![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackIf someone proposes an abstract argument with apparently impeccable premises and yet a difficult-to-accept conclusion (eg. Pascal's wager), it may be interesting for two reasons.
(1) There may be a serious chance it's true and you need to decide if it's valid or not, and whether or not you need to start accepting the conclusion.
(2) You may be pretty sure the conclusion is false, because you have watertight reasons you trust more than this argument however superficially plausible, but you can't understand WHY this argument is wrong, and want to do so, in order to rebut similar arguments made by yourself and others in the future.
It's normally clear which category something falls into, although we often don't explicitly say that. (1) is probably more important, if it involves ACTUALLY changing your mind about something, but saying "that's false" is not a reason to stop thinking about it if you can't explain WHY it's false.
For instance, in a recent discussion on free will, I realised that I was reasonably sure that (a) what choices I make in the future are inherent in the current state of the universe and my brain and (b) in general we should definitely ACT as if we have free will and it will Just Work. That pretty much settles the practical questions in my mind. But the questions of how to deal with what everyone believes about it, and what everyone feels about it, are still very much there.
(1) There may be a serious chance it's true and you need to decide if it's valid or not, and whether or not you need to start accepting the conclusion.
(2) You may be pretty sure the conclusion is false, because you have watertight reasons you trust more than this argument however superficially plausible, but you can't understand WHY this argument is wrong, and want to do so, in order to rebut similar arguments made by yourself and others in the future.
It's normally clear which category something falls into, although we often don't explicitly say that. (1) is probably more important, if it involves ACTUALLY changing your mind about something, but saying "that's false" is not a reason to stop thinking about it if you can't explain WHY it's false.
For instance, in a recent discussion on free will, I realised that I was reasonably sure that (a) what choices I make in the future are inherent in the current state of the universe and my brain and (b) in general we should definitely ACT as if we have free will and it will Just Work. That pretty much settles the practical questions in my mind. But the questions of how to deal with what everyone believes about it, and what everyone feels about it, are still very much there.