The Apparent Irresolvability of Debates

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I think this fits in the politics section most of all since it mostly considers debates, which are a big part of politics. Since I have arrived on this grand forum, I have frequently found situations where I would have to refer on the apparent irresolvability of debates, that one cannot logically argue another out of his or her point. A current professor of epistemology, Markus Lammenranta, has considered this issue from the view point of skepticism. He points out the modes given by an philosopher Agrippa who was of the Academic Skepticism vein (not really the Pyrrhonic as labeled although the Pyrrhonic Skeptics did use the development of the Academic Skeptics). In his paper he goes through traditional academic style arguments for skepticism and show they generally do not hold, until he does a specific argument for Agrippa's arguments. You can find his paper here.

http://www.absolutewrestling.net/youtube/lammenranta.pdf

I'll leave this paper up for a little while, but eventually I will delete it. I found it as an preliminary article for the book Oxford Handbook of Skepticism. It is quite a good book on modern interpretations of Skepticism. Anyway the relevant part of the paper begins on Page 8. I will do a little summary below. So Lammenranta identifies Agrippa's modes as follows.

Suppose we have a question to which there are just two possible answers
p and ~p. Then the mode of Disagreement works as follows:
(1) S1 believes that p.
(2) S2 believes that ~p.
(3) At most, one of them is right.
(4) The disagreement between S1 and S2 is irresolvable.
(5) We should suspend judgment about p.

Markus Lammenranta goes on to defend counters to parts 3 and 4. So if one counters (4) and says it is resolvable, a reason r would be given, and one could simply disagree with r, and send the debate into infinite regress (or circularity if one goes back to a reason already used).

One could disagree with part 3 and say both of them are right in their own way as everything is relative (called Relativism). But as Lammenranta points out below it is faulty.

The traditional objection is that relativism is self-referentially incoherent: When the relativist says that relativism is true, she may mean that relativism is absolutely true or that relativism is relatively true. In the former case, she contradicts her own view that truth is relative. In the latter case, she acknowledges that relativism is true only for the relativist. It is not true for the absolutist. This is dialectically inefficient. She cannot argue the absolutist out of his view.

According to Lammenranta we cannot solve this disagreement without begging the question and accepting our belief that way. In terms of arguments, begging the question is where an argument takes for granted which it sets out to prove. Such an argument could be the apple is red because it is red or this belief is valid because the belief in itself is valid (although they can be more complex). As he points out if one simply accepts begging the question arguments as acceptable, then anything and everything can be defended as truth. Now he goes into a lot more that we may all read and discuss, but maybe this is enough for now to get things rolling Smile

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,816 • Replies: 63

No top replies

@Absolution phil,

First of all, if the proposition in question is that I am in pain, I don't have to give a reason for my belief that I am in pain other than, "Why, don't you believe I am in pain. Do you think I am lying. I have an abcessed tooth, and the dentist will confirm that".

Second of all, if the proposition in question is that all dogs are mammals, I guess you might ask why I believe that, and when I point to a well-respected biology text, you might question that too. But so what. No one is saying you cannot ask why? even until it makes no sense to do so. Children do it all the time, and it drives mothers and fathers crazy.

Third of all, although I am not certain that all dogs are mammals, I know they are. One does not have to be certain beyond the possibility of error in order to know, since knowledge does not require the impossibility of error, but only the absence of error.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

Hi,

I agree with your assessment. The only thing I would add, is that problems arise when either a relativist or objectivist assumes that one of the propositions is true (True). If both agree that they both simply have beliefs based upon their experiences and observations, there is no problem. They simply discuss the matter and come to some sort of resolution, even if they agree that they cannot agree.

As a matter of practicality, everyone has their own perspective and even when people agree (such as the discussion about evolution), they are only agreeing out of practicality and there does not have to be full agreement. People just want to move on and adopt approximate agreements so that things can precede. Often, at least in business environments, these apparent agreements (but no full agreement) end up being litigated in court.

In a philosophy forum, an expert will step forward and assert that they will arbitrate and decide what is true and what is not. Usually, I will often just disagree without the expert, since I recognize it is just one perspective.

Rich

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95051 wrote:

First of all, if the proposition in question is that I am in pain, I don't have to give a reason for my belief that I am in pain other than, "Why, don't you believe I am in pain. Do you think I am lying. I have an abcessed tooth, and the dentist will confirm that".

Second of all, if the proposition in question is that all dogs are mammals, I guess you might ask why I believe that, and when I point to a well-respected biology text, you might question that too. But so what. No one is saying you cannot ask why? even until it makes no sense to do so. Children do it all the time, and it drives mothers and fathers crazy.

Third of all, although I am not certain that all dogs are mammals, I know they are. One does not have to be certain beyond the possibility of error in order to know, since knowledge does not require the impossibility of error, but only the absence of error.

Well you can cite sources of authority, but sources of authority are fallible. In biophysics we have a joke that every year every biology text is proven wrong. That is because the physical principles behind biology are quite misunderstood, even by authority. So in this case although authority is a good tool to convince people, it is not well accepted as a logical conclusion or justification as authority can be questioned as well. You may very well know that all dogs are mammals, but you cannot argue that in fact they are mammals, or to someone else that you do know that they are mammals. Because I don't know that you do know. You may bring up relativism, but as Lammenranta explains that relativism has issues of its own.

---------- Post added 10-04-2009 at 01:50 PM ----------

richrf;95061 wrote:

As a matter of practicality, everyone has their own perspective and even when people agree (such as the discussion about evolution), they are only agreeing out of practicality and there does not have to be full agreement. People just want to move on and adopt approximate agreements so that things can precede. Often, at least in business environments, these apparent agreements (but no full agreement) end up being litigated in court.

Often as is the case, I do agree to assume on most things out of practicality. Because if you don't assume a starting point, its then hard to do any real analysis from that point and discover. So its reasonable to assume, although one should be careful to not always accept the initial assumption as correct after a lot of effort in developing it.

1 Reply

@Absolution phil,

Absolution;95064 wrote:

Well you can cite sources of authority, but sources of authority are fallible. In biophysics we have a joke that every year every biology text is proven wrong. That is because the physical principles behind biology are quite misunderstood, even by authority. So in this case although authority is a good tool to convince people, it is not well accepted as a logical conclusion or justification as authority can be questioned as well. You may very well know that all dogs are mammals, but you cannot argue that in fact they are mammals, or to someone else that you do know that they are mammals. Because I don't know that you do know. You may bring up relativism, but as Lammenranta explains that relativism has issues of its own.

Everyone is fallible, including me. But why does that matter? That one is liable to be mistaken does not mean that he is mistaken. Just as the fact that a person is vulnerable (can be wounded) does not mean that he has been wounded. Why cannot an authority be fallible, and yet know what he tells you, and so, speaks the truth? That he might be wrong does not mean that he is wrong. That is why I am not a skeptic, who thinks there is no knowledge. I am a fallibilist who allows I might be mistaken. But from the fact that it is possible to be mistaken (which it is -to err is human) it does not follow that I am mistaken. A dictionary is an authority on the spelling of words. We go to the dictionary for arbitration when there is a dispute about, for instance, how "weird" is spelled. Or we are not sure how the word is spelled. And, of course, even the dictionary might be wrong. There might be a misprint, for instance. But that is no reason not to think that the dictionary is an authority. An authority need not be infallible. Just very reliable. Just as a very reliable car is not one that is absolutely guaranteed not to break dowm.

---------- Post added 10-04-2009 at 05:03 PM ----------

richrf;95061 wrote:

Hi,

I agree with your assessment. The only thing I would add, is that problems arise when either a relativist or objectivist assumes that one of the propositions is true (True). If both agree that they both simply have beliefs based upon their experiences and observations, there is no problem. They simply discuss the matter and come to some sort of resolution, even if they agree that they cannot agree.

As a matter of practicality, everyone has their own perspective and even when people agree (such as the discussion about evolution), they are only agreeing out of practicality and there does not have to be full agreement. People just want to move on and adopt approximate agreements so that things can precede. Often, at least in business environments, these apparent agreements (but no full agreement) end up being litigated in court.

In a philosophy forum, an expert will step forward and assert that they will arbitrate and decide what is true and what is not. Usually, I will often just disagree without the expert, since I recognize it is just one perspective.

Rich

Do you think it intellectually responsible to disagree when you have no reason to suppose that the expert is wrong except that he might be? Shouldn't even disagreement be supported by reasons for disagreement. Otherwise, I think it is childish. Some people know more about somethings (or even about everything) than other people know. That is a fact of life which you ought to recognize, and accommodate to.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95069 wrote:

Everyone is fallible, including me. But why does that matter? That one is liable to be mistaken does not mean that he is mistaken. Just as the fact that a person is vulnerable (can be wounded) does not mean that he has been wounded. Why cannot an authority be fallible, and yet know what he tells you, and so, speaks the truth? That he might be wrong does not mean that he is wrong. That is why I am not a skeptic, who thinks there is no knowledge. I am a fallibilist who allows I might be mistaken. But from the fact that it is possible to be mistaken (which it is -to err is human) it does not follow that I am mistaken. A dictionary is an authority on the spelling of words. We go to the dictionary for arbitration when there is a dispute about, for instance, how "weird" is spelled. Or we are not sure how the word is spelled. And, of course, even the dictionary might be wrong. There might be a misprint, for instance. But that is no reason not to think that the dictionary is an authority. An authority need not be infallible. Just very reliable. Just as a very reliable car is not one that is absolutely guaranteed not to break dowm.

Skeptics for the most part do not think there is no knowledge. It is just primarily the Academic Skeptics who have argued that, and the modern philosophers who took their ideas to work on. In general Skeptics just have an admission that they simply do not know, and thus do not make claims to know. So just because he might be wrong, doesn't mean he is wrong is true, but also it doesn't mean he is correct as well, so skeptics suspend judgment on the matter for lack of knowledge to make the choice.

1 Reply

@Absolution phil,

Absolution;95074 wrote:

Skeptics for the most part do not think there is no knowledge. It is just primarily the Academic Skeptics who have argued that, and the modern philosophers who took their ideas to work on. In general Skeptics just have an admission that they simply do not know, and thus do not make claims to know. So just because he might be wrong, doesn't mean he is wrong is true, but also it doesn't mean he is correct as well, so skeptics suspend judgment on the matter for lack of knowledge to make the choice.

Apparently (according to you) skeptics believe that you have to know that you know in order to know. But that is obviously false, since, in fact, it is the other way round: you have to know (first) in order to know that you know. If you had to know you know in order to know, you could never know at all. (And that is what skeptics are really saying). I can know, with out knowing I know. Just as I can be checkmated (in the game of chess) without knowing that I have been checkmated. Skepticism seems to be a kind of shell-game. They say that it is possible for you to know. But, it turns out, that the condition they place on knowing is knowing that one knows, and that leads to an infinite regress. So, in fact, their conditions of knowing (which ostensibly they allow) make knowing impossible. A shell-game.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95076 wrote:

Apparently (according to you) skeptics believe that you have to know that you know in order to know. But that is obviously false, since, in fact, it is the other way round: you have to know (first) in order to know that you know. If you had to know you know in order to know, you could never know at all. (And that is what skeptics are really saying). I can know, with out knowing I know. Just as I can be checkmated (in the game of chess) without knowing that I have been checkmated. Skepticism seems to be a kind of shell-game. They say that it is possible for you to know. But, it turns out, that the condition they place on knowing is knowing that one knows, and that leads to an infinite regress. So, in fact, their conditions of knowing (which ostensibly they allow) make knowing impossible. A shell-game.

They make no comment on the possibility of knowing. It could be impossible to know, as you have skeptics said in the past. But on the possibility of possibility skeptics suspend judgment. How can you know that you do know without knowing you do know? So are you saying one must already know to realize they know? And it is impossible for one to claim or even believe they know without actually knowing?

1 Reply

@Absolution phil,

Absolution;95077 wrote:

They make no comment on the possibility of knowing. It could be impossible to know, as you have skeptics said in the past. But on the possibility of possibility skeptics suspend judgment. How can you know that you do know without knowing you do know? So are you saying one must already know to realize they know? And it is impossible for one to claim or even believe they know without actually knowing?

No. What I said is that unless one knows, one cannot know that one knows.What people claim or believe is something different. Isn't it obvious that you cannot know that you know, unless you already know. People claim and believe all kinds of peculiar things. But, the fact that one does not know one knows does not imply that one does not know. How could it. If I don't know I have been checkmated, does that imply that I have not been checkmated? Of course not. Of course I might claim, or believe that I have not been checkmated because I don't know I have been checkmated. But who would take such a reason seriously? What has whether I know or believe I have been checkmated to do with whether I have been checkmated. And, similarly, what has whether I know, or claim, or believe, I know to do with whether or not I know? Nothing that I can see.

0 Replies

@Absolution phil,

Maybe what this points to is that there is no real external referent or practical urgency in these cases (as was suggested in the first response). In other words many of these debates are what you call 'academic'. If proposition 1 was 'you need immediate bypass surgery or you will have a fatal heart attack probably within days' and proposition 2 was 'this condition can also be overcome by the power of positive thinking' then it would no longer be theoretical. If one really has practical necessity it creates a reason to get the right answer because it has an outcome.

In fact I think one of the motivations behind skepticism was to avoid getting involved in disputes which are vexatious and a waste of time. Certainly the Mahdyamikas, the Buddhist school that inspired Pyrrho, regarded 'vexatious disputation' as a major impediment to the attainment of wisdom.

3 Replies

@Absolution phil,

In any debate, there is always one side (or member) that is infinitesimally more right, uses better explanations/refrains from ad hominems, and addresses the situation accurately and logically.

In any debate, neither side will be proven undoubtedly right, but one side will always make a better point.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;95080 wrote:

Maybe what this points to is that there is no real external referent or practical urgency in these cases (as was suggested in the first response). .

In what cases? ......

0 Replies

@Absolution phil,

Well when you referred to dental pain. The point I took from that is the existence of pain is apodectic, cannot reasonably be disputed. The existence of pain is indisputable. Many philosophical disputes are not characterised by the same sense of reality which is why they are interminable.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95069 wrote:

Do you think it intellectually responsible to disagree when you have no reason to suppose that the expert is wrong except that he might be?

I have every reason to suspect that the expert's opinion is flawed and heavily biased. I have been observing human beings of all sorts for over 50 years, including all sorts of finance, housing, medical, sports, music, health, etc. experts. What I have observed is that they are for the most part:

1) Protecting the prevailing consensus (their group).

2) For the most part embracing views that maximize their own returns.

3) And are always disagreeing with each other (market differentiation).

I have taken on the responsibility to learn for myself, and for the most part have done considerably better in all fields than my friends who have relied on experts. And when I don't have the time to learn for myself, I just stay away from the whole business.

Humans are humans no matter what they choose to call themselves.

---------- Post added 10-04-2009 at 07:11 PM ----------

Leonard;95087 wrote:

In any debate, neither side will be proven undoubtedly right, but one side will always make a better point.

I agree. Depending upon one's own subjective view, one will side with one point of view or another. That side will make better points. You will note that on this Philosophy Forum, people band together and thank those who for the most part are agreeing with their own point of view. I think it is quite natural.

Rich

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;95093 wrote:

Well when you referred to dental pain. The point I took from that is the existence of pain is apodectic, cannot reasonably be disputed. The existence of pain is indisputable. Many philosophical disputes are not characterised by the same sense of reality which is why they are interminable.

Some disputes go on. Some are resoluble. Some can be shown to be pseudo-disputes. Some are very complex. But the same is true in other areas. Historians are still disputing about the causes of the American Civil War. Psychologists about the relative influences of nature and nurture. Physicists about causality on the micro-level. The world is complex. (And some pain is psycho-somatic, due to anxiety. And not so apodectic).

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 12:42 AM ----------

richrf;95094 wrote:

I have every reason to suspect that the expert's opinion is flawed and heavily biased. I have been observing human beings of all sorts for over 50 years, including all sorts of finance, housing, medical, sports, music, health, etc. experts. What I have observed is that they are for the most part:

Rich

But I suppose even you still go to physicians, lawyers, and consult dictionaries, and encyclopedias. As I have already said. No one is infallible. But some people know a lot more than others when they have become experts in those fields. That is why they are called, experts. That some people are biased, and "flawed" in other ways is neither here nor there. No one is denying that they are. Just as some cars are more reliable than others. But that does not mean that they are immune to breaking down. Your argument is a straw man.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95109 wrote:

But I suppose even you still go to physicians,

Haven't gone to a physician in 30 years and hopefully never will. When I sat in on a couple of visits with my girlfriend, I was totally baffled. I think that physicians, for the most part, are totally over-estimated in what they can do for chronic and even acute ailments. Emergency situations they are OK.

kennethamy;95109 wrote:

lawyers,

I always do all my homework and double-check whatever they do. Often, I have to fire several before I get one that knows what he/she is doing.

kennethamy;95109 wrote:

and consult dictionaries, and encyclopedias.

Nowadays, there are so many resources, that I cross-check all reference material.

kennethamy;95109 wrote:

As I have already said. No one is infallible. But some people know a lot more than others when they have become experts in those fields.

A person becomes an expert for many reasons. Sometimes, they just know how to tow the line well. Look at all of the experts in the financial industry. I bunch of .....

kennethamy;95109 wrote:

That some people are biased, and "flawed" in other ways is neither here nor there. No one is denying that they are. Just as some cars are more reliable than others. But that does not mean that they are immune to breaking down. Your argument is a straw man.

I am very successful in what I do because I never relied on an expert. My girlfriend recently go herself in a mess of trouble relying on so-called expert legal advice which I tried to prevent. Anyway, she learned her lesson and now knows that she has to watch her own and consult with me on any decisions.

Ditto for my ex, who relied on experts for her financial affairs and disregarding my advice which she heeded for 35 years. After losing a ton of money, I worked things out for her and she is fine again. She doesn't make a financial move now without consulting me first.

My motto is, if you can't do it yourself, don't do it. Period.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;95114 wrote:

Haven't gone to a physician in 30 years and hopefully never will. When I sat in on a couple of visits with my girlfriend, I was totally baffled. I think that physicians, for the most part, are totally over-estimated in what they can do for chronic and even acute ailments. Emergency situations they are OK.

I always do all my homework and double-check whatever they do. Often, I have to fire several before I get one that knows what he/she is doing.

Nowadays, there are so many resources, that I cross-check all reference material.

A person becomes an expert for many reasons. Sometimes, they just know how to tow the line well. Look at all of the experts in the financial industry. I bunch of .....

I am very successful in what I do because I never relied on an expert. My girlfriend recently go herself in a mess of trouble relying on so-called expert legal advice which I tried to prevent. Anyway, she learned her lesson and now knows that she has to watch her own and consult with me on any decisions.

Ditto for my ex, who relied on experts for her financial affairs and disregarding my advice which she heeded for 35 years. After losing a ton of money, I worked things out for her and she is fine again. She doesn't make a financial move now without consulting me first.

My motto is, if you can't do it yourself, don't do it. Period.

Rich

I take it that you make your own shoes, and you built your own house.
There is no reason not to check expert sources against other expert sources. In serious issues I always get a second opinion from another expert physician. And insurance pays for that, too. That does not mean that neither is expert. I means that (as I have been pointing out) to be an expert is not to be infallible. You seem to keep confusing expertise with infallibility. That is a part of your straw man argument. By the way, if you should need a heart by-pass, or need a tooth extraction, I would suggest you do neither yourself. It might be awkward. Of course, you might not do it at all. But there might very well be consequences which would be unpleasant.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Can't we just apply some sort of Bayesian framework, and stop worrying about whether something actually is correct or not?

After all by definition of the situation we can't every have access to anything but evidence regarding underlying things, but never the thing itself.

Admit we are founded on unprovable assumptions, and work from there. As far as I know this suffices for most practical purposes.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95109 wrote:

I take it that you make your own shoes, and you built your own house.

I have yet to find anyone who purports to be an expert at making shoes. Some companies claim to make better shoes, and of course I try them out for myself before I buy them. I don't take the word of advertisements, which is a good description of someone who calls himself/herself an expert.

kennethamy;95109 wrote:

There is no reason not to check expert sources against other expert sources.[?QUOTE]

I don't care what they call themselves. If what they says doesn't make sense I ignore it. I always rely on my own good judgment. And if an non-expert makes sense to me, then I listen. Experts are self-proclaimed marketing gimmicks as far as I am concerned.

kennethamy;95109 wrote:
In serious issues I always get a second opinion from another expert physician. And insurance pays for that, too. That does not mean that neither is expert.

Other than emergency trauma care, I have no need for allopathic physicians.

kennethamy;95109 wrote:
By the way, if you should need a heart by-pass, or need a tooth extraction, I would suggest you do neither yourself.

The heart by-pass thing is coming. I keep my body healthy. When I need tooth care, I go to a dentist who is minimally invasive, uses natural care, and by no means describes herself as some sort of expert. She is just someone who has studied all avenues to health care - not just the get rich quick avenue.

kennethamy;95109 wrote:
It might be awkward. Of course, you might not do it at all. But there might very well be consequences which would be unpleasant.

There are far more unpleasant consequences of following standard care advice, but most people don't want to put the time into taking care of themselves. So they let some stranger do it. This is not the way I run my life.

Rich

0 Replies

@timunderwood9,

timunderwood9;95147 wrote:

Can't we just apply some sort of Bayesian framework, and stop worrying about whether something actually is correct or not?

After all by definition of the situation we can't every have access to anything but evidence regarding underlying things, but never the thing itself.

Admit we are founded on unprovable assumptions, and work from there. As far as I know this suffices for most practical purposes.

When I state that the cat is on the mat, and the cat is on the mat, then I am stating what is true. What "thing in itself" are you talking about? The cat? The mat?

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 10:07 AM ----------

richrf;95159 wrote:

I have yet to find anyone who purports to be an expert at making shoes. Some companies claim to make better shoes, and of course I try them out for myself before I buy them. I don't take the word of advertisements, which is a good description of someone who calls himself/herself an expert.

kennethamy;95109 wrote:
There is no reason not to check expert sources against other expert sources.[?QUOTE]

I don't care what they call themselves. If what they says doesn't make sense I ignore it. I always rely on my own good judgment. And if an non-expert makes sense to me, then I listen. Experts are self-proclaimed marketing gimmicks as far as I am concerned.

Other than emergency trauma care, I have no need for allopathic physicians.

The heart by-pass thing is coming. I keep my body healthy. When I need tooth care, I go to a dentist who is minimally invasive, uses natural care, and by no means describes herself as some sort of expert. She is just someone who has studied all avenues to health care - not just the get rich quick avenue.

There are far more unpleasant consequences of following standard care advice, but most people don't want to put the time into taking care of themselves. So they let some stranger do it. This is not the way I run my life.

Rich

Isn't someone who has a degree in dentistry, and can do a good job of keeping your teeth healthy, and repairing what needs repairing, an expert? Perhaps you mean by the word, "expert" what no one ordinarily means by "expert". I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

2 Replies

The Apparent Irresolvability of Debates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know