Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antioch]

I would like to start a small discussion about what we accept as truth and in particular relating to a certain set of statements.
There is a large group of statements that have no proof both for or against them and I would like discuss on how to treat these statements and the associated burden of proof.

Lets start with the following statement which has no proof in favour of it NOR against it.

Statement A

Should we accept statement A or not?

Should we accept statement B if it also has no proof for or against?

Statement C is in direct conflict with statement A and once again has no proof either way.

Do we accept C or not?

should all statements in this category be treated in the same way?

Does it stand to reason to reject all these statements because accepting them all is impossible due to conflicts?


Do things change if we are not talking about accepting these statements but the ACTING upon them?

[Graknorke]

It depends, how much do these statements conflict with things I already know?

[Arx]

In the absence of any proof, it doesn't make sense to accept any of the statements. In terms of acting on them, it depends what the results of acting on the statements would be.

[Antioch]

It depends, how much do these statements conflict with things I already know?

Well as a start I would say these statements do not relate in any way to previous knowledge.

[Loud Whispers]

It depends, how much do these statements conflict with things I already know?

ding ding ding

[penguinofhonor]

If the statements don't relate in any way to previous knowledge, they're probably not relevant to reality and can be ignored.

[NJW2000]

Well as a start I would say these statements do not relate in any way to previous knowledge.

This makes them... less meaningful, for a start.

The fact that statement A is given first has no bearing, as A implies ~~A, or ~C. So there is no region to disregard A or B, or to believe them, as we have no evidence. There is no reason to think that we should. The question may arise from confusion between evidence and statements. Evidence contributes to the truth/likelihood of statements. All statements in the category "without any evidence for or against" are simply theoretical, almost, and can be treated the same way.

The fact that they are in conflict is no reason to disregard them.

If you must act on them, do a cost-benefit analysis. If this gives you nothing, flip a coin.

[Jimmy]

If the statements don't relate in any way to previous knowledge, they're probably not relevant to reality and can be ignored.

Precisely.

Statement A: A tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it.
Statement B: It makes a sound.
Statement C: It doesn't make a sound.

Since the answer to whether the statement is true or false has no direct effect on reality, there's no point in worrying about which one is true.

[Rosemary7391]

Depends why you're thinking about them I think. It might be interesting to do something along the lines of `If A is true, then this that and the other follow'. You might get somewhere interesting, possibly to the point of being able to test statement A via it's consequences.

If it's some sort of ideology that would then be acted upon, best to think about the consequences of accepting A as true; and also what would happen if everyone else accepted A was true.

Even if a statement doesn't appear to have a direct effect on reality, it's still interesting to discuss it. Who knows what might be possible in the future? Various so called `thought experiments' were considered in the development of quantum mechanics: they're now becoming accessible to experimental testing.

[SirQuiamus]

A: "All bachelors are unmarried men."

B: "All bachelors are pink and fuzzy."

C: "All bachelors are married women."


A and C are contradictory: ¬(A ∧ C) ↔ ¬A ∨ ¬C

A and B are contradictory (Real Men are not pink and fuzzy): ¬(A ∧ B) ↔ ¬A ∨ ¬B

According to the coherence theory of truth, we can therefore conclude: ¬A ∧ ¬¬C ↔ C; ergo all bachelors are married women.

[Antioch]

Ah, and if we DO discuss statement impacting reality?

A: There is a rock coming your way from behind.
B: moving left dodges the rock.
C: There is no rock.

No evidences. Dodge?

[Antioch]

edit: double

[SirQuiamus]

There is no sense in postulating a statement and then asking whether you can accept it based on nothing. This is just silly.

[scrdest]

If it doesn't have a proof in favor, it's out. The role of proofs against is to suggest that the proofs for may also point to a correct unrelated statement, you don't need one to reject a statement.

[Reelya]

One semantic issue is the idea of "rejecting" statements. If a statement has no evidence either for it, or against it, we can "reject" it. But that's not the same thing as saying it isn't true (which is accepting the negation). By rejecting an unprovable statement we reject both the positive and negative.

Ah, and if we DO discuss statement impacting reality?

A: There is a rock coming your way from behind.
B: moving left dodges the rock.
C: There is no rock.

No evidences. Dodge?

But that's not really an impartial question.

At any time we have the possibility that a rock may or may not be flying at our heads from behind. So do we constantly dodge our head just in case? Of course we don't, due to the low likelihood of this being the case. We couldn't function if constantly dodging imaginary rocks. Because, by itself, the rock-coming-at-you scenario is highly unlikely: the type of thing that you can go years without occuring. Going by game theory, dodging constantly costs more than the rock damage x probablity.

Ok, let's say for argument's sake that you know that it's equally likely that the rock is there or not (50/50 chance, i.e. no evidence for, or against). In that situation, you dodge, since the cost of not-dodging vastly outweighs the cost of dodging. So if it's completely undecidable in probability terms, you should avoid the most-costly path for sure, which is basic game theory.

If, however, someone tells you "lookout! rock coming at your head!" we can ascertain more information about the probability. Either the person is a liar or they're truthful. Only a pathological liar would make this sort of statement with any frequency. So either you have knowledge of the person, or not. Since most people don't make up this sort of lie, then you'd assume they were truthful. However, if this was a person you knew with a high frequency of yanking your chain, then you'd probably not dodge.