• guptanishank
    117
    Assume that doubt is meaningfully defined. Or let's say we define doubt as , both the statement under doubt, and it's complement can be true or false, we do not know, the uncertainty exists.

    Imagine an ultimate doubter.

    In this scenario, the doubter can doubt everything, including him being in doubt.

    The doubter can make the sentence “I doubt that I am doubting”.

    This sentence does not break reasoning.

    Let me explain how.

    I doubt (A), that I am doubting(B).

    These are two different levels of doubt. This is a self referential doubt.

    Doubting that “I am doubting”, does not mean that the doubter is not doubting. Doubting entails both the possibilities, “I am doubting”, can be true, or “I am doubting” can be false.

    So the chain of recursion goes something like this:

    “I am doubting”, is True. (1)

    “I doubt(A), that I am doubting(B)”, is also True. (2)
    But, in (2), (B) is true under doubt or statement (A), and since (B), is in doubt, it is not as True as (1).

    Again, the order of statements matter quite a lot.

    Consider the sentence,

    “I doubt (A), that I am not doubting(C)” (3), for example
    This(C) is false, since we have already established in (A) that we are doubting, so it’s complement in a sense, that “I doubt, that I am doubting”, has to be True.

    Or, am I wrong somewhere in logic? ( I get my obvious current mistake, but trying to reword it meaningfully)
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    For the simple reason that ‘doubt’ is a transitive verb, i.e. it requires an object. Someone must doubt something, prolixity notwithstanding. If you’re sure I’m mistaken, congratulate yourself by shaking your own hand.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Yes, I know that I have to build a Universe around a subject, and state these sentences in a logical language.

    I haven't done that part yet. But, apart from that, is everything solid?

    What should I be congratulating myself for? (I do not get sarcasm very well sorry, if this is)
    It's valid right?
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    actually I admit that sarcasm is unbecoming although in this case I used it for a valid polemical point.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Oh.
    That prolixity is circular, someone must doubt something, but at the same time one can doubt that as well through a different level of doubt.
    Both sentences can be true.
  • Sir2u
    3.2k
    Why can't doubt be doubted?guptanishank

    That seems to be exactly what you are doing here.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    you can’t doubt that you doubt. There’s nothing to add.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Yeah, and showing that there is no logical fallacy in doing so.
  • guptanishank
    117
    But, why not man? There is no logical fallacy here. Just because Descartes said so?
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    There is no logical fallacy here.guptanishank

    Of course there is. If you do doubt, then you are doubting. If you are not, then there is no doubt, and you have nothing to discuss.

    Imagine a Universe where there is only doubt, and an ultimate doubter.guptanishank

    Not possible. Doubt can only exist with respect to something.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Then, we do have an ultimate doubter to doubt. I just have to convince Descartes that his thought is doubtful.

    You're giving a binary level. This is a recursion. I can always doubt the sentence under the recursion.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    You joined here sometime back with the same question, it was absurd then, it's absurd now. It's not a philosophical issue you're dealing with. Over and out.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Imagine a Universe where there is only doubt, and an ultimate doubter.

    ...In this scenario, the doubter can doubt everything, including him being in doubt.

    1) Why? Because in case he does not doubt it, the Universe now has a belief established that he cannot doubt that he is doubting.
    guptanishank

    But this is just textbook circular reasoning with a bit of begging the question thrown in. It might as well read: "Imagine a universe where one can doubt that one is doubting. In this universe, one can doubt that one is doubting. Therefore, one can doubt that one is doubting".
  • guptanishank
    117
    No, I am just presenting a self referential doubt.
    One can imagine it in this Universe as well. I am removing all other elements, to make the presentation simpler.
  • guptanishank
    117
    At least pinpoint why it's absurd. It's not absurd. You are just assuming.

    You are just repeating it can't be done. Why not?
    Because it's simple to you that if you doubt, you are doubting.

    But, I am saying if you doubt enough, you can also doubt that you are doubting. That does not imply that you are not doubting.
    The two sentences are different.

    There are simply levels of doubt.

    So I am doubting is true.
    I am doubting that I am doubting, is lesser true.
    I am doubting , that I am doubting, that I am doubting, is even lesser true.

    But all of them are true.
    Doubting that I am doubting does not mean that I am not doubting. It entails both the possibility, of doubting and not doubting.
  • Hanover
    12k
    Could you delete this comment please.guptanishank

    Who are you talking to?
  • guptanishank
    117
    The mod, I did not want to spam, sorry.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Yeah, and your presentation is circular is thus fallacious.
  • Hanover
    12k
    You can edit your own post and remove whatever you wish you hadn't said.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    You could adopt a negative version of Descartes’ famous saying, to whit: non cogito, ergo non sum (apologies for any errors in Latin), meaning, ‘I don’’t think, therefore I am not’. And proving your point would be to say nothing further.

    (Actually there’s a Confucian equilvant of same: ‘when in hole, stop digging’. )
  • guptanishank
    117
    Oh forget about proving my point for a moment.
    It's just a exercise in logic for now. I am not talking about thinking for now. I have written other things for that.

    Is the logic correct? What do you think? Assume that for a moment the words are well defined.
  • guptanishank
    117
    It's not possible to remove the post however, correct me if I am mistaken.

    Could you please read what I replied to Wayfarer? Maybe that helps in making the logic clearer. It's only circular if you have a binary truth and only one step. That doubt exists, but it is the minimum amount of doubt at each step. This has multiple steps, and the truth value differs as you look at a collection of self referential statements. Since one statement is made before the next statement, we can say that the preceding statement assumes the prior, and it's truth value is established only under it.

    @All: I have edited my first post to accurately reflect what I meant. Is it correct?
  • guptanishank
    117
    I apologize, I am clearly wrong. Rewording it seemed to clear it up for me. I just assumed, there could be a possible definition of doubt, which fit the criteria.

    Quite an idiotic mistake to be honest. One I have made before, of not adequately defining terms before.
  • Vajk
    119


    What if there is ‘‘nothing‘‘ to be doubted? You doubt that?
  • jorndoe
    3.2k
    If you can doubt, then doubt can exist.
    If doubt cannot exist, then you cannot doubt.

    If you're doubting, then doubt exists.
    If doubt doesn't exist, then you're not doubting.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    12.3k
    There are simply levels of doubt.guptanishank

    What you call levels of doubt are really different senses of "doubt", So your argument really amounts to equivocation.

    One I have made before, of not adequately defining terms before.guptanishank

    Right, once you produce a definition of "doubt", and stick to it, the problem goes away. The problem was caused by your assumption of different levels of doubt, which was really different definitions of doubt.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    Well, you can't doubt that you're doubting, because it would take doubt to doubt that you're doubting. You can obviously just not doubt stuff though.
  • guptanishank
    117
    The logic is impeccable, if doubt could have been adequately defined.
  • guptanishank
    117
    Can this be considered as a proof for cogito?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.