Contradictory beliefs

[bunny]

I find myself believing two things which seem mutually exclusive. This is clearly an irrational thing to do, but I've come to realise that merely knowing it's irrational doesnt actually help me.

Belief A - arrived at through such and such reasoning.
Belief B - arrived at through some other reasoning.

Both make sense to me and seem equally valid, yet I'm either wrong about at least one of them, or they arent actually exclusive. Quite a peculiar feeling to experience. Rather strangely, I find that the fact that they are mutually exclusive doesnt actually undermine my confidence in either of them.

Presumably going "back to the drawing board" with both and trying to reconstruct the arguments critically is the best approach. Still, quite a weird experience.

[BiPolar_Nut]

Mutual exclusiveness causes a lot of problems.

Imagine a world where only primary colors are known. Some old bearded dude returns from a mountain holding a purple slate. The population is divided...one group says "Hey....look at that!! If you kind of squint your eyes and blur your focus, it kinda looks BLUE!!! It's HOLY BLUE!!!" While the other "camp" says "Hey....look at that!! If you kind of squint your eyes and blur your focus, it kinda looks RED!!! It's HOLY RED!!!"

Blue cannot possibly be red....yet both are 100% correct from their own limited perspective in explaining this inexplicable new "thing".

Same goes for mordern religious beliefs, as far as I'm concerned...they're all explaining their own perspective from their own limited beliefs and experiences. Mutual exclusives can indeed both be "correct". It's when then Blue camp tells the Red camp they're "wrong" that problems ensue.

Only exclusion to this is if you're dealing w/ 100% knowledge and 100% complete facts...which by definition you aren't in this case, since obvioulsy one or both lines of reasoning must by definition be flawed.

[DougShrapnel]

What are the assumptions? Are you sure both beliefs are answering the same question? What are your biases?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Only exclusion to this is if you're dealing w/ 100% knowledge and 100% complete facts...which by definition you aren't in this case

[/ QUOTE ]
Trouble is my belief in an incorrect thing and my belief in a fact are indistinguishable to me.

[ QUOTE ]
since obvioulsy one or both lines of reasoning must by definition be flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or I'm wrong in concluding they are mutually exclusive.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the assumptions? Are you sure both beliefs are answering the same question? What are your biases?

[/ QUOTE ]
They're certainly not answering the same question - but they are incompatible with each other. My biases and assumptions? I dont know - the universe is rational...People are nice...I'm usually right...The scientific method is the best way to determine truth...

Probably some others too. The actual beliefs arent really important - I'm pretty sure one will come to seem "more right" to me soon and then the other will no doubt become an ex-belief. I just found it curious to observe the phenomenon of believing mutually exclusive propositions without that phenomenon diminishing either belief (I would have predicted that I would become agnostic about both).

[DougShrapnel]

More on what I posted by what are the assuptions. Is there a hidden assumption that belief B isn't true when examining Belief A? Or a hidden assuption that is of the form A and not A.

A fact includes who what when where and why. It's possible to know the answers to different aspects of a fact that seem mutually exclusive that aren't

If you are biased toward one belief and not the other. The other is more likely correct.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
They're certainly not answering the same question

[/ QUOTE ] Sounds like if you want to find which one is true you need to redefine the question.

[ QUOTE ]
I just found it curious to observe the phenomenon of believing mutually exclusive propositions without that phenomenon diminishing either belief (I would have predicted that I would become agnostic about both).

[/ QUOTE ] I believe this to be normal. I remember reading a study that when people face counter arguements. It actually increases the vigor with which they argue for their position. I'll have to find a link to that study if that is the sort of thing you are talking about, but just on a personal level.

[FortunaMaximus]

If they are logical propositions, yet contradict each other by their nature, look to the logic that got you to those conclusions.

If it's flawless, and you can have this verified by another party, then I suppose the natural conclusion is to realize that you're not wrong about either conclusion.

Even if common sense dictates one of those conclusions must be wrong, the structure of natural laws and philosophical laws doesn't really rely on common sense.

Perhaps perception has its own rules for logic. It's possible for you to look at a blue car and say it's blue, and a color-blind person to look at it and say it's aquamarine green.

And if by some weird turn of events, you're color-blind in one eye, close one eye, it's blue, open that eye and close the other, it's aquamarine green.

<shrugs> Perhaps it's simply another step in the evolution of self-awareness that carrying this duality of logical assumptions is possible.

[Lestat]

Keep searching. My guess is that they are not mutually exclusive. If they are, your confidence should/would indeed be shattered. Keep searching for the difference.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The actual beliefs arent really important

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say the actual beliefs are critical in this kind of situation.