Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihwpt.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!magic!nvc!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihwpt!rsl From: rsl@ihwpt.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Consistency Message-ID: <546@ihwpt.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 13:47:32 EST Article-I.D.: ihwpt.546 Posted: Tue Nov 5 13:47:32 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 06:47:16 EST References: <2449@sjuvax.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 46 > I offer the following pair of statements; I think that most of us > would assent to both of them. > S1. Take any particular belief of mine that you choose; I hold > that belief to be true, since that's what it means for something to > *be* a belief. I would dis-sent on S1 on the basis of incompleteness. Saying that something is a "belief" ALSO acknowledges that you do not KNOW that it is true and that you suspect that it, in fact, may not be true; otherwise, I contend that you would say that you KNOW that it is true. (e.g. I KNOW that I am typing this message; I BELIEVE that you will comprehend its meaning). The interesting question is: WHY do people "hold that belief to be true", given that they do not know that it is actually true? > > S2. I believe that some of my beliefs are false. I "assent" to S2. > The first statement is a necessary truth. Ain't "necessarily" so :-) > But one > of my beliefs is the belief that at least one of my beliefs -- I can't > specify which one -- is false. Call this the Principle of Humility. Dintiguishing your beliefs, AS BELIEFS, and not as truths or knowledge may be called the Principle of Honesty. > I think that virtually everyone accepts the Principle of > Humility. But the set { S1, S2 } is obviously inconsistent. For > those who have been wondering whether the mind is consistent, I think > that this example at least shows that the belief systems of most -- > perhaps all -- of us are in fact inconsistent. I hope that I have given you a clue as to how to regain any lost consistency. The concepts to believe and to know, when used properly, do distinguish different relationships to the concept truth. Inconsistency is the evidence of a "lack of truth". The consistency that really counts is the consistency of statements or claims with reality, not with other statements (as in semantic and syntactical consistency). Facts are statements which are consistent with reality; any other statement is simply non-factual and false. [ If theologians would strive for consistency with reality (instead of consistency with the "true doctrine"), they would find themselves without a field of study.] -- Eudaemonia, Richard S. Latimer [(312)-979-4886, Wheaton, IL]