Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

[Seth_Gibson]

Does philosophical inquiry lead to truth? I got a browbeating from my grandfather for arguing that the average person is inferior to the philosopher with regard to her understanding of reality. My grandfather seemed to think that the opinion of the common layperson could surpass the philosopher through experience. That's a very democratic sentiment, but I balk at the idea of excepting it. The opposing platonic view is that mere experience of reality is a shadow of the intelligible realm of truth, which is occupied by Plato's forms. It is the guardian philosopher who guides the layperson through the dark.

Plato speaks out against art and experience as mere representation, yet he uses the artform allegory to communicate his ideas. Is the philosopher, then, a superior artist? That would imply an egoistic justification of reality through confirmation bias, would it not? Perhaps a will to power? Both theories seem implausible. One important insight is that political beliefs can be predicted a priori with about 72% accuracy by looking at the anterior cingulate and the amygdala in the brain. Neither of those brain regions controls intellectual faculties. Not only this, but college does not really change a person's political views. It seems more and more likely that education is an enlargement of an already existing worldview. I could not find studies investigating the change in worldview of philosophers, so I welcome the anecdotal evidence of those with a degree in the field.

My Ethics Professor tells me that philosophy "sharpens intuition," so that we may "grasp questions which are formally undecidable". We must nonetheless take positions on these formally undecidable metaphysical questions in order to integrate various parts of reality. In other words, you can spend so much time examining life that you forget to live it.

There is a pragmatist ethic that I think I fail to grasp because I lack an awareness of the broader debate going on. Hopefully one of you can provide that insight.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Truth is a matter of empirical observation. And most non-philosophers can do that pretty well. They don't waste time on "questions which are formally undecidable". If they need to decide something, in order to do something, they will gather relevant facts and decide it. Political beliefs depend upon which news services you subscribe to. A person will typically hear what their parents believe, and lean that way. They can then select a news service that confirms their bias. How this relates to the "anterior cingulate and the amygdala" sounds like interesting research, but I don't know how one would apply it to any practical problem. With new information, existing beliefs can change. The only point of prediction is to be able to falsify it, that is, to control the event through knowledge.

[Seth_Gibson]

"If they need to decide something, to do something, they will gather relevant facts and decide it."

If truth is a matter of empirical observation, then how do you answer this question: My neighbor Joe walks up to my front door, rings the doorbell, and stabs me in the stomach. Did joe do the right thing?

You might say that it depends on the evidence shown. Maybe it turns out I'm a Russian spy, and taking me out is his only option. Obviously, Joe's actions might then be condoned. But why, exactly? Because it's for the greater good. Why is it okay to sacrifice someone for the greater good? because the ends justify the means. why do the ends justify the means? Maybe they don't. I don't know. Don't ask me, because that's a formally undecidable question.

The purpose of this example is to illustrate that empirical observation does matter, but it does not supplant the need for an investigation into normative claims in determining right from wrong. You see, we must determine whether murder is right or wrong, so that we may determine a set of actions to take. If it is wrong, and we know it is wrong, then we must by logical necessity choose the right thing to do. If we choose the wrong thing to do, then that thing then becomes what we believe to be the right thing to do--otherwise, we would not choose that action. The same method can be applied to the question of what the meaning of our lives our, which is an extremely important formally undecidable question. I love STEM, which is part of the reason I majored in math, but STEM won't tell me the meaning of my life.

The importance of the research into the anterior cingulate and the amygdala is that beliefs are predicted by the emotional parts of the brain rather than the IQ or the education of an individual. If our conclusions are determined by biological factors out of our control, then no amount of intellectual speculation will change anything. Of course, existing beliefs change, but to what degree, and under what circumstances? Research shows that the effectiveness of a message is largely determined by whether it is read, or seen in a video of someone talking. Being aware of such a pitfall of human psychology is important for sorting out the bad messages from the good. Being aware of our ignorance helps us grow.

[Terrapin Station]

First we need to get straight what truth even is, including how it differs from facts/states of affairs/"ways that the world is."

[Seth_Gibson]

First we need to get straight what truth even is, including how it differs from facts/states of affairs/"ways that the world is."

Indeed. I have not read any major works related to the issue other than Plato's Republic, which I am sure is hopelessly outdated.

[Seth_Gibson]

"If they need to decide something, to do something, they will gather relevant facts and decide it."

If truth is a matter of empirical observation, then how do you answer this question: My neighbor Joe walks up to my front door, rings the doorbell, and stabs me in the stomach. Did joe do the right thing?

You might say that it depends on the evidence shown. Maybe it turns out I'm a Russian spy, and taking me out is his only option. Obviously, Joe's actions might then be condoned. But why, exactly? Because it's for the greater good. Why is it okay to sacrifice someone for the greater good? because the ends justify the means. why do the ends justify the means? Maybe they don't. I don't know. Don't ask me, because that's a formally undecidable question.

The purpose of this example is to illustrate that empirical observation does matter, but it does not supplant the need for an investigation into normative claims in determining right from wrong. You see, we must determine whether murder is right or wrong, so that we may determine a set of actions to take. If it is wrong, and we know it is wrong, then we must by logical necessity choose the right thing to do. If we choose the wrong thing to do, then that thing then becomes what we believe to be the right thing to do--otherwise, we would not choose that action. The same method can be applied to the question of what the meaning of our lives our, which is an extremely important formally undecidable question. I love STEM, which is part of the reason I majored in math, but STEM won't tell me the meaning of my life.

The importance of the research into the anterior cingulate and the amygdala is that beliefs are predicted by the emotional parts of the brain rather than the IQ or the education of an individual. If our conclusions are determined by biological factors out of our control, then no amount of intellectual speculation will change anything. Of course, existing beliefs change, but to what degree, and under what circumstances? Research shows that the effectiveness of a message is largely determined by whether it is read, or seen in a video of someone talking. Being aware of such a pitfall of human psychology is important for sorting out the bad messages from the good. Being aware of our ignorance helps us grow.

Actually, retributivists would say that defending against a Russian spy is not technically using someone as a means to an end (It is self-defense). A better example would be that Joe tortures my innocent family to find out where I am hiding.

[Jack D Ripper]

Does philosophical inquiry lead to truth?

In most cases, no, absolutely not. We can know this absolutely from the fact that different philosophers disagree on what is true, in widely diverging ways. If you have taken an elementary logic class, you should know absolutely that most philosophers must be wrong.

I got a browbeating from my grandfather for arguing that the average person is inferior to the philosopher with regard to her understanding of reality. My grandfather seemed to think that the opinion of the common layperson could surpass the philosopher through experience.

"Could"? Well, of course, someone who is "average" could do better than some philosophers. Indeed, from the crazy **** that some philosophers have claimed, yes, indeed, the average idiot does better than that.

That's a very democratic sentiment, but I balk at the idea of excepting it. The opposing platonic view is that mere experience of reality is a shadow of the intelligible realm of truth, which is occupied by Plato's forms. It is the guardian philosopher who guides the layperson through the dark.

Much as I enjoy Plato, I would not trust him on this. He was truly a great philosopher, but that does not make him inerrant. People get confused on that kind of point all of the time. There are morons who worship him as a god, and there are morons who ridicule him, who were not half as intelligent as he was, who will never think of anything original in their lives. He was a great philosopher, and was right about some things, and wrong about some others. Which things are which is something that it takes some intelligence to figure out.

Plato speaks out against art and experience as mere representation, yet he uses the artform allegory to communicate his ideas. Is the philosopher, then, a superior artist? That would imply an egoistic justification of reality through confirmation bias, would it not? Perhaps a will to power? Both theories seem implausible. One important insight is that political beliefs can be predicted a priori with about 72% accuracy by looking at the anterior cingulate and the amygdala in the brain.

Either your philosopher teacher is an idiot, or you were not paying proper attention. Empirical research into the brain is not predicting things "a priori".

Neither of those brain regions controls intellectual faculties. Not only this, but college does not really change a person's political views.

Do you have some study to which you can provide a link, or help us find, which would support such a claim? Are you just making that up? Please tell us more on that.

It seems more and more likely that education is an enlargement of an already existing worldview.

Again, do you have any evidence of that claim? Some study that has been done on this?

I could not find studies investigating the change in worldview of philosophers, so I welcome the anecdotal evidence of those with a degree in the field.

I do not have the same worldview I had as a child. Do you? If so, why?

My Ethics Professor tells me that philosophy "sharpens intuition," so that we may "grasp questions which are formally undecidable". We must nonetheless take positions on these formally undecidable metaphysical questions in order to integrate various parts of reality. In other words, you can spend so much time examining life that you forget to live it.

You appear to be conflating ethics with metaphysics. Regardless, I strongly disagree with the claim that we must take positions on metaphysical questions. Most metaphysics is crap. Worthless, total crap. We can discuss this more, or you can read David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. And then we can discuss that, if you have any questions or concerns.

There is a pragmatist ethic that I think I fail to grasp because I lack an awareness of the broader debate going on. Hopefully one of you can provide that insight.

You should read Hume regarding ethics. If you want to get a flavor of it, without too much work, you can take a look at this:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16933

[Jack D Ripper]

"If they need to decide something, to do something, they will gather relevant facts and decide it."

If truth is a matter of empirical observation, then how do you answer this question: My neighbor Joe walks up to my front door, rings the doorbell, and stabs me in the stomach. Did joe do the right thing?

I am tempted to say "yes". I will let you ponder that rather than explain it at the present time.

You might say that it depends on the evidence shown. Maybe it turns out I'm a Russian spy, and taking me out is his only option. Obviously, Joe's actions might then be condoned. But why, exactly? Because it's for the greater good. Why is it okay to sacrifice someone for the greater good? because the ends justify the means. why do the ends justify the means? Maybe they don't. I don't know. Don't ask me, because that's a formally undecidable question.

The purpose of this example is to illustrate that empirical observation does matter, but it does not supplant the need for an investigation into normative claims in determining right from wrong.

There is more to ethics than ordinary straightforward matters of fact. See:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16933

You see, we must determine whether murder is right or wrong, so that we may determine a set of actions to take. If it is wrong, and we know it is wrong, then we must by logical necessity choose the right thing to do.

No. Why would you believe that? Do you seriously believe that no one ever does what they believe to be wrong?

If we choose the wrong thing to do, then that thing then becomes what we believe to be the right thing to do--otherwise, we would not choose that action.

No. Someone might believe something is wrong, but is beneficial to that person, and so do it anyway. Really, how can you seriously believe what you are stating here? Do you really believe that someone who eats that 10th brownie believes that is the right thing to do? They want it and they like it, but that does not mean that they are so stupid that they actually believe it is the right thing to do. Someone may steal something because they wish to have it, but that does not mean that they must believe that it is the right thing to do. Someone may steal a loaf of bread to feed their children, but that does not mean that they believe that the person from whom the bread is stolen should have bread or anything else stolen from them.

The same method can be applied to the question of what the meaning of our lives our, which is an extremely important formally undecidable question.

Why do you believe that is an important question? What difference will it make if your life has no meaning at all? And what, precisely, do you mean when you use the phrase "the meaning of our lives"?

I love STEM, which is part of the reason I majored in math, but STEM won't tell me the meaning of my life.

Math also won't tell you the name of the capital of Ecuador. But you did not expect it to tell you that, did you? (Math, by the way, is a perfectly respectable thing to study.)

The importance of the research into the anterior cingulate and the amygdala is that beliefs are predicted by the emotional parts of the brain rather than the IQ or the education of an individual. If our conclusions are determined by biological factors out of our control, then no amount of intellectual speculation will change anything.

Are you saying that no one ever changes their mind about anything? You don't seriously believe that, do you? I changed my mind about the question of whether there is a god or not. Are you saying that I must be mistaken about that, or that someone must have cut into my brain to make that change?

Of course, existing beliefs change, but to what degree, and under what circumstances? Research shows that the effectiveness of a message is largely determined by whether it is read, or seen in a video of someone talking.

What do you mean by that sentence?

Being aware of such a pitfall of human psychology is important for sorting out the bad messages from the good. Being aware of our ignorance helps us grow.

Being aware of human psychology is a good thing for a human to be aware of, or for any being dealing with humans.

[Jack D Ripper]

I am guessing that one of your sources might be this (or something referring to this):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

In connection with what I wrote above, when my beliefs regarding the existence of god changed, so, too, did my political beliefs, very quickly after the change in religious beliefs. Now, are you going to claim that there was some significant structure of my brain that was changed when those beliefs changed?

Now, I do not seriously doubt that religious and political beliefs do not tie in to brain activity in some way or other, but I don't think it is as simple as you seem to be suggesting.

Also, when you state:

.... Not only this, but college does not really change a person's political views. It seems more and more likely that education is an enlargement of an already existing worldview. ...

How do you reconcile that with the fact that the more educated one is, the more likely one is to be politically liberal? See:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 ... ed-adults/

Are you suggesting that conservatives simply do not tend to go to college, that only liberals value an education?

I will await a response rather than suggest an answer to such questions.

[Jack D Ripper]

It should be:

Now, I do not seriously doubt that religious and political beliefs tie in to brain activity in some way or other, but I don't think it is as simple as you seem to be suggesting.

[chewybrian]

The importance of the research into the anterior cingulate and the amygdala is that beliefs are predicted by the emotional parts of the brain rather than the IQ or the education of an individual. If our conclusions are determined by biological factors out of our control, then no amount of intellectual speculation will change anything. Of course, existing beliefs change, but to what degree, and under what circumstances? Research shows that the effectiveness of a message is largely determined by whether it is read, or seen in a video of someone talking. Being aware of such a pitfall of human psychology is important for sorting out the bad messages from the good. Being aware of our ignorance helps us grow.

It seems like you've answered your own question. This would tell us that we all need philosophy desperately to help us to lean on reason and overcome our tendencies. If we are doing philosophy the right way, we will be humble and honest and ready to admit that we might have things all wrong. We will give ourselves a chance to assent to the truth (or something closer to the truth) when it is presented to us. Of course, lots of people say they are doing philosophy when instead they are convinced they have everything figured out, and torture logic to prop up positions they will never abandon.

Are you saying that people learn better when they are reading or watching? Is this universal, or do some favor one while others favor the other?

Does philosophical inquiry lead to truth?

In most cases, no, absolutely not. We can know this absolutely from the fact that different philosophers disagree on what is true, in widely diverging ways. If you have taken an elementary logic class, you should know absolutely that most philosophers must be wrong.

"Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong." Dire Straights

Wisdom does not imply knowledge, or vice versa. Socrates was wise only because he was aware of what he did not know or could not know, and ready to admit it. The failure of the so-called experts whom he embarrassed was that they were afraid to be seen as ignorant. He had wisdom; they only had knowledge.

[Marvin_Edwards]

"If they need to decide something, to do something, they will gather relevant facts and decide it."

If truth is a matter of empirical observation, then how do you answer this question: My neighbor Joe walks up to my front door, rings the doorbell, and stabs me in the stomach. Did joe do the right thing?

You might say that it depends on the evidence shown. Maybe it turns out I'm a Russian spy, and taking me out is his only option. Obviously, Joe's actions might then be condoned. But why, exactly? Because it's for the greater good. Why is it okay to sacrifice someone for the greater good? because the ends justify the means. why do the ends justify the means? Maybe they don't. I don't know. Don't ask me, because that's a formally undecidable question.

Well, the goal of morality to to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone. We call something "good" if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species. A "harm" damages someone in some way. And, the means are also ends, so the means must also be justified.

Given the objective evidence, which you have not yet given ("Maybe it turns out"), we should be able to decide whether or not you are guilty of a crime. So, this is not an "undecidable question", but one which is decidable, and will be decided in a courtroom.

If a question is truly "undecidable" then it is likely that it does not pertain to any meaningful or relevant event.

The purpose of this example is to illustrate that empirical observation does matter, but it does not supplant the need for an investigation into normative claims in determining right from wrong. You see, we must determine whether murder is right or wrong, so that we may determine a set of actions to take.

So, how do we decide which of two rules or courses of action is morally better than the other? Suppose for example one rule is (a) "killing your neighbor is okay if you suspect he is a spy" and the other rule is (b) "do not kill your neighbor, but instead report suspicious activity to the FBI".

Since morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone, which of those two rules is likely to result in the least harm for everyone? Well, considering the unnecessary harm inflicted by vigilantes who have false beliefs about their neighbors because they read conspiracy theories from qanon or perhaps the president, versus contacting the Federal Bureau of Investigations which, actually investigate suspicious behavior to discover the empirical facts, I think we would have to go with plan (b) and contact the FBI. That is objectively the morally better choice.

Do you agree?

If it is wrong, and we know it is wrong, then we must by logical necessity choose the right thing to do. If we choose the wrong thing to do, then that thing then becomes what we believe to be the right thing to do--otherwise, we would not choose that action.

Exactly. So, it's good that we have an objective measure of the rightness and wrongness of our rules and actions.

The same method can be applied to the question of what the meaning of our lives our, which is an extremely important formally undecidable question. I love STEM, which is part of the reason I majored in math, but STEM won't tell me the meaning of my life.

Well, life is the meaning of life. Living organisms are animated by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Intelligent species can imagine different ways of achieving these ends, evaluate the likely outcome of different options, and then choose what they will do.

The importance of the research into the anterior cingulate and the amygdala is that beliefs are predicted by the emotional parts of the brain rather than the IQ or the education of an individual. If our conclusions are determined by biological factors out of our control, then no amount of intellectual speculation will change anything.

No. Our emotions and our beliefs are malleable. As Michael Gazzaniga says:

"Sure, we are vastly more complicated than a bee. Although we both have automatic responses, we humans have cognition and beliefs of all kinds, and the possession of a belief trumps all the automatic biological process and hardware, honed by evolution, that got us to this place. Possession of a belief, though a false one, drove Othello to kill his beloved wife, and Sidney Carton to declare, as he voluntarily took his friend’s place at the guillotine, that it was a far, far better thing he did than he had ever done."

Gazzaniga, Michael S.. Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain (pp. 2-3). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Of course, existing beliefs change, but to what degree, and under what circumstances? Research shows that the effectiveness of a message is largely determined by whether it is read, or seen in a video of someone talking. Being aware of such a pitfall of human psychology is important for sorting out the bad messages from the good. Being aware of our ignorance helps us grow.

Exactly. Beliefs, and the emotions that they engender, are malleable. So, it is important that we first determine what is objectively good, and then choose to feel good about it.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I got a browbeating from my grandfather for arguing that the average person is inferior to the philosopher with regard to her understanding of reality. My grandfather seemed to think that the opinion of the common layperson could surpass the philosopher through experience.

"Could"? Well, of course, someone who is "average" could do better than some philosophers. Indeed, from the crazy **** that some philosophers have claimed, yes, indeed, the average idiot does better than that.

Thanks for the shout out, Dude!

[Terrapin Station]

First we need to get straight what truth even is, including how it differs from facts/states of affairs/"ways that the world is."

Indeed. I have not read any major works related to the issue other than Plato's Republic, which I am sure is hopelessly outdated.

So, on my view, and this is the conventional view in analytic philosophy, truth is a relation between propositions (which are the meanings of statements or claims) and states of affairs (the latter aka "facts" or "ways that the world happens to be"). Part of my view about this that isn't the conventional view in analytic philosophy is that truth is thus a subjective judgment about the relation in question.

I side more with your grandfather on this, by the way. I don't believe that philosophers are any better about judging truth than anyone else on the whole. They're also not any better on the whole about discerning states of affairs/facts.

What they should be better at than the average Joe is critical thinking, especially when it comes to rhetoric. In other words, they should be better at identifying implicational relationships among statements (in an argument for example), as well as errant beliefs about implications (so identifying fallacies, basically). However, given the asinine arguments that philosophers often forward about various things (a few examples would be St. Anselm's ontological argument, Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, or Robert Kirk/Keith Campbell/David Chalmers' philosophical zombie argument, etc.), and the tendency to be suckered into championing the same, I don't know how often philosophers actually are better at this task--even though they should be better at it than the average Joe.

By the way, re the Plato's cave allegory, the shadows are real. They may not be the only thing that's real, but they're no less real than anything else.

[Marvin_Edwards]

First we need to get straight what truth even is, including how it differs from facts/states of affairs/"ways that the world is."

Indeed. I have not read any major works related to the issue other than Plato's Republic, which I am sure is hopelessly outdated.

How complicated can truth be? A statement of fact can either be true or false. If it is true, then it is a "truth".

Now, if I say there is a mouse on the moon, one could argue that it is possible or not. But if we go up there and find a mouse, then we know that the statement is true.

So, what other notions of truth are there?