Pyrrhonism(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Pyrrhonism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
30 comments
Reminds me of: "Be open-minded, but don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out."
This quote implies that there exists a place for the brain to fall into.
Which might not be the case for a pyrrhonist or fallibist.
Which might not be the case for a pyrrhonist or fallibist.
Philosophy has a long history of seeking Truth (capital T). Most notably skyrocketed by Descartes who was a mathmetician and believed that we can arrive at the Truth of everything like we can with mathematics. If you're really interested in what Pyrrhonism means then I suggest you don't brush it off as "radical skepticism" because that's not what it is nor is it about "trusting evidence" per se. Pyrrhonism is _suspending_ Truth claims due to _lack of sufficient evidence_. It is a direct response to inductive reasoning, which is what most people use every day. Inductive reasoning is the probability of a conclusion being correct is adequate evidence to support the argument. This is the basis for most Philosophical discussions and claims and generally how Truth claims work. However, reasoning isn't "common sense" nor is it something you pick up by skimming a single out-of-context wikipedia page and inductive reasoning is only one of several forms of reasoning. Hume was one of the most prominent philosophers who further expressed the problems of induction most notably the idea that the future will resemble the past. In other words, if I flip a coin 20 times and it lands on heads every time, empirical evidence and inductive inference would tell me that there is a 100% chance that it will land on heads the 21st flip because "every time we flip this coin it lands on heads", but in reality the 21st flip also has a 50% chance of landing on heads, despite the fact that it has been 100% heads in the past. Not to mention, I haven't told you whether or not the coin is rigged, has two heads, etc. The point of Pyrrhonism is that _there is always some unknown unknowns with Truth claims_ so when it is safer to assume a neutral position, do so. This is what it is like to be open-minded. It's not something you can just do without spending time studying logic and reason (fundamentals of philosophy.)
It might be a good or bad philosophy, I really don't know.
"Belief is the death of thought"
Robert Anton Wilson
Robert Anton Wilson
[deleted]
“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth…”
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d...
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d...
That's like Jeff Bezos saying "one-click shopping and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of efficiency".
In the metaphorical "body" of human "contemplation of truth", reason is the cerebrum and faith is the appendix.
In the metaphorical "body" of human "contemplation of truth", reason is the cerebrum and faith is the appendix.
Disagree. The appendix is (supposedly) useless, but faith does bring some utility, just in an oblique way. Faith drives common belief systems, which drive social cohesion.
Naïve realism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
From the perspective of somebody that believes in (literal) books full of things that are--in whole or in part--fabrications, of course realism looks naïve.
This flamewar is ancient and tired, like your dwindling religion of doomsday cultists and scientist killers.
This flamewar is ancient and tired, like your dwindling religion of doomsday cultists and scientist killers.
I have no interest in flamewars. A reasonable discussion with other rational persons is something I appreciate, thankfully that can happen on HN; I find I equally enjoy that whether I’m simply reading such an exchange or engaging in it.
Your previous reply-comments (to me) convey unprovoked hostility. Why?
Your previous reply-comments (to me) convey unprovoked hostility. Why?
Explain to me how a reasonable discussion could possibly proceed after throwing out a link to "Naive Realism".
I won't defend my own comments. They're basically snark, boiling down to "religion bad reason good" (which I stand by). But don't try to take the high road now after you yourself replied to me with nothing but a Wikipedia fig leaf over "no you're just biased".
I won't defend my own comments. They're basically snark, boiling down to "religion bad reason good" (which I stand by). But don't try to take the high road now after you yourself replied to me with nothing but a Wikipedia fig leaf over "no you're just biased".
In that metaphorical body, what is the amygdala?
Little known fact: amygdalae come in pairs.
Ego.
When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they find it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they continue to search. So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I think, some people have claimed to have found the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, and others are still searching. Those who think that they have found it are the Dogmatists, properly so called-for example, the followers of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. The followers of Cleitomachus and Carneades, as well as other Academics, have asserted that it cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics continue to search.
Opening of Outlines of Pyrronism by Sextus Empiricus
http://www.sciacchitano.it/pensatori%20epistemici/scettici/o...
Opening of Outlines of Pyrronism by Sextus Empiricus
http://www.sciacchitano.it/pensatori%20epistemici/scettici/o...
I've heard this described as 'radical skepticism' - ultimately it implies you can't trust the evidence of your own senses, which means in turn you can't trust the information relayed by any device that extends sight or hearing, such as microscopes and telescopes, or the printed word, and so on.
It's a bit nonsensical, although not entirely worth rejecting. Looking for self-consistency (a fundamental feature of axiom-based mathematics) and the agreement of multiple lines of inquiry into things like historical events or scientific conclusions is a good idea, and serves to give some confidence that reality is what we perceive it to be.
I'm not sure what the opposite of Pyrrhonism is called, but blind faith in the pronouncements of kings and priests was never all that good of an idea, and even one's immediate sensory impressions are not always 100% reliable.
It's a bit nonsensical, although not entirely worth rejecting. Looking for self-consistency (a fundamental feature of axiom-based mathematics) and the agreement of multiple lines of inquiry into things like historical events or scientific conclusions is a good idea, and serves to give some confidence that reality is what we perceive it to be.
I'm not sure what the opposite of Pyrrhonism is called, but blind faith in the pronouncements of kings and priests was never all that good of an idea, and even one's immediate sensory impressions are not always 100% reliable.
I've always (... tried to) adhere to the mantra, "The only way to guarantee you're wrong in any given situation, is to not consider that you may be.".
A little more fatalist maybe; but I try to stay honest.
A little more fatalist maybe; but I try to stay honest.
An alternative to (and descendant of) this school is Academic Skepticism, best exemplified by the thought of Cicero. It combines some of the best of Stoic ethics with a probabilistic epistemology that rejects certitudes but still allows us to act and move forward in the world.
You can’t be wrong if you don’t ever believe you’re right :) Maybe.
[deleted]
A nonzero subset of flat earthers probably fall under this umbrella.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2cc
sadly a video link but the general idea is there.
sadly a video link but the general idea is there.
Wir müssen wissen.
Wir werden wissen.