I responded with truth trumps happiness and believing the dragon would force you to believe the false belief which is not worth the amount of happiness received by believing it.
You miss the point. If you say that the belief in the dragon is false, than you are saying that it’s falsifiable. It bad to confuse claims that aren’t falsifible with claims that are false. The two are very different.
The important thing isn’t to shun non-falsifiable beliefs. The important thing is to know which of your beliefs are falsifiable and which aren’t.
The important thing isn’t to shun non-falsifiable beliefs. The important thing is to know which of your beliefs are falsifiable and which aren’t.
I thought a belief that isn’t even in-principle falsifiable was essentially a floating belief not entangled to reality about something epiphenomenal that you couldn’t statistically ever have correctly guessed? Like, say, zombies or dragons in garages?
The issue is with the mode of “shunning”: a meaningless belief shouldn’t be seen as false, it should be seen as meaningless. The opposite of a meaningless belief is not true.
(Also, “unfalsifiable”, narrowly construed, is not the same thing as meaningless. There might be theoretical conclusions that are morally relevant, but can’t be tested other than by examining the theoretical argument.)
Ah, thanks, all good points. Guess I was lumping together the whole unfalsifiability + meaninglessness cluster/region.
Likewise, when I thought “the opposite of a meaningless belief”, it turns out I was really thinking “the opposite of the implied assumption that this belief is meaningful”, which is obviously true if the belief is known to be meaningless… (because IME that’s what arguments usually end up being about)
I thought a belief that isn’t even in-principle falsifiable was essentially a floating belief not entangled to reality about something epiphenomenal that you couldn’t statistically ever have correctly guessed?
There are statements that are neither correct nor incorrect. “A ; This statement is false” would be one example.
Another statement would be “B : I know that this statement is false.” From my own perspective A and B are both statement to which I can’t attach the label true or false. For me it would be a mistake to believe that A or B are true or that they are false.
There’s also another class of beliefs: You have a bunch of beliefs that you learned when you were three years old and younger about how you have a mind and of how other have minds. You believe that there’s something that can be meaningfully called “you” that can be happy or sad. You believe that you are a worthwhile human being whose life has meaning.
Those beliefs are central to act as a sane human being in the world but they might not be falsifiable true. It very difficult to go after the beliefs that you learned in your first three years of life as they are deeply ingrained in the way you deal with the world.
Someone who believes that their life has meaning usually can’t give you a p value for that claim. It’s a belief that they hold for their own emotional health.
They don’t really need to examine that belief critically. It’s okay to hold beliefs that way if you know that you do.
You miss the point. If you say that the belief in the dragon is false, than you are saying that it’s falsifiable. It bad to confuse claims that aren’t falsifible with claims that are false. The two are very different.
The important thing isn’t to shun non-falsifiable beliefs. The important thing is to know which of your beliefs are falsifiable and which aren’t.
I thought a belief that isn’t even in-principle falsifiable was essentially a floating belief not entangled to reality about something epiphenomenal that you couldn’t statistically ever have correctly guessed? Like, say, zombies or dragons in garages?
The issue is with the mode of “shunning”: a meaningless belief shouldn’t be seen as false, it should be seen as meaningless. The opposite of a meaningless belief is not true.
(Also, “unfalsifiable”, narrowly construed, is not the same thing as meaningless. There might be theoretical conclusions that are morally relevant, but can’t be tested other than by examining the theoretical argument.)
Ah, thanks, all good points. Guess I was lumping together the whole unfalsifiability + meaninglessness cluster/region.
Likewise, when I thought “the opposite of a meaningless belief”, it turns out I was really thinking “the opposite of the implied assumption that this belief is meaningful”, which is obviously true if the belief is known to be meaningless… (because IME that’s what arguments usually end up being about)
There are statements that are neither correct nor incorrect. “A ; This statement is false” would be one example.
Another statement would be “B : I know that this statement is false.” From my own perspective A and B are both statement to which I can’t attach the label true or false. For me it would be a mistake to believe that A or B are true or that they are false.
There’s also another class of beliefs: You have a bunch of beliefs that you learned when you were three years old and younger about how you have a mind and of how other have minds. You believe that there’s something that can be meaningfully called “you” that can be happy or sad. You believe that you are a worthwhile human being whose life has meaning.
Those beliefs are central to act as a sane human being in the world but they might not be falsifiable true. It very difficult to go after the beliefs that you learned in your first three years of life as they are deeply ingrained in the way you deal with the world.
Someone who believes that their life has meaning usually can’t give you a p value for that claim. It’s a belief that they hold for their own emotional health. They don’t really need to examine that belief critically. It’s okay to hold beliefs that way if you know that you do.