Scotch78
02-03-2006, 04:11 AM
First, let us assume that we cannot avoid accepting at least one (non-specific) belief on faith alone, and second, that we should choose the best possible beliefs. The first proposition means that the polarization between a life of faith and one of reason can be more accurately characterized as a decision concerning which unsupported belief(s) to espouse. The second assumption then refines that distinction to the question of how we evaluate our beliefs. As an answer, I propose three axes of judgment: explanatory power, simplicity and coherence.
Explanatory power: As I will my fingers to move, I want them to produce these words; I would be quite frustrated if a glottal string of consonants appeared instead. I would be similarly disappointed in my beliefs if my body suddenly fell through the floor as if it were an illusion--I expect my beliefs to successfully explain the world with which I find myself interacting.
Simplicity: Riemannian geometry would probably allow me a higher degree of accuracy than its euclidean cousin, but I will never use the former during a game of pool. My existence is finite: its limits impose an opportunity cost on every facet of life such that pursuing some advantages would actually affect a disadvantage.
Coherence: I believe that I am a winning poker player: I have won money at every game/level that I have tried over approximately 200,000 hands, but I also believe that I cannot win at poker because I am currently experiencing my second 500BB downswing in those 200,000 hands. Because of the first belief, I choose to play poker instead of finding a more traditional job. Unfortunately, because of the second belief I often choose not to actually play. Few, if any, choices result from a single, isolated belief, so I finally require that my beliefs interact harmoniously.
In the next installment, I will argue for conscious, intentional beliefs and explore the effects of the above standards on my belief set.
Scott
Explanatory power: As I will my fingers to move, I want them to produce these words; I would be quite frustrated if a glottal string of consonants appeared instead. I would be similarly disappointed in my beliefs if my body suddenly fell through the floor as if it were an illusion--I expect my beliefs to successfully explain the world with which I find myself interacting.
Simplicity: Riemannian geometry would probably allow me a higher degree of accuracy than its euclidean cousin, but I will never use the former during a game of pool. My existence is finite: its limits impose an opportunity cost on every facet of life such that pursuing some advantages would actually affect a disadvantage.
Coherence: I believe that I am a winning poker player: I have won money at every game/level that I have tried over approximately 200,000 hands, but I also believe that I cannot win at poker because I am currently experiencing my second 500BB downswing in those 200,000 hands. Because of the first belief, I choose to play poker instead of finding a more traditional job. Unfortunately, because of the second belief I often choose not to actually play. Few, if any, choices result from a single, isolated belief, so I finally require that my beliefs interact harmoniously.
In the next installment, I will argue for conscious, intentional beliefs and explore the effects of the above standards on my belief set.
Scott