False belief: how bad is it?

Post Reply New Topic

No it doesn't.

Socrates is a bear
Bears are mortal
Socrates is mortal

Falsehood, but we get a correct answer and only a correct answer as "Socrates is immortal" won't work for the syllogism. False syllogisms are common to display how logical reasoning works.

Let's put it this way: if a population of people have beliefs that cannot agree with each other, then at least one, if not more people has a false belief.

I didn't say "because it is widely opposed, it's false" either. Nobody opposes you thinking your wife or kids are precious, BUT it is certainly a false belief.

I don't see the problem or objection with "false belief", particularly given that nobody holds themselves to the position of epistemic skepticism too much, simply because we tend to rank certain beliefs as better, and other things, even if we can't prove this to be the case.

Why not? Also, why should one think that truth is in opposition to the other items delineated? Truth matters in and of itself because it is what is real.

Honestly..... no. I don't believe your comment, particularly given that I *know* that you probably are incapable of defeating epistemic skepticism. Even Bertrand Russell couldn't crush it, but you aren't going to even feign ignorance on all of those matters either. If you doubt me, then I will skeptical arguments, and ask you to provide a solution.


No it isn't. Everyone believes some things, but if we cannot have the "correct beliefs" then we have "incorrect beliefs", and "incorrect beliefs" are also known as "false beliefs".


Ok, but most false beliefs aren't of such a nature. Many of them are matters of religion, matters of politics, matters of personal pride, and so on and so forth.


Everything.

"Socrates is not a bear."
"Bears are mortal."
"Good for bears, what about Socrates?"

Umm..... why should one think that?? I posted a set of links in my OP. That's why one should think that truth may or possibly IS in opposition to the items listed, as those links have truth claims that say that truth does have some potential losses to it.

That is a categorical syllogism. Lets now go to propositional logic involving material implication.


False -> P where P is any proposition.

False -> P <-> (-False .v. P) <-> (True .v. P) <-> True

Now let us see what happens:

1 + 1 = 3 (which is false) . Also 1 + 1 = 3 -> the moon is made of green cheese. Assert the falsehood 1 + 1 = 3 and by modus ponens infer the moon is made of green cheese. By the same "reasoning" we can also infer the moon is not made of green cheese and we get a contradiction.

ruveyn

Using my own best perceptions of things, words and concepts within specific contexts while humbly trying to keep my own ignorance in mind and my ego in check, I distinguish between "correct", "true", "truth" and so on.

As I know these things within my own experience ...

Having "correct beliefs" is a welcome-or-shun expectation among religious folks.

Having accurate "beliefs" is related to actual truth and can lead toward/into right thinking, judgement (decision making) and action.

Socrates is not mortal.

Umm... I think an example where you are wrong is a refutation of your statement. I provided that with the bears.

Even further, you are saying that we can infer arbitrary things from wrong conclusions by logical methods, but the problem is that this assertion is ridiculous and ad hoc. ruveyn, your point is silly because at any given point in time, each person has at least 1, if not more than one, false belief. The reason being simple: we don't know what the true beliefs are, and we have cognitive biases which both allow and cause false beliefs to emerge.

Solipsism is philosophical skepticism at its extreme, therefore as ruveyn points out, there is no room for any solution.


Perhaps as practical as nihilism.

I think appealing to "practicality" just begs the question. Some things we cannot refute but we still cannot bring ourselves to consider.

False belief is great for the economy...at least depending on who is dictating it.

I absolutely agree. I think consequences matter.

Prior to reading that article, I'd read many other similar things along the same lines. It does seem as though the human psyche is simply not evolved for pure, unvarnished truth. Not only do some delusions make our lives better and advance civilization (such as seeing your partner through rose colored glasses or really believing your research project will pan out), the human sensory system makes sure that we don't have too much truth coming at us at once. We just couldn't handle it. So our sensory systems sort out which data to keep and which data to toss and give us a version of the world which isn't actually true but is at least usable.

I've read- and it seems from many posts-that a significant difference between people on the autism spectrum and people who are not is differences in this filtering system. There do seem to be an awful lot of posts about bright lights, loud noises, painful touch and other things that seem like a sensory system that does less filtering. I don't know about specific posters here, but a lot of people have posted about meltdowns or shutdowns that come from sensory overload. So that makes the case for me that too much truth- inscluding sensory truth about how much sensory data is really out there- is not a mentally healthy thing. If a more truthful sense of what things sound like causes a person to melt down or shut down- not good. And that's just the sensory stuff.

All in all, it looks like when people say "the truth hurts", it looks like that should be taken literally. I think that rather than ultimate perfect truth, maybe what's best for us is a useable version of the truth.

A boy's belief that he can fly from the roof of the house must be corrected. An adult's belief that a single Creator made the universe and all things in it need not be.

The difference here is not in the inherent merits of the belief; but rather in the duty of care owed to the child. People who are not fully capable of protecting themselves from harm must be protected by those who are in a position to do so. But those who have the capacity of mind to govern their own affairs must be given the freedom so to do.

The freedom of thought, belief and opinion is a central value of a free and democratic society.

I do not doubt for a moment that belief in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim stories of Creation, Noah, the sun stopping in the sky, et c. are false beliefs. But I will not stand in the way of those who choose to believe them. I will dispute their validity; I will voice my contrary belief. But I will not force my view upon anyone. (Neither will I permit anyone to force his view upon me).

To my way of thinking, truth is not the highest aim. I believe that the result of a free, educated and liberal society is a collective arrival at truth. Sure there will always be outliers with odd, unusual or even patently false beliefs. I say, "so what?" As far as I am concerned, that is the price that I pay for the freedom to hold my own views and govern my life accordingly. And I consider it a bargain.

I can appreciate the thought of a *healthy* society being a focus more grand than the mere pursuit of an accumulation of truth, but I can assure you "a free, educated and liberal society" will never actually know either!