Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:39 am
P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
Yes and no. First off, anyone demanding proof is being silly, at least in any of my epistemologies. Proofs seem to fit more abstract things like math, and even there, as you say, Gödel challenged that everything there can be proven. But to the yes part: sure people get demanded to show justification, often. But to the no part, I see philosophy forums with more and more undiscovered geniuses who rely primarily on the assertion. More than 10 or 15 years ago. We have lovely examples here. So, the social norm is complicated.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.
I think you're leaving out an option. If someone has ideas they think are true but don't have a great deal of justification for, they should avoid claiming they have demonstrated it. That's all. If they can admit that they don't have the evidence to provide justification that will convince others or will convince many, then they can avoid acting as if they do.
One pet peeve I've had is the idea that anything that is true is demonstrable via words on a screen. If you can't convince someone via posts in a philosophy forum then somehow it is disproven.
Further there's a whole category of worth exploring but not yet demonstable - via words on screen, in other ways. There's a vast set of things one can learn via experience and/or one can explore via experience. There's no need to pretend, as many do, that their OP's have nailed it and if other have a problem or aren't convinced the fault is in those who don't get it. Ostensive posts are peachy. People can assert things, perhaps say how they came to believe X, what activities might lead others to believe and so on.
And justification is not binary, there are degrees. But even if you only have a gut feeling, I see no reason not to assert that. Yes, people will come out and attack.
But jeez, that's not restricted to philosophy. Most forums on a wide vareity of topics are like that unless there is strict moderation.
If someone asserts something and doesn't pretend they have the final word or have made a good case, they can just say that.
This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?
It would be good if people could manage to view a variety of possible discussion forms. OPs that start off as exploratory or not in 'this demonstrates that X is true' mode, other types of reactions should be possible. And might be aided not necessarily by the humility of the OP writer but an understanding of what is a good demonstration, what is a good way of getting people interested in considering, what are terrible ways of doing both, what isn't really anything near justification and so on.
Perhaps there are people who come in and say they want to explore an idea or have an idea they cannot demonstrate but think is valuable or may be
who get shut down.
But mainly I see people who claim either personal genius or having proven their thesis, when they haven't even justified well, or both. They tend to get attacked relentlessly and often without any curiosity. And they seem to present little curiosity themselves.
Even faith based religious people will present arguments they seem to think are foolproof. I mean, what the hell did they need faith for then?
It'd be lovely if more people could 'My intuition tells me that X is possible or likely or true'. They explain where they think this intuition was coming from and invite exploration. If confronted by others saying they don't have enough justification, just acknowledge that, and continue exploring. I am sure some people will ignore this and keep harrassing them, but I think others will back off, and perhaps a few will be curious enough to explore with the OP writer.
And then, it hasn't harmed VA, for example, to have his arguments chewed on for years. Through the process of trying to find ways to defend his position he became, for example, an antirealist. He had to read about that and to whatever extent he could, he had to mull that over.
That people will change their deep rooted ontological or political positions is a rare thing and usual requires real life processes either dramatic or long term erosion based. The undiscovered geniuses are adults and they should realize that words on a screen are not the strongest tools for change and not think anyone who disagrees is a primitive moron. They can present themselves as exploring and acknowledge their posts are not proofs. And certainly not claim they are.
And then Philosophy is hardly limited to what happens in online discussion forums.
I don't see it as undermining truth and if someone is suffering that phenomenon, they should ask for help. A little mental jujitsu is all that's needed. It's damn well easy, also, to just not participate in this forum, read philosophy, and get out there and meditate, learn a foreign language, engage with people from other cultures, do things that might challenge your own assumptions, try practices that purportedly lead to different understandings of ontology, get challenged by smart and smarter people and people with different kinds of intelligence than you have. Notice longing and desire and curiosity and follow it.
I'm sure there are people here who think the litmus test of truth is convincing them Now via words on a screen.
An open secret: they have no power.
