Rational beliefs should be able to withstand scrutiny and opposing arguments. The inability to do so indicates that the belief is more about personal bias and emotional investment rather than objective analysis.

  • spujb@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I believe the sun will rise tomorrow and if I said to you I had a sincere counterargument I’d be lying.

    Pardon me for being utterly emotional about things I guess lol.

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is a good example showing OP was being too broad. I like the sentiment but think they should limit it to topics for which there is a sizable amount of genuine dissent (meaning we don’t have to invent an argument for an hypothetical unreasonable contrarian) and that aren’t easily demonstrably falsifiable (meaning we are covering opinions and theories, not matters of objective fact).

      OP likely was meaning to apply this to controversial social policies or philosophical questions exploring what values people prioritize. Too often loud voices demonize “the other side” and dismiss them out of hand with strawmen.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think OP is correct about whatever they are trying to express but unfortunately fell flat when putting it into words.

        They could have just said “when in debate, steelmanning shows that you have put more than emotion into arriving at your position,” and we all would have agreed (and downvoted because it’s a popular opinion that makes sense lol)

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I believe the sun will rise tomorrow

      It is belief. It comes from experience and is therefore well-founded. Not depending on emotion. Not very open to arguments.

    • Bolt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean there is technically no sound way to prove causality (at least to my knowledge). It all goes back to “It’s been that way before” which is fair enough, but not rigorous.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        you don’t need to prove causality to prove the sun will come up that’s a made up thing you said

        • Bolt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I would challenge you to. Saying literally anything about the future requires an assumption that it is affected by the past (ie. that previous events cause future ones).

          • spujb@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Nope I believe every sunrise may be an independent event, not necessarily causally related to previous sunrises.

            I don’t need to invoke causality at all to believe the sun will rise.

            And, to confront your earlier assertion, consistency of past observations can be rigorous. I have got this on lock. ☀️

            • Bolt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Oh sure, you can believe things without a sound proof (especially since even those must rely on assumptions). I was mostly trying to demonstrate that there are sincere counter-arguments to even such an uncontroversial belief. Would love to see your rigorous proof if you think you have one though.

              • spujb@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I already gave a rigorous and sound proof. Incredibly consistent past observation is rigorous, as I stated.

                • Bolt@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Stating something doesn’t make it true. Your proof presumably relies on the past causing the future.

                  • spujb@lemmy.cafe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I didn’t originally state that past observations are rigorous; that is the conclusion of the entire body of science and human understanding since its inception. I absolutely get what you are saying, but unless you can cite a really good point-by-point takedown of John Locke, David Hume, Karl Popper, and the like, none of this holds any water.

                    Put very simply, the common epithet, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” has its roots in meaningful philosophy. Past experience is literally all we have, and any system of thought that discounts this is operating on less than nothing.

                    Sadly, you seem really out of your depth here. I won’t argue any further because of this, sorry.

                    I recommend reading up on basic philosophy of science, human knowledge, and methodology.

    • oo1@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Sunrise is a matter of perspective though and I don’t think it is a very well refined scientific explanation of a broad set evidence. Ask a polar bear or an emporer penguin at this time of year. Or consider the majority of places in our solar system.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        that’s a hypothetical, not a counterargument.

        yes if i lived in one of the polar circles the sun may not rise. but i don’t live there.

        this whole thread just needs a dictionary and some tea. buncha ppl stressing out and arguing semantics about pretty well-defined terms.

      • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Good point! At this time of the year one doesn’t need to go much further north from where I live for the sun to not set all all during the night. It’s called the midnight-sun.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      An asteroid or a rogue planet that we somehow failed to detect could collide with the earth, stopping its rotation. Unlikely but not impossible.

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          If an astronomer fails to come up with a single hypotethical scenario under which the sun, in fact does not rise tomorrow that would cast doubt about their actual level of understanding of astronomy, don’t you think?