I fail to see how, in practical terms, this is at all better than using induction based reasoning. It may make you feel and look smarter to tell someone they can’t prove or disprove anything with certainty, but that’s not exactly a stunning endorsement. You can’t actually ACT as if nothing is ever conclusively true. I would like to see a short description as to WHY this is a better way to view the world and update your beliefs about it.
You can’t actually ACT as if nothing is ever conclusively true.
But I do act that way. I am a fallibilist. Are you denying fallibilism? Some people here endorsed it. Is there a Bayesian consensus on it?
Why do you think I don’t act like that?
I would like to see a short description as to WHY this is a better way to view the world and update your beliefs about it.
Because it works and makes sense. If you want applications to real life fields you can find applications to parenting, relationships and capitalism here:
I was interested in applications to capitalism. Is there a place on that site other than the one titled “Capitalism” which shows applications to capitalism? I saw nothing there involving fallibilism or acting as if nothing is ever conclusively true.
Capitalism is a part of liberalism. It applies liberal ideas, such as individual freedom, to economic issues, and thus advocates, for example, free trade.
What might we consider instead of freedom? Force.
Liberalism hates force. It wants all disputes to be resolved without the use of force. This leads to capitalist ideas (taking capitalism seriously) like that taxes are a use of force which should be improved on, that people don’t have a right to bread (provided by someone else, who becomes in a small way their slave), etc...
The best argument against force comes from fallibilism. This was first discussed by the liberal philosopher William Godwin.
It is: in any disagreement, we might be wrong. The other guy might be right. Therefore, we should not impose our will on him. That isn’t truth seeking, and truth seeking is needed because we don’t know who is right and shouldn’t assume it’s us.
Force is inherently irrational because it assumes who is right based on the source of the ideas in question (or, if you prefer, denies the other guy has an idea, or something like that).
Why is it initiating force in particular that is bad, but defense is OK? Because defense does not sabotage truth seeking. The outcome already wasn’t going to be decided based on reason when the first guy initiated force. Defense doesn’t cause any new problem.
Capitalist values allow for all voluntary interaction, which is compatible with correcting our mistakes (does not require it, but allows it) and bans non-voluntary interaction in which some party is acting contrary to fallibilism.
This only demonstrates that you can argue in a fallibilist framework for something you can argue for in practically any other philosophical framework as well. Simply showing that your epistemology allows you to do things as well as people who don’t even know what an epistemology is isn’t a rousing argument for its usefulness.
For what it is worth, I don’t think this argument is fundamental in any useful way but it is an argument that I find quite strong and I don’t agree with curi’s basic philosophy.
I’m not convinced that any moral argument is fundamental. What do you want one for? Is that just an “I’d like to see you do better?” challenge? If so, I’m not going to bother, because I doubt it would serve a useful purpose in furthering the conversation, and I don’t think anyone was particularly swayed by yours in the first place. Those of us who are already liberals have our own, and those who aren’t weren’t compelled to change our minds.
If this is a “If I can see an argument for liberalism that is more convincing to an average person not already entrenched in my philosophy, it will change my opinion about my philosophy,” then I’ll try to provide one, but I’ll stipulate that the persuasiveness should be decided by a poll elsewhere, not by either of us. If you can provide a response to my request in my other comment that convinces me that I should continue to be interested in this conversation at all, I would be amenable to that.
I fail to see how, in practical terms, this is at all better than using induction based reasoning. It may make you feel and look smarter to tell someone they can’t prove or disprove anything with certainty, but that’s not exactly a stunning endorsement. You can’t actually ACT as if nothing is ever conclusively true. I would like to see a short description as to WHY this is a better way to view the world and update your beliefs about it.
But I do act that way. I am a fallibilist. Are you denying fallibilism? Some people here endorsed it. Is there a Bayesian consensus on it?
Why do you think I don’t act like that?
Because it works and makes sense. If you want applications to real life fields you can find applications to parenting, relationships and capitalism here:
http://fallibleideas.com/
I was interested in applications to capitalism. Is there a place on that site other than the one titled “Capitalism” which shows applications to capitalism? I saw nothing there involving fallibilism or acting as if nothing is ever conclusively true.
I’ll just quickly write something for you:
Capitalism is a part of liberalism. It applies liberal ideas, such as individual freedom, to economic issues, and thus advocates, for example, free trade.
What might we consider instead of freedom? Force.
Liberalism hates force. It wants all disputes to be resolved without the use of force. This leads to capitalist ideas (taking capitalism seriously) like that taxes are a use of force which should be improved on, that people don’t have a right to bread (provided by someone else, who becomes in a small way their slave), etc...
The best argument against force comes from fallibilism. This was first discussed by the liberal philosopher William Godwin.
It is: in any disagreement, we might be wrong. The other guy might be right. Therefore, we should not impose our will on him. That isn’t truth seeking, and truth seeking is needed because we don’t know who is right and shouldn’t assume it’s us.
Force is inherently irrational because it assumes who is right based on the source of the ideas in question (or, if you prefer, denies the other guy has an idea, or something like that).
Why is it initiating force in particular that is bad, but defense is OK? Because defense does not sabotage truth seeking. The outcome already wasn’t going to be decided based on reason when the first guy initiated force. Defense doesn’t cause any new problem.
Capitalist values allow for all voluntary interaction, which is compatible with correcting our mistakes (does not require it, but allows it) and bans non-voluntary interaction in which some party is acting contrary to fallibilism.
Get the idea?
This only demonstrates that you can argue in a fallibilist framework for something you can argue for in practically any other philosophical framework as well. Simply showing that your epistemology allows you to do things as well as people who don’t even know what an epistemology is isn’t a rousing argument for its usefulness.
What are the other arguments for liberalism, of this quality and just as fundamental?
I read some other philosophies and wasn’t able to find great liberal arguments like this. I’d like to hear them.
As an example, Mises has very good arguments for liberalism, but none of them are as fundamental as this. They are all higher level stuff.
I’m not convinced that this is an argument of exceptional quality, or fundamental at all, so I’m just going to have to say “most of them.”
For what it is worth, I don’t think this argument is fundamental in any useful way but it is an argument that I find quite strong and I don’t agree with curi’s basic philosophy.
Give one that’s better.
I’m not convinced that any moral argument is fundamental. What do you want one for? Is that just an “I’d like to see you do better?” challenge? If so, I’m not going to bother, because I doubt it would serve a useful purpose in furthering the conversation, and I don’t think anyone was particularly swayed by yours in the first place. Those of us who are already liberals have our own, and those who aren’t weren’t compelled to change our minds.
If this is a “If I can see an argument for liberalism that is more convincing to an average person not already entrenched in my philosophy, it will change my opinion about my philosophy,” then I’ll try to provide one, but I’ll stipulate that the persuasiveness should be decided by a poll elsewhere, not by either of us. If you can provide a response to my request in my other comment that convinces me that I should continue to be interested in this conversation at all, I would be amenable to that.