I don’t have to present an alternative theory in order to disagree with one I believe to be flawed or based on false premises. If someone gives me a mathematical proof and I identify a mistake, I don’t need to present an alternative proof before I’m allowed to ignore it.
Like, all of us need to have a position about what we value, because that’s what we use to guide our decisions. But all theories of ethics are “flawed”: basically they’re formulated in natural language, and none of the terms are on very firm mathematical footing.
But you should be very careful with using this as an argument against any specific ethical theory, because that line of reasoning enables you to discount any theory you don’t want to believe, even that theory actually has stronger arguments for it, by your own standards, than what you currently believe.
I think your proof example is not right, a better example is like:
I’m a mathematician and do tons of mathematical work. You show me your proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. I can’t find any real flaws in it, but I tell you its based on ZFC and ZFC is subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, and therefore we cant be sure the system you’re using to prove RH is even consistent, therefore I ignore your proof. You ask me what to use instead of ZFC, I tell you “I don’t have to present an alternative theory in order to disagree with one I believe to be flawed or based on false premises....”, then I leave and continue doing my work in william type theory, which is also subject to GI, which I choose not to think about.
Sure, in the case of severely flawed theories. And you’ll have to judge how flawed before you stop believing (or severaly downgrade their likelihood if you’re thinking in Bayesian terms). I agree that you don’t need an alternative theory, and stand corrected.
But rejecting a theory without a better alternative can be suspicious, which is what I was trying to get at.
If you accept some theories with a flaw (like “I believe humans have moral worth even though we don’t have a good theory of consciousness”) while rejecting others because they have that same flaw, you might expect to be accused of inconsistency, or even motivated reasoning if your choices let you do something rewarding (like continuing to eat delicious honey).
But rejecting a theory without a better alternative can be suspicious
Nah, I still disagree, the set of theories is vast, one being promoted to my attention is not strong evidence it is more true than all of those that haven’t. People can separately be hypocritical or inconsistent, but that’s something that should be argued for directly
I don’t have to present an alternative theory in order to disagree with one I believe to be flawed or based on false premises. If someone gives me a mathematical proof and I identify a mistake, I don’t need to present an alternative proof before I’m allowed to ignore it.
But it would be better if you did. And more productive. And admirable.
You just have to clearly draw the distinction between “not X” claim and “Y” claim in your writing.
You get his point tho right? It’s basically this scott article
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/
Like, all of us need to have a position about what we value, because that’s what we use to guide our decisions. But all theories of ethics are “flawed”: basically they’re formulated in natural language, and none of the terms are on very firm mathematical footing.
But you should be very careful with using this as an argument against any specific ethical theory, because that line of reasoning enables you to discount any theory you don’t want to believe, even that theory actually has stronger arguments for it, by your own standards, than what you currently believe.
I think your proof example is not right, a better example is like:
I’m a mathematician and do tons of mathematical work. You show me your proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. I can’t find any real flaws in it, but I tell you its based on ZFC and ZFC is subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, and therefore we cant be sure the system you’re using to prove RH is even consistent, therefore I ignore your proof. You ask me what to use instead of ZFC, I tell you “I don’t have to present an alternative theory in order to disagree with one I believe to be flawed or based on false premises....”, then I leave and continue doing my work in william type theory, which is also subject to GI, which I choose not to think about.
Sure, in the case of severely flawed theories. And you’ll have to judge how flawed before you stop believing (or severaly downgrade their likelihood if you’re thinking in Bayesian terms). I agree that you don’t need an alternative theory, and stand corrected.
But rejecting a theory without a better alternative can be suspicious, which is what I was trying to get at.
If you accept some theories with a flaw (like “I believe humans have moral worth even though we don’t have a good theory of consciousness”) while rejecting others because they have that same flaw, you might expect to be accused of inconsistency, or even motivated reasoning if your choices let you do something rewarding (like continuing to eat delicious honey).
Nah, I still disagree, the set of theories is vast, one being promoted to my attention is not strong evidence it is more true than all of those that haven’t. People can separately be hypocritical or inconsistent, but that’s something that should be argued for directly