I invite anyone who cares to do a search for the word "action" on the proceeding pages. They will see that Bart did not use the word "action" until after I pointed out his error.

Again, the point is that Bart's account is hopelessly confused, as must be any attempt to account for normative statements without mention of action.

What is the error, Banno? That I didn't mention actions does not mean that I do not think normative reasons apply to them. You think it does, right? That's appalling reasoning on your part. I didn't mention aesthetic reasons either - they're normative reasons. Does that mean I don't think that aesthetic reasons are normative reasons? By your logic, yes. Your logic is shit. Bartricks didn't mention actions, therefore Bartricks thinks normative reasons don't apply to them?!? Absolute howler.

Here's something else I didn't mention - I didn't mention that this:

1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P

is fallacious. Applying Banno-logic that means that I think the above argument is 'not' fallacious. Yes? Ludicrous.

Normative reason are justifying reasons. They apply to actions and beliefs. You said - mistakenly - that they apply to actions alone. No, they apply to actions and beliefs.

There's one class of normative reasons - a class I highlighted - epistemic reasons that apply exclusively to beliefs.

Note too that the OP is about justifying beliefs. Hence it is entirely understandable why I would talk exclusively about beliefs and not actions as well, even though normative reasons apply to actions too.

Look matey, you don't know your stuff. I do. There's no error in anything I said above, there's just some appalling reasoning on your part. I defy you to find an error. You made one: you said normative reasons apply to actions, not beliefs and that somehow i was really confused in focussing on beliefs. They apply to both. And my focus on beliefs was entirely explicable given the context. Look at the OP. Look at the question posed. Then drop your working assumption that I don't know what I am talking about. You might learn something.

To me it sounds a bit authoritarian, I have to justify whatever I believe (or else...). — Wheatley

Justification is basically proving/demonstrating the truth of a claim. It's the hallmark of rationality but there's a catch. If rationality is so tough on claims, what about the statement, J = Justification is mandatory. If J, as per rationality, applies to all claims, it must apply to itself in the spirit of fairness.

My first encounter with this conundrum was around 8 years ago and back then it was just a question, "is there a justification for why justification is mandatory?" Someone, can't recall who exactly, edified me on the problem. To justify J, we assume J. Why else would we try and justify J? To justify J then is to commit the fallacy of begging the question.

Irony of ironies: Rationality decrees that justification is mandatory always and this must apply to itself but to justify that justification is mandatory is impossible (always begs the question). Thus, justificationism has no leg to stand on.

Thus, justificationism has no leg to stand on. — TheMadFool

Seems like you’re nearing the threshold of (global/radical) fallibilism. :smile:

Yes to the quote, but, all the same, eppur si muove - as evidenced by the justification you’ve provided in your post.

So as to simplify matters, speaking here only for when we justify beliefs in good faith (rather than to bolster our attempts at successful deception, as one counterexample that occurs often enough in the world): Why do we justify our beliefs, because we want our beliefs to be accordant to what is real - and justification is the best way we can find of so establishing. And why do we want our beliefs to be true rather than false, because this best safeguards our eudemonia, so to speak. We first hold this impetus innately/instinctively before knowing how to speak, and then it becomes fortified by experience.

So there’s one alternative avenue for justifying justification.

John is justified in believing that the cat is on the mat.
John's belief that the cat is on the mat, is justified.

What's the difference? — Wheatley

There are two differences. One is the error of equivocation. John is the subject of the statement in the first, belief is the subject in the second, but the implication is that justification is the same for both. The informal fallacy lays in the implication that John is constructing a judgement which may or may not be true, insofar as the cat may or may not be on the mat, in the first statement. The implication carried by the second statement, on the other hand, is that John’s constructed judgement is in fact true.

The second difference is the conditioning of each statement by time. The one is a current judgement process of John’s believing, the other the judgement process for John’s belief is presupposed.

Easy-peasy.

Seems like you’re nearing the threshold of (global/radical) fallibilism. — javra

I went all the way.

Yes to the quote, but, all the same, eppur si muove - as evidenced by the justification you’ve provided in your post. — javra

I think I get it now, more or less.

Justification L:

Question: Is [justification justified (J)]?

1. Yes. There has to be a justification for J. However, if there's a justification for J, I'm presupposing J. J, that's why there's a justification for J. Circularity, unaccpetable according to the principles of justification itself.

Ergo, not J. In other words (Disjunctive syllogism),

2. No. Justification is unjustified (~J). Initially, I began to work with ~J to figure out what it entails what entails it, looking for inconsistencies, etc. but ~J is a conversation stopper! It's beyond justification. :zip: :brow: :chin:

The Good news: We have proven ~J (justification is unjustified).

The Bad news: We can't use justifications with ~J.

What's the situation here?

We've managed to prove ~J. That's all she wrote. The Mitsubishi A6M Zero had a maximum range of 1,870 km.

We ratify our beliefs constantly because everything that we can perceive and can formulate and plan is ultimately dependent on what we allow ourselves to believe. I call this the "ontological gamble". We bet with our lives that what we believe is valid.

What's the situation here? — TheMadFool

I take the situation to be in line with what @Pantagruel just said.

What you evidence is that normative reasons cannot be used to justify the use of normative reasons. This is rationally justified by use of normative reasons. Yes.

In my previous post, though, I was trying to detail how the use of normative reasons can nevertheless be itself justified by our motivating reasons. We are motivated to use normative reasons not because it is an infallible means of evidencing truths but because it is the best means we have at our disposal of so doing. There's no viable alternative to so doing that we know of. And, when it comes to motivating reasons, the buck stops with the nature of our will.

The conclusion that

The Bad news: We can't use justifications with ~J. — TheMadFool

is evidently not true, as is evidenced by all the justifications going on. Dare I say, you will need to justify this bare affirmation if you want to establish it as just (correct). But in so doing you'll evidence it false.

We are motivated to use normative reasons not because it is an infallible means of evidencing truths but because it is the best means we have at our disposal of so doing. — javra

Spot on! I agree whole-heartedly but that opens Pandora's box. Now, we can't be sure of anything at all. We were smug about deductive justification - conclusions were certain given true premises - but now, all bets are off.

is evidently not true, as is evidenced by all the justifications going on. Dare I say, you will need to justify this bare affirmation if you want to establish it as just (correct). But in so doing you'll evidence it false — javra

Haven't had time to mull over this as much as I'd have liked. I'll offer an argument which will, fingers crossed, drive the point home.

Justification = logic (arguments that demonstrate truth of claims)

Is justification justified (J) or is justification unjustfied (~J)?

Suppose someone comes up with a justification M that justfies J. The catch: Justification M presupposes J. In other words, M commits the fallacy of begging the question. Every justification for J commits the same fallacy. Ergo there are no justifications for J. Ergo, ~J!

~J!

Mu! :confused:

I didn't mean to be cynical. But in general, human interactions are hierarchical and/or competitive. Setting oneself up as the authority on what should count as standards of rationality (and on what is real) is a matter of social hierarchy and competition.

Why limit yourself with reason. Transcend reason. Be a force of nature
— Wittgenstein
I don't want to. — Wheatley

Then you will be trod upon.
Just because philosophizers don't use AK 47s doesn't mean they aren't engaging in battle.

Setting oneself up as the authority on what should count as standards of rationality (and on what is real) is a matter of social hierarchy and competition. — baker

Is it ever based on competence?

Is it ever based on competence? — Tom Storm

How could it possibly be, when we're embedded in some form of social hierarchy and competition or other? Even at an online discussion forum, if the mods and the Old Boys come in and tell you you're wrong, then you're wrong. If you still believe you're right, there will be no place for you at such a forum.

Some kind of competence is only significant when all the people involved are well-intended enough toward eachother, so that they suspend their usual commitment to hiearchy and competition. Ideally, a team that is working together on solving a problem is like that.

Further, for all practical intents and purposes, competence includes reading the social system correctly and responding accordingly.
For example, a student majoring in philosophy has to be careful not to disagree with their philosophy teacher, regardless of the good arguments the student believes to have. Because such disagreement could cost them a good grade or worse. (It's why a formal study of philosophy is a contradiction in terms.)

Spot on! I agree whole-heartedly but that opens Pandora's box. Now, we can't be sure of anything at all. We were smug about deductive justification - conclusions were certain given true premises - but now, all bets are off. — TheMadFool

Only when one's temperament is driven toward infallibility, much as Descartes' was. This doesn't apply for the fallibilist. But trying for a simple approach to a complex issue:

Is justification justified (J) or is justification unjustfied (~J)? — TheMadFool

Neither. One cannot obtain justification for justification, much in the same way the eye cannot see itself. But this does not demonstrate, nor even insinuate, that justification does not do its job properly; in parallel, the eye still sees.

If you personally disagree and find justification to not be trustworthy, why continue in justifying anything at all, ever?

Why do my beliefs need to be justified?

Who says they do? Do you think your beliefs need to be justified, and if so, who do you think they need to be justified to; to others or merely to yourself?

Then you will be trod upon.
Just because philosophizers don't use AK 47s doesn't mean they aren't engaging in battle. — baker

You'll only be trod upon if you choose to engage in argument on their own terms with the tiny minority of self-important idiots who consider themselves to be philosophers.

Spot on! I agree whole-heartedly but that opens Pandora's box. Now, we can't be sure of anything at all. We were smug about deductive justification - conclusions were certain given true premises - but now, all bets are off.
— TheMadFool

Only when one's temperament is driven toward infallibility, much as Descartes' was. This doesn't apply for the fallibilist. But trying for a simple approach to a complex issue: — javra

Rationality, for better or worse, is the self-proclaimed infallible authority. I'm merely testing it on itself. Fail!

Neither — javra

One cannot obtain justification for justification — javra

:chin:

If you personally disagree and find justification to not be trustworthy, why continue in justifying anything at all, ever? — javra

This isn't me justifying anything. This is rationality vs rationality. Can rationality justify itself? No! It can't! There's more to this than meets the eye but, sadly, I can't put my finger on it at the moment.

How could it possibly be, when we're embedded in some form of social hierarchy and competition or other? Even at an online discussion forum, if the mods and the Old Boys come in and tell you you're wrong, then you're wrong. If you still believe you're right, there will be no place for you at such a forum.

Some kind of competence is only significant when all the people involved are well-intended enough toward eachother, so that they suspend their usual commitment to hiearchy and competition. Ideally, a team that is working together on solving a problem is like that.

Further, for all practical intents and purposes, competence includes reading the social system correctly and responding accordingly.
For example, a student majoring in philosophy has to be careful not to disagree with their philosophy teacher, regardless of the good arguments the student believes to have. Because such disagreement could cost them a good grade or worse. (It's why a formal study of philosophy is a contradiction in terms.) — baker

So that sounds like you think prearranged status runs everything and there's no hope. Why would you still participate?

You know what, I'll bite a little.

Rationality, for better or worse, is the self-proclaimed infallible authority. — TheMadFool

It can't be, since reason evidences itself to be fallible, rather than infallible. See the previously arrived at conclusion that justification for justification cannot be obtained which we both agree upon.

Still, you got references for this proclaimed belief of yours? I ask because, as explained justified above, it strikes me as glaringly incorrect: as it being an erroneous belief regarding reasoning, and not anything which reasoning itself evidences.

Can rationality justify itself? No! It can't! — TheMadFool

Yes, yes. Agreed in full. And the point to this is?

Differently asked, we both appear to fallibilistically know that we infallibly know nothing. All well and good. I do believe this state of affairs regarding the human condition was discovered by schmucks millennia before we came along. Back then they went by the label of "thoughtful enquirers" or some such.

So what bearing can this fallible knowledge - of which we both appear to be quite certain/sure of (i.e., not a shred of doubt involved ... we're not skeptical about it) - possibly have on the experientially verified reality that what is true can be justified (yes, fallibilistically) without inconsistencies ever appearing, whereas what is false can always be found to suffer from inconsistencies?

Don't know about you, but beliefs riddled with inconsistencies are to me a red flag.

So that sounds like you think prearranged status runs everything and there's no hope. Why would you still participate? — Tom Storm

Because even hobitses are a pugilistic species, what to speak of humanses!

Justification is an expression of authoritarian views. Does one have to justify one's pain?
Life is not a court of law.
A whole science has sprung up out of this legalistic mindset. And it's the lawyers and control freaks who profit excessively from this dogma.

A whole science has sprung up out of this legalistic mindset. And it's the lawyers and control freaks who profit excessively from this dogma. — Protagoras

Interesting - can you give us some examples?

@Tom Storm
Well science,philosophy,academia,religious apologetics,public debates ,the legal system and politics are replete with discussions which are so convoluted and demanding of practical and abstract evidence that only those peer reviewed and in accordance with the accepted dogma and jargon can publish successfully.
Every politician appeals to the greater good when this is in fact horribly abstract and justifies any policy which lines the pockets of the government.
I can't appeal to common sense because justificationism is the only public game in town.
Just recently I went on a Buddhist site and was asked for proof to show the "self" was a real thing!

I can't appeal to common sense because justificationism is the only public game in town. — Protagoras

Yes you can, you just can't do it mindlessly.

EDIT: Or try and pass off ideosyncratic views as common sense, which happens a lot.

@Kenosha Kid
But the exact same applies to justificationism.
When was the last debate or post you saw settled by common sense?

I hear you. So how do you tell if someone's ideas are useful? Do you recommend feel or faith?

I like the idea of common sense but it has such a broad definition.

@Tom Storm
I personally recommend feel. Faith only if you really trust that person.
Yeah,common sense is sometimes an abused term,but I think it does refer to a shared reality for some people.

When was the last debate or post you saw settled by common sense? — Protagoras

When was the last time I saw a debate settled full stop? That's not a useful criteria and you've shifted your goalposts some. There is nothing stopping you appealing to common sense in a rigorous way. Whether it'll win you the argument is an entirely different matter. If you lose the argument with common sense, that might be your fault you know?

@Kenosha Kid
Show me some philosophers or scientists who proved their ideas with common sense?

Show me some philosophers or scientists who proved their ideas with common sense? — Protagoras

Is this your first day of having conversations?

By the way, scientists make their arguments to each other, and it is based on sense (empiricism) and is common to them (in principle anyway: consensus). In that respect, it's the epitome of common sense, it's just that 'common' is across their community, not the global one.