements are true - that the Vikings reached Mexico and that there is no evidence to support that statement.

Perhaps a real world example would help. Let us assume that an archaeologist decides, for whatever reason (perhaps from drinking too much of the bong water), that yes, the Vikings did reach Mexico. On the basis of that belief, he decides to go look for the remains of Viking settlements in Mexico, and after several years of hard work, he finds them.

This scenario isn't as far-fetched as it might sound; it's more or less the history of Heinrich Schliemann and the discovery of Troy.

Obviously, no true statement can be logically contradictory to the real world. Does discovering that an unsupported belief is true suddenly render it non-contradictory? Of course not -- if the statement is not-contradictory when it's true, it's also non-contradictory when it's only potentially true. If it's not illogical to hold a belief that is potentially true and (equivalently) does not contradict anything about the real world, then belief in Troy or in Mexican Viking is not illogical.

[godless dave]

Yes, but not what with what he doesn't know.



I didn't stipulate whether or not the believer knows this. It doesn't make any difference. Logic can only be applied to a set of statements. We have one statement "The Vikings reached Mexico." We have another statement "It is unknown whether the Vikings reached Mexico." Apply logic to these statements and you will find no logical contradictions. It is entirely possible that both statements are true - that the Vikings reached Mexico and that there is no evidence to support that statement.

But what about these two statements:

"I believe the Vikings reached Mexico"

"It is unknown whether the Vikings reached Mexico"

Those contradict each other.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you're dealing with meaning 1, it's still limited. A conclusion that is completely true could also be illogical (meaning 1). Here's an example:

P1. If I were 10' tall, I would be king of the world.
P2. I'm 10' tall.
C. I'm not the king of the world.

C is illogical, but completely true. (At least one of the premises is false, however, but analyzing the logic doesn't resolve that question.) In meaning 2 it would be logical of me to accept the conclusion, but in meaning 1, given this argument, it is an illogical conclusion.

OK, I've already accepted that some people are using "illogical" to mean something other than the technical, philosophical meaning of the word.

[godless dave]

Emotions? Brainwashing? I guess it really depends on how strongly you define 'justify'. Can i 'justify' my love of my wife with logic? Not really, but i do.


Your love for your wife isn't a belief.

Your belief that your wife loves you is a belief, and can, I assume, be justified logically.

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps a real world example would help. Let us assume that an archaeologist decides, for whatever reason (perhaps from drinking too much of the bong water), that yes, the Vikings did reach Mexico. On the basis of that belief, he decides to go look for the remains of Viking settlements in Mexico, and after several years of hard work, he finds them.

This scenario isn't as far-fetched as it might sound; it's more or less the history of Heinrich Schliemann and the discovery of Troy.

Obviously, no true statement can be logically contradictory to the real world. Does discovering that an unsupported belief is true suddenly render it non-contradictory? Of course not -- if the statement is not-contradictory when it's true, it's also non-contradictory when it's only potentially true. If it's not illogical to hold a belief that is potentially true and (equivalently) does not contradict anything about the real world, then belief in Troy or in Mexican Viking is not illogical.

Yes, thankyou for the useful example.

[godless dave]

A belief can be justified by things other than logic such as faith.

I don't agree.


Example: We now know why we stand on the earth and do not simply float away. But, before this was known it could be considered that expecting not to float away was an unjustified belief.

Even before we knew why, we knew that people standing on the earth did not simply float away, and that a dropped object would fall toward the earth.


Some beliefs need to be believed even if they are considered 'unjustified'.

I vehemently disagree with that.


Isn't taste a belief?

No.

[UndercoverElephant]

But what about these two statements:

"I believe the Vikings reached Mexico"

"It is unknown whether the Vikings reached Mexico"

Those contradict each other.

No they don't. :D

Time for a pizza, methinks...

[godless dave]

No they don't. :D

Time for a pizza, methinks...

How can you claim to know something that you simultaneously claim is unknown? How is that not a contradiction?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Obviously, no true statement can be logically contradictory to the real world.
Exactly. But answering the question "Is the statement logical?" (meaning 1) does not address the question, "Is the statement true?"

In meaning 2 of logical, the truth value of the statement (even the perceived truth value) is very important. In courts, the question often hinges not on whether a belief was true, but whether or not it was reasonable for a person in a given situation to believe it was true.

[Glockjaw]

Based on your answers, godless dave, I'm assuming that you are using a stricter definition for 'belief' than I am.

What word would use to replace belief?

[Yoink]

How can you claim to know something that you simultaneously claim is unknown? How is that not a contradiction?

Contradiction:
I know X.
I don't know X.

Not contradiction:
There is no evidence to support belief in X.
I believe in X despite the lack of supporting evidence.

[godless dave]

Based on your answers, godless dave, I'm assuming that you are using a stricter definition for 'belief' than I am.

What word would use to replace belief?

Suspect? Predict?

[SumDood]

Emotions? Brainwashing? I guess it really depends on how strongly you define 'justify'. Can i 'justify' my love of my wife with logic? Not really, but i do.

Your love for your wife isn't a belief.

Your belief that your wife loves you is a belief, and can, I assume, be justified logically.

So if my love for my wife doesn't fall into the category a belief (cannot be proven), what would you call it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

But what about these two statements:

"I believe the Vikings reached Mexico"

"It is unknown whether the Vikings reached Mexico"

Those contradict each other.

Actually, I don't think they do. I think answering the question "What do you know?" and the question, "What do you believe?" could result in two different answers.

Try these two statements:
"I don't know whether or not it's raining outside."

"I believe it is not raining outside."

Where I sit at this moment, both statements are in fact true.

[Glockjaw]

Also,


Even before we knew why, we knew that people standing on the earth did not simply float away, and that a dropped object would fall toward the earth.


Before something is considered a justified belief, by your standards, we would have to know why, wouldn't we? And so anything we hold as true before we know why, is nothing more than an unjustified belief. Unless, again, you use the word stricter than I, in which case it could be replaced by something else. I'm not sure what would fit better, though. Instinct would come close but doesn't quite define it as well as unjustified belief, IMO.

[godless dave]

So if my love for my wife doesn't fall into the category a belief (cannot be proven), what would you call it?

A feeling.

Your knowledge that you have this feeling is a belief, I guess.

[UndercoverElephant]

But what about these two statements:

"I believe the Vikings reached Mexico"

"It is unknown whether the Vikings reached Mexico"

Those contradict each other.

Let me alter it slightly:

"I believe George Mallory reached the summit of Everest in 1924"

"It is unknown whether Mallory reached the summit of Everest in 1924"

This time it's actually true. I really do believe George Mallory conquered Everest, nearly twenty years before Edmund Hillary. This is one of those enduring mysteries. Mallory and Andrew Irvine were last seen heading for the summit. Irvine's body has never been found, Mallory's was found a few years ago, not far from the summit. Nobody knows for sure what happened that day. But I just happen to believe they did it. I feel it in my guts. Even though Hillary took the fame, I think Mallory and Irvine died knowing they were the first humans to set foot on the roof of the world.

Is my belief illogical? No, it can't possibly be illogical because it could yet turn out to be proven true: if they ever find Irvine's body, they will also find his camera. If something is illogical then it cannot possibly turn out to be true.

[SumDood]

Indeed, but it is considerably less limited to say that something is illogical, which is what caused this argument in the first place. If you are going to accuse somebody of holding illogical beliefs then you are saying that something they believe is definately wrong. If so, then you'd better be able to identify the contradiction...

It might make it clearer with a more absurd example:
"When i'm asleep at night, purple fairies massage my feet"

Is it illogical for me to believe that? There is no evidence saying fairies don't massage my feet when i'm asleep, but none saying they do.

I think this point has been made already, but it all boils down to:

Is belief in something for which there is no evidence illogical?

[godless dave]

Also,



Before something is considered a justified belief, by your standards, we would have to know why, wouldn't we?

Absolutely not. It's sufficient to observe that most things always fall toward the earth to hold the belief that most things always fall toward the earth.

[Glockjaw]

Actually, I don't think they do. I think answering the question "What do you know?" and the question, "What do you believe?" could result in two different answers.

Try these two statements:
"I don't know whether or not it's raining outside."

"I believe it is not raining outside."

Where I sit at this moment, both statements are in fact true.

They are both true. Its just a matter of how certain one is. Both are beliefs but one states an opinion that is more strongly believed than the other.

[godless dave]

Let me alter it slightly:

"I believe George Mallory reached the summit of Everest in 1924"

"It is unknown whether Mallory reached the summit of Everest in 1924"

This time it's actually true. I really do believe George Mallory conquered Everest, nearly twenty years before Edmund Hillary. This is one of those enduring mysteries. Mallory And Andrew Irvine were last seen heading for the summit. Irvine's body has never been found, Mallory's was found a few years ago, not far from the summit. Nobody knows for sure what happened that day. But I just happen to believe they did it. I feel it in my guts.


"I feel it in my guts" is not a sufficient premise to reach the conclusion that Mallory reached the peak of Everest in 1924.


Is my belief illogical? No, it can't possible be illogical because it could yet turn out to be proven true because if they ever find Irvine's body, they will also find his camera.

I would say that your belief is illogical until they find his body and camera. It's illogical because you didn't use logic to arrive at it and you can't use logic to justify it.

[Richard Masters]

"I feel it in my guts" is not a sufficient premise to reach the conclusion that Mallory reached the peak of Everest in 1924.



I would say that your belief is illogical until they find his body and camera. It's illogical because you didn't use logic to arrive at it and you can't use logic to justify it.

UndercoverElephant used probabilities and logic to justify it, including lots of hidden assumptions. I would say the position is both reasonable and logical.

ETA: having read the post again, the probabilities and logic are hardly there, but they could be, therefore I conclude that the position is both reasonable and logical absent contradictory evidence.

[Glockjaw]

Absolutely not. It's sufficient to observe that most things always fall toward the earth to hold the belief that most things always fall toward the earth.

If observation is all it takes, then people who see the world and just assume that god made it, are justified in their belief. Not to the world, but to themselves, which is enough to say that it is, indeed, a belief.

[drkitten]

It might make it clearer with a more absurd example:
"When i'm asleep at night, purple fairies massage my feet"

Is it illogical for me to believe that?

Yes, but not for the reason you are giving.

There is no evidence saying fairies don't massage my feet when i'm asleep, but none saying they do.

There is, however, a pretty massive collection of evidence against fairies, which in turn implies evidence against nocturnal purple foot-massaging fairies. The primary evidence against is that we've looked for them pretty thoroughly and failed to find them.


Is belief in something for which there is no evidence illogical?

Not necessarily. However, belief in something in which there is active evidence against is probably illogical.

[Richard Masters]

I highly recommend the following source on critical thinking and logic: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/

Not that anybody here needs it, but it's full of concise and relevant information.

[UndercoverElephant]

It might make it clearer with a more absurd example:
"When i'm asleep at night, purple fairies massage my feet"

Is it illogical for me to believe that? There is no evidence saying fairies don't massage my feet when i'm asleep, but none saying they do.

I think this point has been made already, but it all boils down to:

Is belief in something for which there is no evidence illogical?

Your example isn't just more absurd. It is qualitatively different, because it involves an implication that purple fairies exist. Fairies, conceptually, are physical entities. They are small humanoids with wings. They are also mythical entities. We know them to be mythical entities. In the sentence "purple fairies massage my feet" you are using two terms to refer to physical entities - purple fairies and your feet. We assume by "your feet" you are talking about your real physical feet, and you're suggesting the purple fairies are physically interacting with them. That would require that you believe that real, physical purple fairies exist. We have plenty of good reasons for believing that purple fairies do not actually exist.

Now...strictly speaking, this statement is not, in itself, illogical. A logical contradiction only occurs when you add the statement "purple fairies don't exist." Since this additional statement would be agreed with by almost everybody, it follows that almost everybody would consider the initial statement to be illogical, but only because we have a non-controversial shared assumption in the background.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It might make it clearer with a more absurd example:
"When i'm asleep at night, purple fairies massage my feet"

Is it illogical for me to believe that? There is no evidence saying fairies don't massage my feet when i'm asleep, but none saying they do.

I think this point has been made already, but it all boils down to:

Is belief in something for which there is no evidence illogical?

It's still an ambiguous question.

Do you mean to ask whether it is illogical in the strict meaning (meaning 1) or whether it is unreasonable to believe it (meaning 2)?

I think godlessdave was pointing to the relationship between meaning 1 and meaning 2 of logical a bit earlier. If you take all the other information at your disposal as if they were all premises in a logical argument, then meaning 1 and meaning 2 get a lot closer together. But even so, meaning 1 doesn't take into account the truth value of the premises or the conclusion--just the relationship of the latter to the former. Meaning 2 definitely considers the truth value of the propositions (or at least the perceived truth value in a given situation).

However, as presented, that wasn't the case. If it's just a proposition which has no internal contradictions, in meaning 1 it is not illogical.

[drkitten]

It's still an ambiguous question.

Do you mean to ask whether it is illogical in the strict meaning (meaning 1) or whether it is unreasonable to believe it (meaning 2)?

[snip]

However, as presented, that wasn't the case. If it's just a proposition which has no internal contradictions, in meaning 1 it is not illogical.

When did "non-contradictory" suddenly come to mean "no internal contradictions"?

A proposition can be illogical in the strict sense without internal contradictions if it has external ones. As the existence of nocturnal winged purple masseuses has.

[Yoink]

When did "non-contradictory" suddenly come to mean "no internal contradictions"?

A proposition can be illogical in the strict sense without internal contradictions if it has external ones. As the existence of nocturnal winged purple masseuses has.

Er, no, it can't. Centuries of logic textbooks have been written assuring us that statements that are flatly "untrue" can be perfectly "logical."

"All men are immortal"
"Socrates is a man"
"Therefore Socrates is immortal."

That is a perfect example of syllogistic logic. The fact that one premise is false has nothing to do with whether or not the statement is logical.

[drkitten]

Er, no, it can't. Centuries of logic textbooks have been written assuring us that statements that are flatly "untrue" can be perfectly "logical."

Certainly. That's because they're talking about formal reasoning in which the premises are explicit.


"All men are immortal"
"Socrates is a man"
"Therefore Socrates is immortal."

That is a perfect example of syllogistic logic. The fact that one premise is false has nothing to do with whether or not the statement is logical.

And notice what happens when you change it around slightly.

"No men are immortal"
"Socrates is a man"
"Therefore Socrates is immortal."

None of the statements have internal contradictions; they are all, in isolation, fine. No "married bachelors" or "seventeen year old octogenarians" there. However, the third sentence is externally contradicted by the first two.

and the syllogism above is therefore "illogical" despite a complete lack of internal contradictions within it.

Similarly, the statement "purple fairies massage my feet when I'm asleep" contradicts the implicit premise that fairies do not exist, which makes it illogical in the strong sense. Unless you're willing to go on record that you do not accept the implicit premise, which was clearly not SumDood's intention (which is why he considered this example "absurd"). It's absurd precisely because it's a statement with no internal contradictions that nevertheless is externally contradicted by a (nearly) universally held implicit premise.

[Z]

When I read the OP, I voted that, yes, it was illogical. The OP does not clearly explain the usage of the terms 'logical' and 'belief'. It took until halfway down the first page to learn that UE was using a more strict definition of 'logic' than stated in the OP. As for the definition of 'belief', I'm still not 100% sure what definition he uses.

I will give everyone this: this thread has made me think harder than I have in a while. Thank you!

Here's my take, though:

Consider these three statements:

"The Vikings landed in Mexico."

"I believe the Vikings landed in Mexico."

"It is possible the Vikings may have landed in Mexico."

Combined with the current state of knowledge - i.e. that the Vikings had the power to reach Mexico if conditions were favorable, but that there is no current evidence that they did so - we can evaluate each of the statements in both common and strict terms.

In strict terms, none of the three statements are illogical by themselves. However, combined with the current state of knowledge, the first statement becomes illogical, because the first statement is a statement of fact, and that fact is in contradiction to the current state of knowledge. The second statement, however, is not in contradiction to the current state of knowledge; it is merely unjustified. The third is justified and logical.

In common terms, however, only the third statement would be what in common conversation is 'logical' (i.e. rational, reasonable), because neither the first nor second are justified, and the first is erroneous (because the implied certainty is false).

Unfortunately, when someone says, "God exists", they try to give it the weight of statement one, when it properly has only the weight of statement two (more correctly, they should be saying, 'I believe God exists'). In purely formally logical terms, version 2 is not illogical, but it is unjustified. In conventional, common-use terms, version 2 is illogical.

Oh, and the 'if I were 10 feet tall, I'd be King of the Universe' / 'There's no such thing as King of the Universe' isn't by itself illogical - since clearly you're not ten feet tall, there's no such thing as King of the Universe.

Just a nitpick.

[JoeTheJuggler]

When did "non-contradictory" suddenly come to mean "no internal contradictions"?

A proposition can be illogical in the strict sense without internal contradictions if it has external ones. As the existence of nocturnal winged purple masseuses has.

If you're considering external contradictions, then you're not answering the question, "Is this statement logical?" If you're taking the universe of propositions as part of a gigantic formal argument, I suspect you can only find illogic (since the universe of propositions includes contradictory propositions). ETA: I mentioned earlier that I concede taking every possible bit of information as part of an implied formal argument moves meaning 1 and meaning 2 closer together, but they're still distinguishable.

Otherwise, you're then using "logical" in the less formal sense (meaning 2).

By meaning 1, a nocturnal winged purple masseuse is logical. An invisible pink unicorn is not (because "pink" and "unicorn" are contradictory).

However by meaning 2 (logical as "reasonable"), it is not logical to believe in the existence of either one.

ETA: As Yoink pointed out, meaning 1 logical does not address the truth value of a premise or conclusion. I've given examples of a conclusion that was false but logical and one that was illogical but true.

[Yoink]

And notice what happens when you change it around slightly.

"No men are immortal"
"Socrates is a man"
"Therefore Socrates is immortal."

None of the statements have internal contradictions; they are all, in isolation, fine. No "married bachelors" or "seventeen year old octogenarians" there. However, the third sentence is externally contradicted by the first two.

So far so good.

and the syllogism above is therefore "illogical" despite a complete lack of internal contradictions within it.
Well, there are no "internal contradictions" but the syllogism as a whole is illogical because it commits an error of reasoning, not because it is "true" or "untrue"

Similarly, the statement "purple fairies massage my feet when I'm asleep" contradicts the implicit premise that fairies do not exist, which makes it illogical in the strong sense. Unless you're willing to go on record that you do not accept the implicit premise, which was clearly not SumDood's intention (which is why he considered this example "absurd"). It's absurd precisely because it's a statement with no internal contradictions that nevertheless is externally contradicted by a (nearly) universally held implicit premise.
The "implicit premise that fairies do not exist" has no more logical strength in itself than any other proposition.

It is certainly illogical to say "Fairies do not exist. I believe that fairies massage my feet at night." But it is in no way illogical (in the strict sense) to say "I believe in fairies" or, indeed, to say "I believe fairies massage my feet at night." It may untrue and it may be delusional, but it is not an error of "logic" because there is no chain of reasoning involved.

Now, in the real world the person who affirmed "fairies massage my feet at night" would probably also be committing some logical error ("I know this because...") but that's not the issue here. The issue is: "is the mere affirmation of a belief in fairies illogical?" And the only answer to that question is no. It's unreasonable, it's unwarranted, it's nutty--sure--but it's not illogical.

[Third Eye Open]

If observation is all it takes, then people who see the world and just assume that god made it, are justified in their belief. Not to the world, but to themselves, which is enough to say that it is, indeed, a belief.

No. They have not observed god making the world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh, and the 'if I were 10 feet tall, I'd be King of the Universe' / 'There's no such thing as King of the Universe' isn't by itself illogical - since clearly you're not ten feet tall, there's no such thing as King of the Universe.

Just a nitpick.
To spell this out formally, here's what you're saying:

P1. If I were 10' tall, I'd be King of the Universe
P2. I am not 10' tall
C. There's no such thing as King of the Universe

The conclusion is true, but does not follow logically from the argument, so it is illogical. In fact, this argument is really of the form:
If p then q.
not p
Therefore x.

This is not a logical argument.

(Though as a statement itself without the argument, the proposition "There's no such thing as King of the Universe" is logical since there is no internal contradiction.)

[godless dave]

If observation is all it takes, then people who see the world and just assume that god made it, are justified in their belief.

No, they would be justified in believing that the world exists.

[drkitten]

The "implicit premise that fairies do not exist" has no more logical strength in itself than any other proposition.

Wrong. As an implicit "premise," it is assumed to be true. (That's what "premise" means.) Which gives it exactly as much logical strength as any other proposition that you assume to be true -- and much more than propositions that you do not assume to be true.


It is certainly illogical to say "Fairies do not exist. I believe that fairies massage my feet at night."

But it's equally illogical to say "I believe that fairies massage my feet at night" while believing that "Fairies do not exist." I don't have to say something to believe it.

But it is in no way illogical (in the strict sense) to say "I believe in fairies" or, indeed, to say "I believe fairies massage my feet at night."

Not at all. But the whole point of the self-described "absurd" argument is to point out the existence of unexpressed propositions that we nevertheless hold to be true, even if we don't get around to saying them. And therefore, arguments that are externally contradicted by these unexpressed premises are equally illogical.

[drkitten]

If you're considering external contradictions, then you're not answering the question, "Is this statement logical?" If you're taking the universe of propositions as part of a gigantic formal argument, I suspect you can only find illogic (since the universe of propositions includes contradictory propositions).

I'm not taking the universe of propositions. I'm taking the universe of (commonly) accepted propositions -- which is necessary if we're going to communicate at all. Otherwise we have no referents; "all men are mortal" means nothing if we don't agree on what the symbol "men" denotes.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The issue is: "is the mere affirmation of a belief in fairies illogical?" And the only answer to that question is no. It's unreasonable, it's unwarranted, it's nutty--sure--but it's not illogical.

Unless you're using the second meaning of the ambiguous term "logical" (I've been extending that usage to illogical which I think is legit) where it means the same as "reasonable".

In meaning 2, the truth value of premises (or at least the perceived truth value) are important.

In meaning 1, "logical" just means either a statement taken alone is not internally contradictory OR the statement taken as the conclusion of an argument doesn't violate the rules of logic and does logically follow from the premises of that argument.

WRT religious beliefs, I have seen people insist on meaning 1 ("You must concede that the existence of God--for some definition at least--is logical") only as a way to use that same concession as if it were meaning 2 ("Aha! So you think it's logical--i.e. reasonable--to believe in the existence of God as long as the definition of that term isn't self-contradictory!")

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not taking the universe of propositions. I'm taking the universe of (commonly) accepted propositions -- which is necessary if we're going to communicate at all. Otherwise we have no referents; "all men are mortal" means nothing if we don't agree on what the symbol "men" denotes.

I think assuming there is a universe of common accepted propositions that are so well agreed upon that they don't need to be explicitly spelled out is very poor argumentation at the least.

At any rate, the ambiguity is still there--even if we really did know what the unspoken formal argument was, meaning 1 only addresses whether the conclusion follows from the premises and does not resolve the matter of whether the premises or conclusion are true (and therefore reasonable or "logical" in meaning 2 to believe.

Since the ambiguity exists, I think no matter which side of an argument you're on, you should be careful to make clear which one you're talking about.

It sounds as if you're arguing that if you take this a certain way, there isn't ambiguity, but that's exactly the issue: how does one know which way to take it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wrong. As an implicit "premise," it is assumed to be true. (That's what "premise" means.) Which gives it exactly as much logical strength as any other proposition that you assume to be true -- and much more than propositions that you do not assume to be true.

Not really. It's more accurate to say, "it's assumed true for the sake of this argument".

Again, consider the silly argument:

P1. If I were 10' tall, I'd be king of the universe
P2. I am 10' tall
C. Therefore, I am king of the universe.

We all know that at least one of the premises is false (probably both), but the conclusion does logically follow. We can say it is a logical argument. (Using meaning 1 of "logical".)

ETA: It may be helpful to substitute symbols. The same argument above is of the form:
P1. If p then q
P2. p
C. Therefore q.

This argument is logical for any logical proposition p and any logical proposition q.

[Fnord]

I clicked on "I'm not sure," when I was really looking for the "What freekin difference does it make?" button.

[PixyMisa]

Obviously, no true statement can be logically contradictory to the real world. Does discovering that an unsupported belief is true suddenly render it non-contradictory? Of course not -- if the statement is not-contradictory when it's true, it's also non-contradictory when it's only potentially true. If it's not illogical to hold a belief that is potentially true and (equivalently) does not contradict anything about the real world, then belief in Troy or in Mexican Viking is not illogical.
What is a belief? Is it the assertion of a possibility or of fact?

As I said in the previous thread, so long as it is not known to be impossible for the Vikings to have reached Mexico, it is logical to believe that it is possible that they did. Indeed, it would be illogical to believe the contrary.

But it is not logical or consistent to believe, based solely on the absence of contrary proof, that the Vikings reaching Mexico is a fact. That's the argument from ignorance.

It depends on exactly what is meant by "logical" and "believe", which is why I spelled it out with a specific example and a specific reason why it is not logical.

[PixyMisa]

It's very simple, folks: One claim/belief can't be illogical. You can only have a logical contradiction or inconsistency between multiple claims/beliefs. If we have no firm evidence to support the claim/belief that Vikings never reached Mexico then it is not illogical to believe that they did. It may well be wrong and inadvisable to believe such a thing, but illogical it is not.
It is not the statement that has the problem. The statement is internally consistent.

It is the basis for asserting the statement that is the problem.

I already explained this very carefully. But as you have said several times, you don't read my posts.

[PixyMisa]

I clicked on "I'm not sure," when I was really looking for the "What freekin difference does it make?" button.
The "Poll is a misstatement of the debate" button is also absent.

[SumDood]

I thought for sure this would have come up already, but apparently not. Maybe some clarifications are needed in this thread.

from http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/critiquing.htm :



Assuming that we have established that we have an actual argument, the next step is to examine it for validity. There are two points on which an argument might fail: its premises or its inferences. Because of this, it is necessary to distinguish between valid arguments and sound arguments.

If a deductive argument is valid, then that means that the reasoning process behind the inferences is correct and that no fallacies have been committed. If the premises of such an argument are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion not to be true.
Conversely, if an argument is invalid, then the reasoning process behind the inferences is not correct.

If a deductive argument is sound, then that means that not only are all the inferences true, but the premises are also true. Hence, the conclusion is necessarily true. Here are two examples to illustrate the differences between a valid and a sound argument:

1. All birds are mammals. (premise)
2. A platypus is a bird. (premise)
3. Therefore, the platypus is a mammal. (conclusion)

This is a valid deductive argument, even though the premises are both false. But because those premises are not true, the argument is not sound. It is interesting to note that the conclusion is true — this demonstrates that an argument with false premises can nevertheless produce a true conclusion.


1. All trees are plants. (premise)
2. The redwood is a tree. (premise)
3. Therefore, the redwood is a plant. (conclusion)

This is a valid deductive argument because its form is correct. It is also a sound argument because the premises are true. As explained above, because its form is valid and its premises are true, we are guaranteed that the conclusion is also true.



That being said, here is one of the arguments as I see it:

P1: There is no evidence Vikings made it to Mexico
C1: Vikings made it to Mexico (or even I BELIEVE Vikings made it to Mexico)

That is not a valid argument because the truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of the premise. One cannot just say 'Vikings made it to Mexico' without some sort of premise, even if its just ‘Vikings existed, Mexico exists and Vikings sailed a lot’.

...Some people believe things for no reason: it's called "faith."

I really don't think so. Some people believe things for no good reason.

So the statement 'Vikings made it to Mexico' is not logical. And I'm going on record saying it is illogical to believe in that for which there is no evidence.

[Yoink]

Wrong. As an implicit "premise," it is assumed to be true. (That's what "premise" means.) Which gives it exactly as much logical strength as any other proposition that you assume to be true -- and much more than propositions that you do not assume to be true.

Statements do not have "logical strength"--arguments have "logical strength." Premises are no more "logical" than any other propositions, what is logical or illogical is what is done with them. "True" and "false" are judgments which have no relationship to "logical" or "illogical" except insofar as logical deductions from true premises will also be true.

What you originally wrote, by the way, was this:

But it's equally illogical to say "I believe that fairies massage my feet at night" while believing that "Fairies do not exist." I don't have to say something to believe it.

Actually, there is nothing illogical in stating any proposition by itself, whether or not you believe it to be true. The person who stated that "fairies massage my feet at night" while not believing in fairies would be uttering a deliberate untruth, not a logical solecism.

It is illogical, though, to try to build an argument on contradictory premises. It would, therefore, be illogical to affirm both that fairies were massaging your feet at night AND that they did not exist.

Not at all. But the whole point of the self-described "absurd" argument is to point out the existence of unexpressed propositions that we nevertheless hold to be true, even if we don't get around to saying them. And therefore, arguments that are externally contradicted by these unexpressed premises are equally illogical.

Only if the arguer can be shown to in fact accept the (formerly) "unexpressed" premise. That is, if someone is arguing in all earnestness that fairies massage their feet at night and you say to them "but you don't even believe that fairies exist!" any continued attempt to advance the massage-claim is "illogical" if their response was "well, yes, you're right, they don't exist, but how else can I explain how good my feet feel in the morning!"

If that individual denies the unexpressed premise (however widely shared), then the mere fact that there exists such a premise says nothing whatsoever about the "logic" of the original assertion. If the fairy foot-massage enthusiast responds to your "but you don't believe in fairies" with "of course I do; how else could my feet be getting this terrific massage" then the foot massage enthusiast's belief in fairy foot massages is perfectly logical. Barmy, of course, but perfectly logical.

(Well, "perfectly logical" until we push further, anyway).

[SumDood]

It is not the statement that has the problem. The statement is internally consistent.

It is the basis for asserting the statement that is the problem.

I already explained this very carefully. But as you have said several times, you don't read my posts.

I must have missed it too, because thats exactly what i was trying to say in my previous post, but not nearly as well.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is not the statement that has the problem. The statement is internally consistent.

It is the basis for asserting the statement that is the problem.

I already explained this very carefully. But as you have said several times, you don't read my posts.

I have, and my observation is the same as it was a while ago. The strict meaning of "logical" (what I've been calling meaning one) can only evaluate whether a statement is 1) internally contradictory or not taken for itself or 2)whether the formal argument that was presented obeys the rules of logic--that is, whether the conclusion follows from the premises.

Now, if you're claiming that holding an unjustified belief is the same thing as making the following formal argument:

P1. If I have an intuition about a statement, I believe that statement is true
P2. I intuit P
C. Therefore I believe P.

Then I would say it is logical.

I think that's a stretch, though because I think just asserting a proposition without an argument is NOT the same thing as making a formal argument, so all we have to evaluate is the question of whether the proposition is internally contradictory.

Now, if we're using meaning 2, none of this applies. In that case, it is illogical (unreasonable) to accept a proposition without anything to support it.

In the realm of meaning 2, I follow the skeptical model which is based on evidence (not the same approach as formal logic at all). I also think the evidence must be commensurate to the claim (that is, you take into account ALL the evidence, including that universe of stuff you already provisionally accept to be true). So for some trivial claims ("It's raining in Seattle") I'm happy to accept them provisionally with no evidence at all except the absence of contrary evidence. For claims that come with a huge overhead or unparsimonious claims--those that raise more problems than they purport to solve--("You can affect the outcome of the roll of an honest die with telekinetic powers") I would require very strict and very well-controlled and well-repeated evidence before I would provisionally accept the claim. Otherwise, I don't.

[Yoink]

That being said, here is one of the arguments as I see it:

P1: There is no evidence Vikings made it to Mexico
C1: Vikings made it to Mexico (or even I BELIEVE Vikings made it to Mexico)

That is not a valid argument because the truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of the premise. One cannot just say 'Vikings made it to Mexico' without some sort of premise, even if its just ‘Vikings existed, Mexico exists and Vikings sailed a lot’.

I really don't think so. Some people believe things for no good reason.

So the statement 'Vikings made it to Mexico' is not logical. And I'm going on record saying it is illogical to believe in that for which there is no evidence.
You tendentiously misstate the original propositions here. The claim is not that "Vikings made it to Mexico" is a valid conclusion from the premise that "There is no evidence Vikings made it to Mexico." The claim is that there is no logical contradiction between these two parallel propositions.

It would, of course, be illogical to say "I believe Vikings made it to Mexico because there is no evidence that they did." But no one has tried to argue otherwise.

[SumDood]

P1. If I have an intuition about a statement, I believe that statement is true
P2. I intuit P
C. Therefore I believe P.

Then I would say it is logical.


Yes, agreed. A valid as sound argument. But i have a problem with P2. There has to be some reason why this is true. What were the premises that led to this conclusion? And does that form a valid and sound argument? And does it matter? I think so.

[SumDood]

You tendentiously misstate the original propositions here. The claim is not that "Vikings made it to Mexico" is a valid conclusion from the premise that "There is no evidence Vikings made it to Mexico." The claim is that there is no logical contradiction between these two parallel propositions.

It would, of course, be illogical to say "I believe Vikings made it to Mexico because there is no evidence that they did." But no one has tried to argue otherwise.

Agreed. But there are some premises that lead one to say 'I believe Vikings made it to Mexico'. And the conclusion 'I believe Vikings made it to Mexico' following those premises will not form a valid argument.

Therefore, it is illogical to believe Vikings made it to Mexico.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, agreed. A valid as sound argument.

Valid yes--the conclusion follows from the premises, but not sound. A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are all true and is not circular.

(Circular arguments are valid, though some people consider circular reasoning to be fallacious. They're really not--just pointless.)

But i have a problem with P2. There has to be some reason why this is true. What were the premises that led to this conclusion?
I think you're confusing a premise and a conclusion. P2 is only a premise in this argument. It might be the conclusion of some other argument, but here it is a premise not a conclusion.

ETA: Also, you seem to be confusing "true" and "logical" again. Or "true" and "valid". I don't know that P2 is true. But if the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the argument is sound (and the conclusion is true).

And does that form a valid and sound argument? And does it matter? I think so.
See above--valid and sound are not the same thing.

[PixyMisa]

Now, if you're claiming that holding an unjustified belief is the same thing as making the following formal argument:

P1. If I have an intuition about a statement, I believe that statement is true
P2. I intuit P
C. Therefore I believe P.
What is P2 but an argument from ignorance?

[UndercoverElephant]

I clicked on "I'm not sure," when I was really looking for the "What freekin difference does it make?" button.

It makes a massive difference if this mistake is made during a philosophical debate about what is or is not logical. Pointing out a logical inconsistency in a set of statements is important. It can force people to accept that something they believe is in inconsistent with something else they believe.

[UndercoverElephant]

I thought for sure this would have come up already, but apparently not. Maybe some clarifications are needed in this thread.

from http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/critiquing.htm :



Assuming that we have established that we have an actual argument, the next step is to examine it for validity. There are two points on which an argument might fail: its premises or its inferences. Because of this, it is necessary to distinguish between valid arguments and sound arguments.

If a deductive argument is valid, then that means that the reasoning process behind the inferences is correct and that no fallacies have been committed. If the premises of such an argument are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion not to be true.
Conversely, if an argument is invalid, then the reasoning process behind the inferences is not correct.

If a deductive argument is sound, then that means that not only are all the inferences true, but the premises are also true. Hence, the conclusion is necessarily true. Here are two examples to illustrate the differences between a valid and a sound argument:

1. All birds are mammals. (premise)
2. A platypus is a bird. (premise)
3. Therefore, the platypus is a mammal. (conclusion)

This is a valid deductive argument, even though the premises are both false. But because those premises are not true, the argument is not sound. It is interesting to note that the conclusion is true — this demonstrates that an argument with false premises can nevertheless produce a true conclusion.


1. All trees are plants. (premise)
2. The redwood is a tree. (premise)
3. Therefore, the redwood is a plant. (conclusion)

This is a valid deductive argument because its form is correct. It is also a sound argument because the premises are true. As explained above, because its form is valid and its premises are true, we are guaranteed that the conclusion is also true.



That being said, here is one of the arguments as I see it:

P1: There is no evidence Vikings made it to Mexico
C1: Vikings made it to Mexico (or even I BELIEVE Vikings made it to Mexico)

That is not a valid argument because the truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of the premise.


It's not a valid argument because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's a non-sequitor. However, there is also no logical contradiction involved, so the statement C1 is not in itself illogical. The fact that there is no evidence that Vikings reached Mexico does not logically contradict the claim that they reached Mexico.


One cannot just say 'Vikings made it to Mexico' without some sort of premise, even if its just ‘Vikings existed, Mexico exists and Vikings sailed a lot’.


Why not? You can say anything which makes sense in English.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is not the statement that has the problem. The statement is internally consistent.

It is the basis for asserting the statement that is the problem.

I already explained this very carefully. But as you have said several times, you don't read my posts.


I must have missed it too, because thats exactly what i was trying to say in my previous post, but not nearly as well.

Nobody is denying that there is a problem with the justification of the statement. We are denying that there is a logical problem with it. A statement, or set of statements, can be perfectly logically consistent even if (a) they aren't justified and (b) they're all wrong.

[SumDood]

Yes, agreed. A valid as sound argument.

Valid yes--the conclusion follows from the premises, but not sound. A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are all true and is not circular.

(Circular arguments are valid, though some people consider circular reasoning to be fallacious. They're really not--just pointless.)


But i have a problem with P2. There has to be some reason why this is true.
What were the premises that led to this conclusion?

I think you're confusing a premise and a conclusion. P2 is only a premise in this argument. It might be the conclusion of some other argument, but here it is a premise not a conclusion.


And does that form a valid and sound argument? And does it matter? I think so.

See above--valid and sound are not the same thing.


I could be wrong, but i don't think soundness has anything to do with the nature of the premises other than their truth. I don't think it matters if the reasoning is circular or not.

Your argument:

P1. If I have an intuition about a statement, I believe that statement is true
P2. I intuit P
C. Therefore I believe P.

is sound and valid and therefore logical. I'm only saying that one of the premises (P2) was arrived at illogically. (ie, there is not a sound argument that can produce the conclusion 'I intuit Vikings made it to Mexico'.)

So one cannot get to your conclusion 'C' without illogical thinking.

I realize that 'demanding' that a premise in one argument has to be a conclusion in another is not typical form in logical arguments. I'm adding a smidge of common, real world sense into the analysis.

[UndercoverElephant]

I could be wrong, but i don't think soundness has anything to do with the nature of the premises other than their truth. I don't think it matters if the reasoning is circular or not.


Your argument:


P1. If I have an intuition about a statement, I believe that statement is true
P2. I intuit P
C. Therefore I believe P.

is sound and valid and therefore logical.


I'm only saying that one of the premises (P2) was arrived at illogically. (ie, there is not a sound argument that can produce the conclusion 'I intuit Vikings made it to Mexico'.)


Not necessarily. We do not know how P2 was arrived at. That information has not been supplied. It is just a proposition. We are applying logic to it. We are not logically assessing how it was arrived at.

[dogjones]

No, not illogical. Many people have really silly beliefs which have their own perfectly valid logic to them. Logic examines consistency, not quality of data.

E.g:

1. If my daddy says something, I believe it. (A)
2. My daddy says the Vikings invaded Mexico. (A)
3. Therefore I believe the Vikings invaded Mexico. (1, 2, MPP)

(I didn't read the whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating anyone else)

[SumDood]

One cannot just say 'Vikings made it to Mexico' without some sort of premise, even if its just ‘Vikings existed, Mexico exists and Vikings sailed a lot’.

Why not? You can say anything which makes sense in English.

Of course anyone can say anything even if it doesn't make sense in English. Check out some other threads around here to find out.

What i meant to say was One cannot come to the conclusion 'Vikings made it to Mexico' without using illogical means.

Nobody is denying that there is a problem with the justification of the statement. We are denying that there is a logical problem with it. A statement, or set of statements, can be perfectly logically consistent even if (a) they aren't justified and (b) they're all wrong.

We very well may be arguing the same side here. You call it the justification of the statement, i call it the logic used to reach the conclusion. I say if you are going to validate the logic of a statement or belief, you must examine the underlying reasoning used to support it.

[SumDood]

Not necessarily. We do not know how P2 was arrived at. That information has not been supplied. It is just a proposition. We are applying logic to it. We are not logically assessing how it was arrived at.

We are not, but i think we should.

[godless dave]

Nobody is denying that there is a problem with the justification of the statement. We are denying that there is a logical problem with it. A statement, or set of statements, can be perfectly logically consistent even if (a) they aren't justified and (b) they're all wrong.

But the thread title is "Is holding an unjustified belief illogical?" The thread title and poll question are not about the statement, but about the belief. Thus, the question of whether the belief can be justified logically is relevant.

It doesn't have to be arrived at logically. I arrive at few of my beliefs logically. The logic comes in when I try to figure out if the belief is justified.

[dogjones]

But the thread title is "Is holding an unjustified belief illogical?" The thread title and poll question are not about the statement, but about the belief. Thus, the question of whether the belief can be justified logically is relevant.

It doesn't have to be arrived at logically. I arrive at few of my beliefs logically. The logic comes in when I try to figure out if the belief is justified.

Yeah, but your standard of justification may well be higher in terms of quality/quantity of data than someone who holds an insane belief, but in terms of logical consistency of said data, it is probably roughly the same.

[UndercoverElephant]

So 18 out of 36 respondents think the answer is yes?

A basic primer on logic is needed.

(1) Logic is applied to statements in English, which can also be translated into formal logic. It is NOT applied to reality. So distinctions between "I know" and "I believe" aren't relevant. All that matters are the phrases which follow those words, to which we apply logical rules in order to detect logical contradictions or inconsistencies (these two terms are synonymous.)

(2) For an individual statement to be illogical on its own, it has to contain an internal logical inconsistency e.g.:

I am the Prime Minister and not the Prime Minister.
I was born September the 9th and I was born in March.

The first example is self-contradictory on its own, the second relies on the additional fact that it can't be September and March at the same time, which is not up for debate - it's an a-priori fact concerning the meaning of the words involved.

(3) Logic can be applied in two related ways. First, it can be used to assess the validity of an argument. Second it can be used to assess the self-consistency of a set of statements.

(3a) Logical arguments consist of premises and a conclusion. If the conclusion follows logically from the premises, then the argument is said to be valid. If the premises are also considered to be true, then the argument is said to be sound. If the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises then the argument is not valid, although the conclusion may still be true. If the conclusion does follow from the premises, but at least one of the premises is false then the argument is valid but the conclusion may still be false.

(3b) Logic can also be applied to a set of statements which are not presented as a logical argument. For example, you could say that you believe God gave us originatory free will and that God has perfect knowledge of the future. Neither claim is illogical in itself, and whether or not they are true is debatable. However, both beliefs taken together are illogical because they contradict each other. If we have originatory free will then God can't possibly have perfect knowledge of the future, and if God has perfect knowledge of the future then we can't have originatory free will.

The claim "Vikings reached Mexico" is neither a logical argument nor a set of statements. It is a single statement and it is itself neither logical nor illogical. It's just a proposition - a string of words. It doesn't matter whether you say "I believe Vikings....", "I know Vikings..." or "I suspect Vikings..." None of these things make the statement illogical. To make it illogical you either have to turn it into an implied logical argument e.g. "I believe Vikings reached Mexico because there isn't any evidence to say they did" or you have to add an additional statement which contradicts the first one e.g. "Mexico doesn't exist." In these cases, logic cannot tell us which of the statements is not true, it can only tell us that at least one of them is not true.

If something is not illogical, then it can be said to be logical. That means that there is no logical inconsistency. So nonsensical arguments can be entirely logical, so long as the conclusions follow from the premises, and sets of nonsensical statements can be entirely logical, so long as none of those statements actually contradict the others.

[godless dave]

So 18 out of 36 respondents think the answer is yes?

A basic primer on logic is needed.

(1) Logic is applied to statements in English, which can also be translated into formal logic. It is NOT applied to reality.

So the thread title and poll are misleading, since they apply it to a belief. That's probably why people assumed you were using the colloquial, and not technical, meaning of "illogical".

[UndercoverElephant]

Of course anyone can say anything even if it doesn't make sense in English. Check out some other threads around here to find out.


If it doesn't make sense in English then you can't apply logic to it. If it makes sense in English, then it can be formalised and logic applied to it.


What i meant to say was One cannot come to the conclusion 'Vikings made it to Mexico' without using illogical means.


Yes you can. You can simply guess. Guessing is not illogical.


We very well may be arguing the same side here. You call it the justification of the statement, i call it the logic used to reach the conclusion. I say if you are going to validate the logic of a statement or belief, you must examine the underlying reasoning used to support it.

What if there isn't any reason used to support it?

You CANNOT evaluate the logical status of an individual proposition, apart from to test it for internal consistency. It makes no difference how it is supported or whether it isn't supported by anything but blind faith.

[UndercoverElephant]

We are not, but i think we should.

Why? It doesn't matter. We are discussing the application of logic, not whether or not is is reasonable or justified to believe some particular statement.

We apply logic to sets of statements or to logical arguments. We can do this to any set of statements or logical argument. It makes absolutely no difference how those statements or premises were arrived at. All that matters is whether the statements themselves are logically consistent, or whether the conclusion of the argument follows from the premises.

Here is a logically valid argument:

(P1) All floobles are grums.
(P2) Wibble is a flooble.
(P3) Wibble is a grum.

Here is a set of logically consistent statements:

(S1) James Randi is a highland bull.
(S2) Barack Obama has a Danish birth certificate.
(S3) We should hold a celebration for all of the worlds bankers.

:)

[godless dave]

Why? It doesn't matter. We are discussing the application of logic, not whether or not is is reasonable or justified to believe some particular statement.

No, that's what you are discussing. In the thread where this discussion originated, we were discussing something substantive until you started this trivial discussion of semantics.

Strictly speaking, the statement "Vikings traveled to what is now Mexico" is not illogical under the technical definition of the word "illogical". It is still an unjustified belief that runs counter to reality, and it is unreasonable for anyone to believe that.

[UndercoverElephant]

But the thread title is "Is holding an unjustified belief illogical?" The thread title and poll question are not about the statement, but about the belief.


Correct. You, or somebody else, originally accused me of hold an illogical belief when in fact the belief in question was merely of questionable objective justification. This thread is an attempt to convince you that beliefs of that sort are not, in fact, illogical.


Thus, the question of whether the belief can be justified logically is relevant.


"Justified logically"? You are asking whether or not that belief has been arrived at as the conclusion of some logical argument. The claim "Vikings reached Mexico" was never claimed to be the result of a logical argument. It is just a proposition, the truth of which is unknown.


It doesn't have to be arrived at logically. I arrive at few of my beliefs logically. The logic comes in when I try to figure out if the belief is justified.

Whether or not a belief is justified is one thing. Whether or not a set of beliefs are logically consistent with each other is something else entirely. Trying to decide whether a particular claim is justified can be very difficult. Deciding whether a particular set of statements is logically consistent is, or at least should be, very easy.

[Gate2501]

So the thread title and poll are misleading, since they apply it to a belief. That's probably why people assumed you were using the colloquial, and not technical, meaning of "illogical".

Yeah, I think that all of us in that "other thread" were talking about informal logic, logical fallacies, etc. It was pretty plain and clear.

[godless dave]

Correct. You, or somebody else, originally accused me of hold an illogical belief when in fact the belief in question was merely of questionable objective justification. This thread is an attempt to convince you that beliefs of that sort are not, in fact, illogical.

That's what I meant by trivial discussion of semantics.


"Justified logically"? You are asking whether or not that belief has been arrived at as the conclusion of some logical argument. The claim "Vikings reached Mexico" was never claimed to be the result of a logical argument. It is just a proposition, the truth of which is unknown.

And thus, it is unreasonable to believe it.

[UndercoverElephant]

So the thread title and poll are misleading, since they apply it to a belief.


It makes not the slightest difference whether the statements are taken as beliefs or "claimed facts." Since we are dealing with an abstract system, everything is considered to be a belief (justified or not) except for a-priori facts about language itself. We can say we "know" that it can't be September and March at the same time because this is true by definition. When it comes to any sort of claim about the physical world, even "humans evolved from fish", then it is treated as a belief. It may be a very well-justified belief, but it is a belief - an a posteriori knowledge claim. And trying to argue that this is "a fact" doesn't change this discussion. All you are saying by claiming an a posteriori belief is a "fact" is that if there turns out to be a logical inconsistency in a set of statements/beliefs which include this belief, then you'll throw out the others before you'll throw out this one e.g.:

(1) The Bible say humans were made by God on the sixth day.
(2) Science supports the idea that humans evolved from fish over millions of years.

We have a logical inconsistency. One of the statements has to be wrong. That is all that logic can tell us. If you then want to say "but the evidence supporting (2) is overwhelming" then fine. You just say "so I believe the Bible is wrong."

In terms of logic, it makes no difference whether (1) and (2) are taken as beliefs or facts. All that matters is that logic tells us that it is impossible for both statements to be true.


That's probably why people assumed you were using the colloquial, and not technical, meaning of "illogical".

You've already admitted you are attempting to use the technical term...

[godless dave]

It makes not the slightest difference whether the statements are taken as beliefs or "claimed facts."

...

In terms of logic, it makes no difference whether (1) and (2) are taken as beliefs or facts. All that matters is that logic tells us that it is impossible for both statements to be true.

But when you phrase it as a belief, you are implying a lot more statements than just the one you say you believe. When you say "I believe X", you are implicitly expressing not only the premise "X", but expressing a relationship between it and other statements about reality.



You've already admitted you are attempting to use the technical term...

I did, for the rasons listed above. That does not change the fact that this whole thread is a trivial discussion of semantics.

[UndercoverElephant]

So the thread title and poll are misleading, since they apply it to a belief.


It makes not the slightest difference whether the statements are taken as beliefs or "claimed facts." Since we are dealing with an abstract system, everything is considered to be a belief (justified or not) except for a-priori facts about language itself. We can say we "know" that it can't be September and March at the same time because this is true by definition. When it comes to any sort of claim about the physical world, even "humans evolved from fish", then it is treated as a belief. It may be a very well-justified belief, but it is a belief - an a posteriori knowledge claim. And trying to argue that this is "a fact" doesn't change this discussion. All you are saying by claiming an a posteriori belief is a "fact" is that if there turns out to be a logical inconsistency in a set of statements/beliefs which include this belief, then you'll throw out the others before you'll throw out this one e.g.:

(1) (Bible) Humans were made by God on the sixth day.
(2) (Science) Humans evolved from fish over millions of years.

We have a logical inconsistency. One of the statements has to be wrong. That is all that logic can tell us. If you then want to say "but the evidence supporting (2) is overwhelming" then fine. You just say "so I believe the Bible is wrong."

In terms of logic, it makes no difference whether (1) and (2) are taken as beliefs or facts. All that matters is that logic tells us that it is impossible for both statements to be true.


That's probably why people assumed you were using the colloquial, and not technical, meaning of "illogical".

You've already admitted you are attempting to use the technical term...

[UndercoverElephant]

No, that's what you are discussing. In the thread where this discussion originated, we were discussing something substantive until you started this trivial discussion of semantics.


This discussion is not trivial and not about semantics. It's about LOGIC, and you, if you consider yourself a critical thinker, ought to be concerned to understand it. If you don't understand logic, you can't be a critical thinker.


Strictly speaking, the statement "Vikings traveled to what is now Mexico" is not illogical under the technical definition of the word "illogical".


Thankyou.


It is still an unjustified belief that runs counter to reality, and it is unreasonable for anyone to believe that.

Oh no it doesn't, Dave...

It is entirely consistent with reality. An abscence of evidence to suggest Vikings reached Mexico is not inconsistent with Vikings actually having reached Mexico. LOGIC!!!!! It's like disinfectant for the brain! :D

[UndercoverElephant]

But when you phrase it as a belief, you are implying a lot more statements than just the one you say you believe. When you say "I believe X", you are implicitly expressing not only the premise "X", but expressing a relationship between it and other statements about reality.


How many times have you made this point?

Of course it is. But in this case, there aren't any other statements about reality which contradict it. The statement "There is no evidence that Vikings reached Mexico" does NOT logically contradict the statement "Vikings reached Mexico." This has already been explained to you. We can show these two statements aren't contradictory by combining them into "The Vikings reached Mexico but left no evidence of their visit."


I did, for the rasons listed above. That does not change the fact that this whole thread is a trivial discussion of semantics.

No it isn't. It has exposed the lamentable level of understanding of logic on this board of supposedly rational thinkers. This stuff isn't advanced. It is what philosophy students learn in their first term at university and they learn it in the first term because if they don't understand it, they won't understand anything that follows. Trying to think critically without a decent grasp of logic is a doomed project.

[Gate2501]

No it isn't. It has exposed the lamentable level of understanding of logic on this board of supposedly rational thinkers. This stuff isn't advanced. It is what philosophy students learn in their first term at university and they learn it in the first term because if they don't understand it, they won't understand anything that follows. Trying to think critically without a decent grasp of logic is a doomed project.

Dude, you had to have known that at least I was referring to informal logic in the thread that started this. I specifically cited informal logical fallacies repeatedly while explaining to you that your belief was illogical.

Creating this poll and divorcing your argument from informal logic(which the entire original thread revolved around), then declaring victory, is pretty goofy. I understand formal logic just fine, that is clearly and obviously not what that post was about.

Also, you are still being a bit hostile eh? Acting like everyone who disagrees with you is a moron?

[UndercoverElephant]

Dude, you had to have known that at least I was referring to informal logic in the thread that started this. I specifically cited informal logical fallacies repeatedly while explaining to you that your belief was illogical.

Creating this poll and divorcing your argument from informal logic(which the entire original thread revolved around), then declaring victory, is pretty goofy. I understand formal logic just fine, that is clearly and obviously not what that post was about.

Also, you are still being a bit hostile eh? Acting like everyone who disagrees with you is a moron?

OK...I can't even remember how the debate got started. Perhaps you'd like to remind me? It would help to examine a real example. Which belief of mine did you say was illogical?

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

I found it myself...


The question is "Why don't you believe in God?" If the answer is "because there is no proof", then you've assumed that (a) proof would be possible if God exists and (b) proof is necessary in order to justify belief. Neither assumption is safe. People, including yourself, believe all sorts of things even though they aren't proved.



As I explained to you before. In the case of (a)"proof of god might not be possible", not only does your claim of "God exists" seem absurd(because the BoP has not been satisfied), the very idea of even making such a claim becomes utterly illogical. Why would you make such a claim in the first place, if no evidence to support the claim is possible? What made you make the claim!? A flight of fancy!?

Calling (b)"proof is necessary in order to justify belief." an unsafe assumption, shows that you are willing to believe things contrary to logic and reason. You are right though, proof isn't necessary to justify your personal belief in a positive existential claim. I just hope you don't mind that your justification for believing said claim(for which you have no proof) is completely illogical, and might get pwnt on some internet forum somewhere.


The claim "proof of the existence of God may not be possible, even if God exists" is not illogical. It is not illogical for exactly the same reason that the Vikings may have reached Mexico even though there is no proof, and even if no proof is possible, since no evidence was left.

Whether or not we can prove something, or justify something, and whether or not it is actually true, are two different things. Believing things which aren't justified is not illogical.

[Gate2501]

OK...I can't even remember how the debate got started. Perhaps you'd like to remind me? It would help to examine a real example. Which belief of mine did you say was illogical?

:)

It wasn't even necessarily your belief really, it was *the belief* in the claim "God exists" where no evidence has been provided to support that claim.

I'll just pull a quote from myself.


What Dave and Pixy are trying to explain, is that the claim itself is not illogical, it is simply a claim. However, when you accept the claim without observing the principles of logic, your acceptance of the claim becomes illogical.

With respect to the claim "God exists" if you accept it without the burden of proof being satisfied - you are not observing the principles of logic.

You then dodge out of the burden of proof, by special pleading that proof is not possible for this claim, this also makes your claim unfalsifiable - you are not observing the principles of logic.

Your acceptance of the claim is illogical.

I was referring to specific informal fallacies, I had been from the start. I thought that it was understood that this was a discussion pertaining to informal logic, although it had not been explicitly spelled out. Perhaps we should have been saying "unreasonable" instead of "illogical" that whole time and all of this could have been avoided.

I honestly did not know that there was such a semantic nightmare brewing that entire time. I don't even think formal logic could be used to examine half of the crap we were talking about. That is another reason that I thought it was assumed that we were talking about informal logic.

[UndercoverElephant]

It wasn't even necessarily your belief really, it was *the belief* in the claim "God exists" where no evidence has been provided to support that claim.


Doesn't make any difference to the logic, Gate.

It doesn't make any difference how little evidence is provided to support a particular claim, it is only illogical if it actually contradicts some other claim.


I'll just pull a quote from myself.

I was referring to specific informal fallacies, I had been from the start. I thought that it was understood that this was a discussion pertaining to informal logic, although it had not been explicitly spelled out. Perhaps we should have been saying "unreasonable" instead of "illogical" that whole time and all of this could have been avoided.

I honestly did not know that there was such a semantic nightmare brewing that entire time. I don't even think formal logic could be used to examine half of the crap we were talking about. That is another reason that I thought it was assumed that we were talking about informal logic.

What do you think the difference is between "formal logic" and "informal logic"?

[UndercoverElephant]

What Dave and Pixy are trying to explain, is that the claim itself is not illogical, it is simply a claim. However, when you accept the claim without observing the principles of logic, your acceptance of the claim becomes illogical.


The claim in question did not "fail to observe the principles of logic." It was entirely logical. Why do you think it wasn't?


With respect to the claim "God exists" if you accept it without the burden of proof being satisfied - you are not observing the principles of logic.


Why not?


You then dodge out of the burden of proof, by special pleading that proof is not possible for this claim, this also makes your claim unfalsifiable - you are not observing the principles of logic.


Why not?


Your acceptance of the claim is illogical.


Why?

Where is the contradiction? ANY contradiction?

[Gate2501]

The claim "proof of the existence of God may not be possible, even if God exists" is not illogical.

What I said, was that this special pleading makes it illogical(read:unreasonable, not formally illogical) to have made the claim "God exists", because it would have been impossible for you to have gathered any evidence to warrant making that claim in the first place.

There is more than one definition for most words, which are usually loosely conceptually tied to one another. The context of that entire discussion seemed to revolve around informal logic, and informal logical fallacies.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Strictly speaking, the statement "Vikings traveled to what is now Mexico" is not illogical under the technical definition of the word "illogical". It is still an unjustified belief that runs counter to reality, and it is unreasonable for anyone to believe that.

Exactly. And the trouble crops up when one cedes that the proposition is not illogical (in the technical sense--what I've been calling meaning 1) and then they turn around and use it in the everyday sense (meaning "reasonable"--what I've been calling meaning 2).

That's not legitimate argumentation. It's exploiting ambiguity in a dishonest way, and yes, I've seen theists do just that.

It's very similar to the endless "evolution is random" arguments we had here. Yes, in a technical way, evolution is random (there are not predetermined outcomes), but not in the way creationists mean when they talk about the odds of something like the human brain happening randomly (like a wind blowing through a junkyard and assembling parts into a working automobile).

So sometimes the discussion of semantics is needed to clarify matters when someone is playing unfairly with an ambiguity like this.

[Gate2501]

Where is the contradiction? ANY contradiction?

Dude, stop limiting the scope of the word "illogical" to formal logic only. I just explained to you that the entire quote you just took apart was based on informal logic, there were specific informal fallacies mentioned in the quote.

Dissecting it and then saying I am wrong because it is not in line with strict formal logic(after I just told you it had nothing to do with formal logic), is a blatant ignorance for the context of our entire conversation so that you can say "I win! I win!".

[UndercoverElephant]

What I said, was that this special pleading makes it illogical (read:unreasonable, not formally illogical) to have made the claim "God exists", because it would have been impossible for you to have gathered any evidence to warrant making that claim in the first place.


That isn't the case either. I had already pointed out that there is more than one sort of evidence. When you say "evidence", you mean "scientific evidence". There are other ways of justifying beliefs. Science can only answer certain sorts of questions, and, unless you are scientistic, you will accept that there are other ways to justify beliefs. All of those non-scientific ways of justifying beliefs don't count as "evidence" in your book, because all of them, to some extent, are subjective. SO...the fact that there is no objective/scientific evidence does not mean that there is no means for me to justify that belief, either to myself or to other people who aren't scientistic.

So it's not illogical "informally" either.

[UndercoverElephant]

Dude, stop limiting the scope of the word "illogical" to formal logic only. I just explained to you that the entire quote you just took apart was based on informal logic, there were specific informal fallacies mentioned in the quote.


Where in the quote?

[Gate2501]

That isn't the case either. I had already pointed out that there is more than one sort of evidence. When you say "evidence", you mean "scientific evidence". There are other ways of justifying beliefs. Science can only answer certain sorts of questions, and, unless you are scientistic, you will accept that there are other ways to justify beliefs. All of those non-scientific ways of justifying beliefs don't count as "evidence" in your book, because all of them, to some extent, are subjective. SO...the fact that there is no objective/scientific evidence does not mean that there is no means for me to justify that belief, either to myself or to other people who aren't scientistic.

So it's not illogical "informally" either.

Yes, I mean "scientific evidence". And yes, it is "unreasonable" with respect to informal logic to believe a claim like "X exists" without some sort of supporting(scientific) evidence. It might not be "unreasonable" with respect to your opinions about what constitutes evidence.

[Gate2501]

Where in the quote?

You then dodge out of the burden of proof, by special pleading that proof is not possible for this claim, this also makes your claim unfalsifiable - you are not observing the principles of logic.

The bold.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, I mean "scientific evidence". And yes, it is "unreasonable" with respect to informal logic to believe a claim like "X exists" without some sort of supporting(scientific) evidence. It might not be "unreasonable" with respect to your opinions about what constitutes evidence.

Not if X is incompatible with the assumptions and methodologies of science in principle, but not incompatible with the assumptions of metaphysics and epistemology. Your position boils down to "scientism is the only reasonable epistemological stance."

ETA: You are free to believe that science is the only means of justifying beliefs, but it is unreasonable to try to impose this belief on other people.

[UndercoverElephant]

The bold.

"Viking explorers reached Mexico" is not falsifiable. It is inconcievable that anyone could ever prove it was false. :)

[Gate2501]

"Viking explorers reached Mexico" is not falsifiable. It is inconcievable that anyone could ever prove it was false. :)

Unfalsifiable was not bolded, though it was important. I was referring to the special pleading bit, which I had in bold. Please do not make another apples and oranges comparison between the unfalsifiable nature of historical accounts and the unfalsifiable nature of an existential claim.

[SumDood]

The claim "Vikings reached Mexico" is neither a logical argument nor a set of statements. It is a single statement and it is itself neither logical nor illogical. It's just a proposition - a string of words. It doesn't matter whether you say "I believe Vikings....", "I know Vikings..." or "I suspect Vikings..."


I'm sorry, the statement 'Vikings reached Mexico' and the statement 'I believe Vikings reached Mexico' are NOT one and the same. When you introduce 'I believe' into the discussion, you must take into account the reasons for that belief.


Yes you can. You can simply guess. Guessing is not illogical.

I'm sorry, but i disagree. Random guessing not logical in any sense of the word. Educated guesses 'lean' toward logic and may be logical, but then they are not entirely random.

[Gate2501]

I'm sorry, the statement 'Vikings reached Mexico' and the statement 'I believe Vikings reached Mexico' are NOT one and the same. When you introduce 'I believe' into the discussion, you must take into account the reasons for that belief.


And to take your point a step farther:

The statement "Vikings reached Mexico" is unfalsifiable because we do not have the ability to go back in time. It is fundamentally unfalsifiable due to the constraints of objective reality.

The statement "God exists" is unfalsifiable due to special pleading, an informal logical fallacy. This special pleading appears to be designed by apologists to dodge the burden of proof, and explain away why there have been no observations in the form of scientific evidence of God or Gods.

These are apples an oranges comparisons in so many ways. I wonder why this thread was about vikings, and not posits of the existence of scientifically unobservable beings. Perhaps because the latter is patently absurd.

[PixyMisa]

Not necessarily. We do not know how P2 was arrived at. That information has not been supplied. It is just a proposition. We are applying logic to it. We are not logically assessing how it was arrived at.
Correction: You aren't. That is why you end up illogically holding unjustified beliefs.

Failure to examine your premises is not an excuse, it is simply failure.

[Yoink]

Exactly. And the trouble crops up when one cedes that the proposition is not illogical (in the technical sense--what I've been calling meaning 1) and then they turn around and use it in the everyday sense (meaning "reasonable"--what I've been calling meaning 2).

That's not legitimate argumentation. It's exploiting ambiguity in a dishonest way, and yes, I've seen theists do just that.

It's very similar to the endless "evolution is random" arguments we had here. Yes, in a technical way, evolution is random (there are not predetermined outcomes), but not in the way creationists mean when they talk about the odds of something like the human brain happening randomly (like a wind blowing through a junkyard and assembling parts into a working automobile).

So sometimes the discussion of semantics is needed to clarify matters when someone is playing unfairly with an ambiguity like this.

Bravo. Well put.

If we're going to have an argument about logic (or going to argue complex philosophical matters of any kind) we should know what the words we are using mean. It's pointless (as many a thread here demonstrates) to go on for page after page arguing about "is belief in God logical" or "is evolution random" only to figure out after many heated exchanges that you've just been using the words to mean different things.

Or, to put it another way, there's nothing trivial about semantic arguments. Words are the tools we use to make arguments with. To say that it's "trivial" to discuss those words rather than to directly engage in the arguments is like a woodworker saying that he doesn't need to bother spending time keeping his tools sharp; the really important thing is keep working away at the wood.

[AkuManiMani]

I've bolded the part that explains why holding the belief is illogical.

That would make it alogical rather than illogical.

This.

[PixyMisa]

"Viking explorers reached Mexico" is not falsifiable. It is inconcievable that anyone could ever prove it was false. :)
That doesn't help you.

[Glockjaw]

No, they would be justified in believing that the world exists.

I am often interchanging the term justified belief. I see it as being used as describing a belief that is arrived at via logic, but on a subjective level, it can be justified by unconventional methods. So I can see where my point may come across wrong.

In the sense of the example, their justification for believing god made the world would be alogical, but if they truly believe that then they feel they are justified in their belief. Just as Yrreg feels he is justified in his belief of god because he can touch his penis. On a subjective level, he would be justified because the only person he has to answer to is himself (and his imaginary god but thats irrelevant) On a realistic level, his belief is unjustified because he arrived at this conclusion via faith. However, this doesn't make it any less real for him and so from a perspective it is justified, even if unjustified.

That may have confused things more.. I don't know, but thanks for responding anyway, I'm just here to have an nice exchange of ideas. :)

[Maia]

I've read this whole thread,and Z solved the problem in a way a few pages ago... I'm just not sure anybody really caught it, because it was phrased as "option 3" and all the following posts seemed to refer only to options 1 and 2. Just add a few words to the original statement. "I believe IT IS POSSIBLE that Vikings landed in Mexico." The statement is no longer illogical. The belief is unfounded to the extent that no evidence exists to show that Vikings actually landed in Mexico. However, Vikings did possess the technology to get as far as Mexico, as someone else pointed out, so the belief is not as unfounded as "I believe it is possible that purple fairies massage my feet every night." Even that statement, however, is not illogical as such, only completely unfounded. Oh yeah, and if a statement is not falsifiable, then it is by definition not testable-- so as it stands, I really think that the Vikings-went-to-Mexico statement absolutely can't be logical because of that one problem alone. Yay! (Happy Logic Dance)

[PixyMisa]

The question is, does holding a belief equate to asserting that a statement is true? If you belief that 1+1=2, would you assert that 1+1=2?

If not, then belief is just some meaningless handwavy word, and the argument - and belief itself - is pointless.

If it does, then we have a problem.

UndercoverElephant's premise (let's call it P) is that holding unsupported beliefs is logical if they are not internally contradictory and do not contradict known facts.

The example is the premise that the Vikings reached Mexico (let's call it Q) which he asserts is a logical belief by P.

By exactly the same reasoning, it is also logical to believe the contrary.

So P => Q and P => ~Q.

This proves that P is false.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm sorry, the statement 'Vikings reached Mexico' and the statement 'I believe Vikings reached Mexico' are NOT one and the same. When you introduce 'I believe' into the discussion, you must take into account the reasons for that belief.


I'm sorry, but i disagree. Random guessing not logical in any sense of the word. Educated guesses 'lean' toward logic and may be logical, but then they are not entirely random.

I statement does not "become logical" or "fail to become logical" because of the manner in which it is justified (or not). Please read the primer on logic I posted in this thread yesterday. It doesn't matter how you arrive at "Vikings reached Mexico", because this is a proposition we are applying logic TO. We are testing "Vikings reached Mexico" against other statements.

[UndercoverElephant]

The statement "God exists" is unfalsifiable due to special pleading, an informal logical fallacy.

And as explained to you in the other thread, it's not "special pleading". It depends what conceptions of God you have. Most conceptions of God are, by definition, beyond the scope of scientific testing, so no "special pleading" is required. Who ever said the existence of God should be testable by science? Some extremists and fundamentalists maybe, and some skeptics looking for a nice easy strawman to knock down. Nobody else.

If God just reacted to human actions in a predictable, repeatable way, then God would be reduced to some sort of deterministic process. It wouldn't be recognisable as God. God is not an organ-grinder's monkey, and I'm not an organ-grinder.

[UndercoverElephant]

Bravo. Well put.

If we're going to have an argument about logic (or going to argue complex philosophical matters of any kind) we should know what the words we are using mean. It's pointless (as many a thread here demonstrates) to go on for page after page arguing about "is belief in God logical" or "is evolution random" only to figure out after many heated exchanges that you've just been using the words to mean different things.


Yes, as in the above post. Some versions of God are scientifically-testable. Most aren't.


Or, to put it another way, there's nothing trivial about semantic arguments. Words are the tools we use to make arguments with. To say that it's "trivial" to discuss those words rather than to directly engage in the arguments is like a woodworker saying that he doesn't need to bother spending time keeping his tools sharp; the really important thing is keep working away at the wood.

Yes. It really annoys me when people say "mere semantics." Words matter.

[lionking]

Two points:

It took nearly six pages for this thread to get around to the existence
of God, where it was always heading; and

I'm glad I never wasted my time studying philosophy.

[SumDood]

I statement does not "become logical" or "fail to become logical" because of the manner in which it is justified (or not). Please read the primer on logic I posted in this thread yesterday. It doesn't matter how you arrive at "Vikings reached Mexico", because this is a proposition we are applying logic TO. We are testing "Vikings reached Mexico" against other statements.

Agreed. The statement itself holds true. Once again, the problem is with the belief of the statement and whether or not the belief is based on logical assertions.

Thread title: "Is holding an unjustified belief illogical"
Poll Question: "Is it ILLOGICAL to believe the Vikings reached Mexico?"

Both 100%, completely, totally different from the question

"Is the following statement illogical: 'Vikings reached Mexico'?"


It doesn't make any difference how little evidence is provided to support a particular claim, it is only illogical if it actually contradicts some other claim

For the actual statement, and not the belief in the statement, sure. But contradictions are not needed for something to be illogical:

P1: All Men Die
P2: I am a Man
C1: Some Birds Fly

C1 neither follows logically from P1 and P2 nor contradicts either. Yes, non sequitur, i know. Just an example of an illogical argument that contains no contradictions.

[UndercoverElephant]

Two points:

It took nearly six pages for this thread to get around to the existence
of God, where it was always heading; and


Actually, that's where the discussion came from in the first place...


I'm glad I never wasted my time studying philosophy.

Learning to think critically is never a waste of time.

[UndercoverElephant]

Agreed. The statement itself holds true. Once again, the problem is with the belief of the statement and whether or not the belief is based on logical assertions.

Thread title: "Is holding an unjustified belief illogical"
Poll Question: "Is it ILLOGICAL to believe the Vikings reached Mexico?"

Both 100%, completely, totally different from the question

"Is the following statement illogical: 'Vikings reached Mexico'?"


Don't look much different to me...

The statement "Vikings reached Mexico" can't be justified according to the current state of historical knowledge. The question is, is the statement illogical simply because it is unjustified (or poorly justified).

I don't understand why so many people are focusing on the difference between "Vikings reached Mexico", "I believe Vikings reached Mexico", "I know Vikings reached Mexico" and various other versions of the statement. It really doesn't matter whether it is taken as a belief, a knowledge-claim or simply a proposition. You apply logic to it in exactly the same way regardless.


For the actual statement, and not the belief in the statement, sure.


Why do you think it makes a difference??


But contradictions are not needed for something to be illogical:

P1: All Men Die
P2: I am a Man
C1: Some Birds Fly

C1 neither follows logically from P1 and P2 nor contradicts either. Yes, non sequitur, i know. Just an example of an illogical argument that contains no contradictions.

I explained in the primer I posted yesterday that we can use logic in two different ways. First, we can use it to evaluate a logical argument, which includes testing to see whether the conclusion actually follows from the premises. Second, we can use it to test the internal consistency of a set of statements. Your example above could be taken as either. If you take it as a logical argument then it doesn't work because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. If you remove the P1, P2 and C then it just becomes three statements which don't contain any logical contradictions.

Either way, the statement/belief/claim "Vikings reached Mexico" is not illogical. It's not the result of a proposed logical argument and there's no other (true) statements about reality we can make which contradict it.

The majority of people who have voted in this poll are simply wrong. They do not appear to understand what the word "logic" actually means. They seem to think that if a belief is unjustified "then it is illogical to hold that belief." It is not. If there's one thing the people reading this thread should come away having learned it is this: the claim that some set of beliefs or some philosophical argument is illogical is a significantly stronger claim than that some particular belief is unjustified or unreasonable. If you go around claiming that unreasonable or unjustified beliefs are "illogical" then you undermine the significance of the accusation of illogicallity. You are basically blunting the most useful tool available to philosophers and critical thinkers. "Illogical" should be reserved for arguments which don't work and sets of beliefs which cannot all be true. Believing in God is not illogical. Believing in a God which gave us free will and also has perfect foreknowledge is illogical, as is believing in a merciful, loving God who sends people to hell for eternity. For an atheist, logic is at least as powerful a weapon as science is.

[SumDood]

Since we're at a stalemate, let me try another approach:

Can a belief be logical?

How does one determine if a belief is logical?

You, UndercoverElephant, say to answer those questions you only need to examine what comprises the belief.

I say you need to know not only what but why to determine if the belief is logical.

"<WhateverReason(s)> is why one believes in <whatever>. Therefore it is logical/illogical to believe <whatever>."

Why do I need the 'why'? Good question. Seems obvious to me, just by the definitions of 'belief' and 'logic', but i can't really put into words how or why.

[Richard Masters]

Since we're at a stalemate, let me try another approach:

Can a belief be logical?

How does one determine if a belief is logical?

You, UndercoverElephant, say to answer those questions you only need to examine what comprises the belief.

I say you need to know not only what but why to determine if the belief is logical.

"<WhateverReason(s)> is why one believes in <whatever>. Therefore it is logical/illogical to believe <whatever>."

Why do I need the 'why'? Good question. Seems obvious to me, just by the definitions of 'belief' and 'logic', but i can't really put into words how or why.

You are still equivocating. Logical or illogical should be reserved to characterize whether an argument is valid (http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/valid1.php), meaning the conclusion follows from its premises, whether or not the premises themselves are true or not.

The way some people continue to use logical and illogical, is whether it is reasonable to believe X. That is very different from evaluating whether X strictly follows from its premises.

In addition, a simple statement like Vikings reached Mexico is not an argument, so it cannot be evaluated as valid or invalid (or logical/illogical). I believe that's the answer to the question posed in this thread.

[UndercoverElephant]

Richard,

I'd just add that you can use logic to evaluate whether a set of statements, rather than an actual argument, are logically consistent. It is legitimate to look at a proposition like "Vikings reached Mexico" and compare it to various other statements in order to see whether the whole set are logically coherent. Logic can (and should) be used to evaluate the consistency of belief systems, especially your own.

Geoff

[SumDood]

You are still equivocating. Logical or illogical should be reserved to characterize whether an argument is valid (http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/valid1.php), meaning the conclusion follows from its premises, whether or not the premises themselves are true or not.

The way some people continue to use logical and illogical, is whether it is reasonable to believe X. That is very different from evaluating whether X strictly follows from its premises.

In addition, a simple statement like Vikings reached Mexico is not an argument, so it cannot be evaluated as valid or invalid (or logical/illogical). I believe that's the answer to the question posed in this thread.

I agree and see your point.

Its a semantics issue, but what exactly is the difference between 'it is reasonable to believe X' and 'it is logical to believe X'?

To determine the logic or reasonableness of a belief, the criteria behind the belief must be taken into account. A belief is a conclusion reached by some means (even if its faith or guessing or whatever). If a logical (valid and sound) argument can be formed with the belief as the conclusion, then the belief is logical, otherwise, it is not. If it is reasonable to reach the conclusion from the criteria behind the belief, then the belief is reasonable.

P1: <criteria 1 supporting the belief in X>
P2: <criteria 2 supporting the belief in X>
C1: I believe X

[Piscivore]

Richard,

I'd just add that you can use logic to evaluate whether a set of statements, rather than an actual argument, are logically consistent.

You didn't ask if the statment "Vikings reached Mexico" was logically consistent. You asked "Is it ILLOGICAL to believe the Vikings reached Mexico?"

Yes, it is illogical to presume a proposition is true in the complete absence of evidence to support it. It violates parsimony.

[Z]

Since you agree that 'words matter', the difference between 'I believe x --> y' and 'X --> y' is critical. The first is a statement of belief, and carries with it the requirement of understanding the source of and consequences from that belief; however, a belief does not carry the imperative to be taken as fact.

On the other hand, the second statement is a statement of fact, and carries with it the requirement of evidence, which the first does not.

The two statements, for this reason, are fundamentally different. The first must be evaluated in different terms from the second.

If you're going for the strictest sense of logic, neither statement is illogical. Neither is 'Purple elephants dance the mambo on my harpsichord.' However, that's not the form of logic people are applying when discussing the logic or illogic of a given belief or belief system.

When applying the broader use version of 'logic', the origins and backgrounds to every statement become a part of the analysis of a given statement, and that is where all your philosophy classes and textbooks seem to have failed you.

So, as you agree that 'words matter', you MUST also agree that the two statements are fundamentally different and must be treated as such.

[UndercoverElephant]

You didn't ask if the statment "Vikings reached Mexico" was logically consistent. You asked "Is it ILLOGICAL to believe the Vikings reached Mexico?"

Yes, it is illogical to presume a proposition is true in the complete absence of evidence to support it. It violates parsimony.

That does not make it illogical. It makes it unparsimonious. They are not the same thing.

[Richard Masters]

Richard,

I'd just add that you can use logic to evaluate whether a set of statements, rather than an actual argument, are logically consistent. It is legitimate to look at a proposition like "Vikings reached Mexico" and compare it to various other statements in order to see whether the whole set are logically coherent. Logic can (and should) be used to evaluate the consistency of belief systems, especially your own.

Geoff

In this case, the main proposition becomes the conclusion, and the other statements in the set become premises.

It still turns out that the main proposition cannot be dubbed invalid (or illogical), you can only do so (properly) to the entire implicit argument.

But like you said, it is helpful to find an inconsistent statement in a set of statements.

[UndercoverElephant]

Since you agree that 'words matter', the difference between 'I believe x --> y' and 'X --> y' is critical. The first is a statement of belief, and carries with it the requirement of understanding the source of and consequences from that belief; however, a belief does not carry the imperative to be taken as fact.

On the other hand, the second statement is a statement of fact, and carries with it the requirement of evidence, which the first does not.

The two statements, for this reason, are fundamentally different. The first must be evaluated in different terms from the second.

If you're going for the strictest sense of logic, neither statement is illogical. Neither is 'Purple elephants dance the mambo on my harpsichord.' However, that's not the form of logic people are applying when discussing the logic or illogic of a given belief or belief system.

When applying the broader use version of 'logic', the origins and backgrounds to every statement become a part of the analysis of a given statement, and that is where all your philosophy classes and textbooks seem to have failed you.

So, as you agree that 'words matter', you MUST also agree that the two statements are fundamentally different and must be treated as such.

Not if the difference is "beliefs about physical reality" and "knowledge about physical reality." Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as 100% knowledge about physical reality. There are only beliefs, which range from completely impossible (because they are illogical) through highly unlikely and perfectly reasonable to so well-justified that there's no reason to take seriously the possibility they are false. They are all still just beliefs, claims, propositions... They are NOT 100% unassailable "facts", no matter how much we might like them to be. The difference only matters psychologically. We want to be able to say I *KNOW* that evolution is true." But does it really make any difference to say "My belief that evolution is true is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence"?

[Piscivore]

That does not make it illogical. It makes it unparsimonious. They are not the same thing.

I apologise, I was not clear. I was not saying it was illogical because it violated parsimony. It is illogical and unparsimonous.

The unsupported belief is illustrated in this syllogism:

P) It is technically possible that the Vikings could have reached Mexico
P) <missing>
C) Therefore, the Vikings reached Mexico.

How is that logical?

[Yoink]

I agree and see your point.

Its a semantics issue, but what exactly is the difference between 'it is reasonable to believe X' and 'it is logical to believe X'?

To determine the logic or reasonableness of a belief, the criteria behind the belief must be taken into account. A belief is a conclusion reached by some means (even if its faith or guessing or whatever). If a logical (valid and sound) argument can be formed with the belief as the conclusion, then the belief is logical, otherwise, it is not. If it is reasonable to reach the conclusion from the criteria behind the belief, then the belief is reasonable.

P1: <criteria 1 supporting the belief in X>
P2: <criteria 2 supporting the belief in X>
C1: I believe X

Why muddy the waters by trying to make two different words ("reasonable" and "logical") mean the same thing. The word "reasonable" has no precise meaning. We use it all the time with reference simply to real world behavior: "be reasonable!" we say, meaning "don't make an extreme demand upon us" or "don't act in an unusual way"--not in the least meaning "be logical."

Is it "reasonable" to hold a belief in the absence of evidence for that belief? No, it's not. It's not in two sense: 1) you didn't "reason" your way into the belief (by definition), 2) it's "unreasonable" in the "extremist" or "zealous" sense.

Is affirming that belief "illogical"? Not by itself, no. Does that mean it's "logical"? No, of course not. It's neither logical nor illogical. Therefore the question of "logic" simply doesn't arise (until such time as somebody begins to try to defend their unjustifiable belief, of course).

Be satisfied with being able to call these beliefs unreasonable, unjustified and indefensible; you don't need to twist the meaning of a perfectly good word so as to be able to throw "illogical" at them as well.

[Richard Masters]

I agree and see your point.

Its a semantics issue, but what exactly is the difference between 'it is reasonable to believe X' and 'it is logical to believe X'?

Without trying to be pedantic, it still depends on what you mean by logical.

If you mean reasonable... then there is obviously no difference.
If you mean valid, (which is what I think you meant), then whether 'it is reasonable to believe X' depends on what you think is reasonable, which can be subjective. And valid simply does not apply to 'is it valid to believe X?', because valid applies to arguments, not to actions. (Believing is an action, whether the belief is reasonable or not)

To determine the logic or reasonableness of a belief, the criteria behind the belief must be taken into account. A belief is a conclusion reached by some means (even if its faith or guessing or whatever). If a logical (valid and sound) argument can be formed with the belief as the conclusion, then the belief is logical, otherwise, it is not. If it is reasonable to reach the conclusion from the criteria behind the belief, then the belief is reasonable.

I suggest we stop using the word logical, because it's really confusing in this context.

Here's a third meaning:

As for whether a belief is reasonable it depends on your standards for what is reasonable. It is reasonable that a 3-year old believes that a cat wearing a dog mask, is now in essence a dog. It is not reasonable that a healthy adult believes that.

So a relevant question is: do you want to evaluate the means by which a conclusion was reached, do you want to evaluate the probability that a belief is true, or do you want to evaluate the state of mind of the person who believes X based on their belief compared to some standard?

[Gate2501]

So a relevant question is: do you want to evaluate the means by which a conclusion was reached, do you want to evaluate the probability that a belief is true, or do you want to evaluate the state of mind of the person who believes X based on their belief compared to some standard?

My entire beef with UndercoverElephant in the original thread dealt with evaluating the means by which his conclusion was reached. I stated that he was not following the principles of informal logic, because he did not satisfy the burden of proof, and he was committing logical fallacies to arrive at and defend this belief.

After we realized that we were dealing with semantics, he addressed what I have been saying.

It turned into one of those "science isn't the only way to get answers" arguments, and I really don't know where to take it from there, because this is just his opinion, and I can't really do much other than say "your wrong dude". Science has been demonstrated to be the only reliable method of exploring the objective validity of claims like "X exists".

[SumDood]

...So a relevant question is: do you want to evaluate the means by which a conclusion was reached, do you want to evaluate the probability that a belief is true, or do you want to evaluate the state of mind of the person who believes X based on their belief compared to some standard?

So which of these apply to the question 'Is holding an unjustified belief illogical?'

"do you want to evaluate the means by which a conclusion was reached?"
My position is yes. By evaluating a belief, one must consider the means by which it was reached.

"do you want to evaluate the probability that a belief is true?"
Probably not since one can and does believe things that cannot be proven.

"do you want to evaluate the state of mind of the person who believes X based on their belief compared to some standard?"
Indirectly, yes, if illogical thinking reflects state of mind. Otherwise it is of no concern.

[Yoink]

My entire beef with UndercoverElephant in the original thread dealt with evaluating the means by which his conclusion was reached. I stated that he was not following the principles of informal logic, because he did not satisfy the burden of proof, and he was committing logical fallacies to arrive at and defend this belief.

After we realized that we were dealing with semantics, he addressed what I have been saying.

It turned into one of those "science isn't the only way to get answers" arguments, and I really don't know where to take it from there, because this is just his opinion, and I can't really do much other than say "your wrong dude". Science has been demonstrated to be the only reliable method of exploring the objective validity of claims like "X exists".

To what possible question could an unjustified belief be a useful answer? Grant him his Pyrrhic victory and give it up. If he wants to say that his unjustified belief in God is "not illogical," but will also concede that it is "not logical," "not justified," and "not reasonable," that no one else should be persuaded by it and that he could offer no rational defense of it, then who cares?

[UndercoverElephant]

I apologise, I was not clear. I was not saying it was illogical because it violated parsimony. It is illogical and unparsimonous.

The unsupported belief is illustrated in this syllogism:

P) It is technically possible that the Vikings could have reached Mexico
P) <missing>
C) Therefore, the Vikings reached Mexico.

How is that logical?

It isn't. I didn't provide a logical argument. I made a hypothetical statement: "Vikings reached Mexico."

[JoeTheJuggler]

It took nearly six pages for this thread to get around to the existence
of God, where it was always heading;

That's not true. I was aware all along that this was just like the "is belief in God rational?" threads we've had in the past, and we were discussing it explicitly by page 2 of this thread.

I think this narrow topic was a spinoff of a God discussion, so this thread wasn't so much heading towards it as coming away from it.

[UndercoverElephant]

To what possible question could an unjustified belief be a useful answer? Grant him his Pyrrhic victory and give it up. If he wants to say that his unjustified belief in God is "not illogical," but will also concede that it is "not logical," "not justified," and "not reasonable," that no one else should be persuaded by it and that he could offer no rational defense of it, then who cares?

Just for the record, I'd say it was justified personally but impossible to justify objectively to anybody-else. It's logical only in the sense that it doesn't involve any contradictions - or at least I'm on the look-out for them and wish to eliminate those I find. Reasonable? Depends who I'm talking to.

[JoeTheJuggler]

To what possible question could an unjustified belief be a useful answer? Grant him his Pyrrhic victory and give it up. If he wants to say that his unjustified belief in God is "not illogical," but will also concede that it is "not logical," "not justified," and "not reasonable," that no one else should be persuaded by it and that he could offer no rational defense of it, then who cares?

Yup. That's what happened in the "rational" discussions earlier. I'm happy to admit that belief in a very vaguely (or poorly) defined God* is "rational" if that only means that it's not internally contradictory. I will never cede the point without spelling out that they're only using the technical meaning of "rational"--same as with "logical".

Maybe I'm cynical, but it seems like a rhetorical trap when people want their article of faith to sound like something reasonable by using terms like logical or rational without addressing the ambiguity in those terms.

*Of course that's another topic, but I always argue that discussing even whether such a belief is rational or logical when the term is undefined is pointless. It's like discussing whether a proposition like "Some fruggles snur" is rational or logical. But whenever we enter these discussions, theists are reluctant to define God in anything like the conventional meaning of the word. For the record, a formal definition is a list of all the characteristics of a class that include the objects you want to include and exclude all the objects you want to exclude. So defining God as "the first cause" or some such just doesn't do it.

[Piscivore]

It isn't. I didn't provide a logical argument. I made a hypothetical statement: "Vikings reached Mexico."

The question in the poll didn't make a hypothetical statement. It asked if it was illogical to come to the conclusion that the hypothetical statement is true without any support. It is.

Just for the record, I'd say it was justified personally but impossible to justify objectively to anybody-else.

That's because the person "justifying it personally" is filling in the missing term in the syllogism with "I want this to be true"

[UndercoverElephant]

The question in the poll didn't make a hypothetical statement. It asked if it was illogical to come to the conclusion that the hypothetical statement is true without any support. It is.


WHY????


That's because the person "justifying it personally" is filling in the missing term in the syllogism with "I want this to be true"

Not necessarily. Do you want it to be true that you are conscious? Or are you conscious regardless of what you want?

[Piscivore]

WHY????
Because there is a term missing in the syllogism:

P) It is technically possible that the Vikings could have reached Mexico
P) <missing>
C) Therefore, the Vikings reached Mexico.

If there were anything at all in the slot for that missing term, then it would be supported, whether well or poorly.

Not necessarily.
I have yet to come across an unsupported belief that did not have "I want it to be true" as an unspoken premise.

Do you want it to be true that you are conscious? Or are you conscious regardless of what you want?
That's changing the subject. If you have an unsupported idea about consciousness you'd like to ask about, do so.

[Yoink]

Just for the record, I'd say it was justified personally but impossible to justify objectively to anybody-else. It's logical only in the sense that it doesn't involve any contradictions - or at least I'm on the look-out for them and wish to eliminate those I find. Reasonable? Depends who I'm talking to.

"Justified personally"? What could you possibly mean by that? Even when talking to oneself one either has to make a sound argument or an unsound one. Tell me how you "justify" this belief "to yourself" in such a way that you're not making an illogical argument.

[Yoink]

Yup. That's what happened in the "rational" discussions earlier. I'm happy to admit that belief in a very vaguely (or poorly) defined God* is "rational" if that only means that it's not internally contradictory. I will never cede the point without spelling out that they're only using the technical meaning of "rational"--same as with "logical".

Maybe I'm cynical, but it seems like a rhetorical trap when people want their article of faith to sound like something reasonable by using terms like logical or rational without addressing the ambiguity in those terms.

*Of course that's another topic, but I always argue that discussing even whether such a belief is rational or logical when the term is undefined is pointless. It's like discussing whether a proposition like "Some fruggles snur" is rational or logical. But whenever we enter these discussions, theists are reluctant to define God in anything like the conventional meaning of the word. For the record, a formal definition is a list of all the characteristics of a class that include the objects you want to include and exclude all the objects you want to exclude. So defining God as "the first cause" or some such just doesn't do it.

Yeah--I'm sure we're all very used to the frustration of arguing with a theist who retreats to a definition of "god" that is so utterly immanent that it can't really be logically attacked (the god=nature line), and as soon as you concede that "well, yes, nature exists and I suppose if you want to call nature "god" there's nothing I can do to stop you," suddenly puts His beard back on, gets Him back on His cloud, gives Him His lightning bolts and has Him sorting the righteous from the unrighteous.

[UndercoverElephant]

"Justified personally"? What could you possibly mean by that? Even when talking to oneself one either has to make a sound argument or an unsound one. Tell me how you "justify" this belief "to yourself" in such a way that you're not making an illogical argument.

Can I argue with myself?

I justify it in terms of personal experiences of various sorts.

[UndercoverElephant]

That's changing the subject. If you have an unsupported idea about consciousness you'd like to ask about, do so.

I'm conscious. Now, how am I going to support that idea?

[Piscivore]

I'm conscious. Now, how am I going to support that idea?

What are your premises for coming to that conclusion?

[Yoink]

Can I argue with myself?

I justify it in terms of personal experiences of various sorts.

Yes, one can argue with oneself. One can reason a position out internally--we all do it all the time. Now, show me the chain of reasoning from your experience that, in your own view, "justifies" the belief you base on that experience. I think you'll find that if the conclusion is "And therefore I believe that God exists" it's remarkably hard to get there from any experience without committing some logical fallacies along the way. Even if the experience was "God spoke to me directly in a vision" you have to ask yourself if it is more reasonable to believe that this experience was real or that it was a delusion--and the answer to that is clear, I think.

But go on--tell us how you justify your belief to yourself on the basis of your experience.

[Glockjaw]

But go on--tell us how you justify your belief to yourself on the basis of your experience.

Isn't experience one of the biggest factors in determining belief? I believe they're strongly correlated anyway, how else do we get difference of opinion? lol.

[Yoink]

Isn't experience one of the biggest factors in determining belief? I believe they're strongly correlated anyway, how else do we get difference of opinion? lol.

Reread what I wrote. I'm not saying that we don't base our beliefs on experience--of course we do. I'm saying that we do so either "rationally" or "irrationally." Thus it would be irrational to say that the experience I have of flicking a light switch and producing light at a distance justifies my belief in a magical power to generate illumination by moving my fingers up and down--despite the fact that this is exactly what I experienced.

[Glockjaw]

Reread what I wrote. I'm not saying that we don't base our beliefs on experience--of course we do. I'm saying that we do so either "rationally" or "irrationally." Thus it would be irrational to say that the experience I have of flicking a light switch and producing light at a distance justifies my belief in a magical power to generate illumination by moving my fingers up and down--despite the fact that this is exactly what I experienced.

Right. It would be irrational to believe that because it is contrary to what is already known. The (one of many) problem with theists is that they are literally refusing what is known. But, at the same time, in relation to survival and actual existence, it doesn't hinder literal survival and so it can be seen to be justified from their perspective merely on the fact it gives them some kind of comfort and 'reason' to live (not saying they would commit suicide without religion lol). When they promulgate it as fact, they are simply wrong. But, belief is more powerful in the sense that just because something is commonly known as fact, it doesn't stop someone from believing something entirely different. It looks inefficient from a logical point of view but that's irrelevant to the subjective viewer who flat out doesn't believe the fact.

[UndercoverElephant]

What are your premises for coming to that conclusion?

It's not a conclusion. It's a brute fact.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, one can argue with oneself. One can reason a position out internally--we all do it all the time. Now, show me the chain of reasoning from your experience that, in your own view, "justifies" the belief you base on that experience.


I can't. You'd have to be me to understand it.


I think you'll find that if the conclusion is "And therefore I believe that God exists" it's remarkably hard to get there from any experience without committing some logical fallacies along the way.


Maybe it's hard to deny it without committing some logical fallacies.


Even if the experience was "God spoke to me directly in a vision" you have to ask yourself if it is more reasonable to believe that this experience was real or that it was a delusion--and the answer to that is clear, I think.


Not without having experienced it yourself it isn't.


But go on--tell us how you justify your belief to yourself on the basis of your experience.

What would be the point in trying to do so?

[Piscivore]

It's not a conclusion. It's a brute fact.

I'm not familiar with the logical term "brute fact". Surely there is some reason you have to even suspect you are conscious, isn't there?

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not familiar with the logical term "brute fact". Surely there is some reason you have to even suspect you are conscious, isn't there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact


Brute facts are opposed to institutional facts, in that the former do not require the context of an institution to occur. The term was coined by G. E. M. Anscombe and then popularized by John Searle.

For instance, the fact that a certain piece of paper is money cannot be ascertained outside the institution of money in a given society. And that piece of paper will only be money as long as the members of that society believe that it is so. Being money is an institutional fact. On the contrary, being a piece of paper is a brute fact.

The status of brute fact is relative to another fact, such that what is a brute fact in some contexts may not be in another.

There is a strong connection between the opposition between brute fact and institutional fact, and the Humean opposition of the is and ought problem, the distinction between fact claims and value or normative claims, and the distinction in law between matter of fact and matter of law. Institutional facts are arguably conventional.

The more common but less technical definition of brute fact is "a terminus of a series of explanations which is not itself further explicable".


It's not the result of an argument and it's not something that can be explained by anything else. I am conscious. It's a brute fact.

[Gate2501]

It's not the result of an argument and it's not something that can be explained by anything else. I am conscious. It's a brute fact.

You don't think that maybe you are conscious because of that organ in your head? That seems like a better explanation than "I just am". Maybe we could try cutting out parts of that organ and find out if people still experience this "consciousness" to see if it can be explained by some sort of material phenomena. Oh... wait...

[Piscivore]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact
It's not the result of an argument and it's not something that can be explained by anything else. I am conscious. It's a brute fact.
Using the explanation of the term to which you linked a "brute fact" is simply one that does not rely on an institutional consensus to be true. It does not mean that it is therefore an automatic and unquestionable objective fact. That you are trying to make the term mean exactly that means the way you are using the term makes it little more than a brute assertion, not a fact.

Further, your link states "The status of brute fact is relative to another fact, such that what is a brute fact in some contexts may not be in another." In other words, it is perfectly possible that what "you" take to be "consciouness" (in your context) is merely an illusory byproduct of some other process- and again we are back to your statement being nothing more than an empty assertion.

That brings us right back to the question you haven't answered, " Surely there is some reason you have to even suspect you are conscious, isn't there?"

What I suspect is that there is indeed an "argument" that leads to the statment "I am conscious", but that you are again trying to conceal this from me, the board, and/or yourself in order to hold on to the notion that there is some deep or secret "knowledge" you are trying so very hard to convince us (and/or yourself) that you possess. If that is indeed the case, let's just call it quits here and now, becuase we've done that dance already.

[UndercoverElephant]

You don't think that maybe you are conscious because of that organ in your head?


Is my justification for believing I'm conscious that I know that I have a brain? No.

[UndercoverElephant]

Using the explanation of the term to which you linked a "brute fact" is simply one that does not rely on an institutional consensus to be true. It does not mean that it is therefore an automatic and unquestionable objective fact. That you are trying to make the term mean exactly that means the way you are using the term makes it little more than a brute assertion, not a fact.

Further, your link states "The status of brute fact is relative to another fact, such that what is a brute fact in some contexts may not be in another." In other words, it is perfectly possible that what "you" take to be "consciouness" (in your context) is merely an illusory byproduct of some other process- and again we are back to your statement being nothing more than an empty assertion.

That brings us right back to the question you haven't answered, " Surely there is some reason you have to even suspect you are conscious, isn't there?"

What I suspect is that there is indeed an "argument" that leads to the statment "I am conscious", but that you are again trying to conceal this from me, the board, and/or yourself in order to hold on to the notion that there is some deep or secret "knowledge" you are trying so very hard to convince us (and/or yourself) that you possess. If that is indeed the case, let's just call it quits here and now, becuase we've done that dance already.

Right... And the moon landings were faked. :)

[Yoink]

I can't. You'd have to be me to understand it.

Well, you don't know that unless you try explaining it. In any event, you'll agree that there can be no possible reason for anybody other than you to be interested in or give any respect to such a claim. "God wants you to send me money"--"How do you know?"--"I just know, o.k., I'm sorry, but you'd have to be me to understand it; now send the money." I mean, I know that actually works for a lot of people, but I'm sure you'll agree that it shouldn't.

Maybe it's hard to deny it without committing some logical fallacies.

I suspect not. In fact I'm almost sure that you're wrong about that. Ex hypothesi it is possible for an omnipotent being to snap his fingers (or her tentacles or whatever) and make it be the case that you know, and know infallibly, that God exists. But that isn't a matter of "logic." You would simply have become "one who knows" as a matter of being.

But it's clear you're not talking about that. You refer to an "experience" which "justifies" your belief. There I am extremely confident you are simply wrong. There is no experience that I can imagine (and I've had a lot of these arguments over the years and none of my various interlocutors has been able to imagine one either) which qua experience would form sufficient proof of the existence of god. That is, at the very most you could have had an experience which if not the result of delusion (and you can't rule that possibility out) is reasonable justification for belief in beings with powers unknown to homo sapiens sapiens. But that these powers are proof of divinity would be an unwarranted and unjustified step. Aliens, for example, remain in the frame.

Not without having experienced it yourself it isn't.

That's an error. Again, if an omnipotent being simply willed you into a state of pure knowledge, that's one thing--but that's not "experience" which "justifies" a "belief." It's an existential transformation. If we're talking about "experience" and a deduction from that "experience" then the mere fact of your subjective sense of certainty is irrelevant and, if you answer that it is not irrelevant "because I know how I feel" you are advancing a flawed argument. People who are delusional often feel very certain of the reality of their delusions. You know this to be true and therefore you know that "it didn't feel like a delusion" is not a sound argument. I don't have to be inside your head to know these things.

What would be the point in trying to do so?

Well, on such an important matter as this I would think you'd want to know if your beliefs were soundly grounded or not. If you share your reasoning and we are able to point out a flaw in your reasoning that you have not hitherto observed then you may be able to discard an unsound belief. That would strike me as an obvious benefit.

If, on the other hand, you share your reasoning and we, collectively, cannot show it to be unsound then you would have good reason to feel even more confident in your belief. That, too, would be clearly beneficial.

[Piscivore]

Right... And the moon landings were faked. :)

Surely there is some reason you have to even suspect you are conscious, isn't there?

[Gate2501]

Is my justification for believing I'm conscious that I know that I have a brain? No.

Oh, I got a bit mixed up about what exactly was being asked. Sorry.

Justification for believing that you are conscious is the issue at hand, not what consciousness itself is.

I don't even know how I would answer that... Probably something like "I justify my belief that I am conscious, because I respond to changing information in my environment"? Others could observe this behavior and also see that I must be conscious. Unless they are a fan of incoherent concepts like P-Zombies.

At any rate, I think that you can justify that you experience conscious awareness within reason.

[SumDood]

Agreed. The statement itself holds true. Once again, the problem is with the belief of the statement and whether or not the belief is based on logical assertions.

Thread title: "Is holding an unjustified belief illogical"
Poll Question: "Is it ILLOGICAL to believe the Vikings reached Mexico?"

Both 100%, completely, totally different from the question

"Is the following statement illogical: 'Vikings reached Mexico'?"


Don't look much different to me...

The statement "Vikings reached Mexico" can't be justified according to the current state of historical knowledge. The question is, is the statement illogical simply because it is unjustified (or poorly justified).

I don't understand why so many people are focusing on the difference between "Vikings reached Mexico", "I believe Vikings reached Mexico", "I know Vikings reached Mexico" and various other versions of the statement. It really doesn't matter whether it is taken as a belief, a knowledge-claim or simply a proposition. You apply logic to it in exactly the same way regardless.


Absoulutely not. You approach the two questions differently.

To answer "Is the following statement illogical: 'Vikings reached Mexico'?" all one needs to examine is the evidence to see if it is a logical statement.

When answering "Is holding an unjustified belief illogical?" only examining the evidence is not enough since the belief may be entirely independent of the evidence. One would need to examine the rationale behind the belief to determine if it is logical.

[UndercoverElephant]

Absoulutely not. You approach the two questions differently.

To answer "Is the following statement illogical: 'Vikings reached Mexico'?" all one needs to examine is the evidence to see if it is a logical statement.

When answering "Is holding an unjustified belief illogical?" only examining the evidence is not enough since the belief may be entirely independent of the evidence. One would need to examine the rationale behind the belief to determine if it is logical.

You can lead a horse to water...