these debates remind me of...

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
Clever, wiser people are aware of their ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or so they think [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clever, wiser people are aware of their ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or so they think [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
One good thing is when you think you don't know something then you don't.

chez

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
One good thing is when you think you don't know something then you don't.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but it doesn't mean that it is the extent of what you don't know

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One good thing is when you think you don't know something then you don't.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but it doesn't mean that it is the extent of what you don't know

[/ QUOTE ]
True but your premise that everyone is convinced they are right is wrong.

chez

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
(the) premise that everyone is convinced they are right is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

i absolutely agree.

i didn't mean for that to be my premise. my example was with hypotheticals - an approximation of a scenario that can exist. i didn't mean to say that it always exists.

if the smartest man in the example says "here is my logic - but i don't know if it's complete - so i don't know the answer," that's probably more realistic...but it doesn't change the irony that he may be wrong, and the idiot may be right (for the wrong reason).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(the) premise that everyone is convinced they are right is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

i absolutely agree.

i didn't mean for that to be my premise. my example was with hypotheticals - an approximation of a scenario that can exist. i didn't mean to say that it always exists.

if the smartest man in the example says "here is my logic - but i don't know if it's complete - so i don't know the answer," that's probably more realistic...but it doesn't change the irony that he may be wrong, and the idiot may be right (for the wrong reason).

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay progress but the uncertainty in these issues is nothing to do with logics (complete or not).

but yes a complete idiot may be right by accident. On most interesting issues its not 50:50. Its come up many times in the reliogus discussions - its stunningly unlikely any religon is correct and someone who believe their religon is correct is being silly even if it turns out their religon is correct.

chez

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]



Rarely do two propositions have an aproximate equal chance of actually being correct.

--------------

so then, in my example, which is more likely to be correct? "yes" - which the level 1, 3, and 5 logics supported, respectively - or "no" - which the level 2,4, and 6 logics supported? there could be infinite levels of logic.

that one is in reality "more likely" is beside the point. according to my definition of the question, in reality, 1 answer is 100% right and one is 100% wrong. we just don't know which. therefore, to ignorant thinkers like us, the probability is essentially 50-50.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The likelihood that a belief is true is measured relative to the justification one has for believing it. I might believe that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain on earth because I think the name "Everest" sounds like it would be a tall mountain. That is a poor justification for the belief, and therefore my belief is not likely to be true given my reason for believing it.

Someone else may believe that Everest is the tallest mountain on earth because they have read that careful efforts to measure the height of the mountain indicate that it is the tallest mountain on earth. The belief is more justified in this case, and hence we would evaluate the belief in the second case as more likely to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

right.

but this is an example in which level of logic is limited. we plateau at the level of your 2nd person. no one can really be more logical than he is regarding this question.

take the Princess Bride example:
hero puts poison into 1 of 2 cups of wine and then sets one of the cups in front of his opponent and the other in front of himself. the opponent must pick which cup to drink (hero must drink the other).

opponents line of reasoning (progressing in level)
1. you put the cup with the poison in front of me, so i'd be more likely to pick it
2. you knew i'd know this, so you put the poison in front of yourself
3. you knew i'd know you'd know that, so you put the poison in front of me
4....
5.....
etc etc

a humorous example, because most of us are smart enough to realize that the levels of "logic" here are infinite, and thus, with the information we have, we can never have much better than a 50-50 shot - but it illustrates the point.

[willie24]

essentially, everyone below the level of "complete logic" has a 50-50 chance. if there is a chance your logic is complete, then yes, you have a better than 50-50 shot. (if your logic is definitely complete, then you have a 100% shot) everyone who is definitely below that plateau is 50-50, regardless of how much more logical they are than the people below them.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


right.

but this is an example in which level of logic is limited. we plateau at the level of your 2nd person. no one can really be more logical than he is regarding this question.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the level of logic is limited'.

First we need to distinguish between logic, and say, empirical evidence. 'Logic' refers to the reasoning involved in forming a belief (i.e., the relationship between your premises/evidence and your conclusion/belief), which is to be distinguished from one's reasons for forming the belief (in the case of empirical beliefs the reasons are usually other empirical beliefs).

There is no cap on the possible empirical evidence relevant to whether or not Everest is the tallest mountain (except in the ideal if one is omniscient). The person who reads about the measurement, for example, does not have as good a warrant for believing that Everest is the tallest mountain as the person who actually made the measurement.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
essentially, everyone below the level of "complete logic" has a 50-50 chance. if there is a chance your logic is complete, then yes, you have a better than 50-50 shot. (if your logic is definitely complete, then you have a 100% shot) everyone who is definitely below that plateau is 50-50, regardless of how much more logical they are than the people below them.

[/ QUOTE ]
So given an infinite number of possible religons then anyone who believes there's is right has a 50:50 chance of being correct.

Surely that cannot be what you're saying

chez