harbinger truth Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 Hi everyone, THis is my first post, but anyway I've had this thought bubbling around for awhile. It is better to feel strongly about certain opinions you hold as being true, knowing that they are somewhat opposed or inconsistent; or it is it better to try to remain consistent across your beliefs thinking that this might bring you closer to the actual truth.
Wesley Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 It is better to feel strongly about certain opinions you hold as being true, knowing that they are somewhat opposed or inconsistent; or it is it better to try to remain consistent across your beliefs thinking that this might bring you closer to the actual truth. It is very much not the goal to hold contrary or inconsistent beliefs. This was called Double Think in 1984 (Orwell) and is truly the showing of a broken mind. Holding the belief that War is Peace is fundamentally contradictory. (I heard this all over the place leading up to the Iraq war). It is better to be consistent and to apply consistency. However, the goal is not consistency for the sake of consistency. If you expand consistency and the idea no longer seems to hold, then that is a hint that you need a new theory, not that you should push consistency through until your old idea fits. The goal is the scientific method- consistency in approach and methodology. This leads to consistency with reality. Consistency with reality leads to truth.
Pepin Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 Wesley has it down pretty good. If you have any specific examples, feel free to post them.
RestoringGuy Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 To know complex things, we must use words to make things compact enough to grasp. Sometimes the words (as imperfect simple abbreviations for complex things) will introduce inconsistencies, because of the varying context they are used. I weigh myself on a scale. Fish have scales. But these are different scales. The inconsistency is explained away by realizing words are inconsistently used, and if somebody says something inconsistent it does not automatically prove any of the ideas are wrong. They are often just poorly explained.
2bits Posted August 17, 2013 Posted August 17, 2013 Hi everyone, THis is my first post, but anyway I've had this thought bubbling around for awhile. It is better to feel strongly about certain opinions you hold as being true, knowing that they are somewhat opposed or inconsistent; or it is it better to try to remain consistent across your beliefs thinking that this might bring you closer to the actual truth.Opinion is subjective, and truth is objective. Can you have the opinion that 2+2=4 or that rocks fall down? It's an opinion exactly because you don't know it's true, and if it was true it's not really your opinion.Also, truths are consistent with each other. If you have two beliefs that are inconsistent, one or both is false, but for certain they can't both be true.
TDB Posted August 18, 2013 Posted August 18, 2013 Strange question. On the one hand, contradiction is not a good thing, if you see one in your own ideas, that calls for some work. On the other hand, no one is right every time, confirmation bias exists, facts can surprise you, and learning requires change. So I certainly try to get it right and not have contradictions, but sometimes I will fail at both. Maybe that's why I like the sort of Bayesian approach where you keep track of alternative hypotheses and give each a rough probability of being right based on current evidence, and stay alert for new evidence. But I am an INTP, this might not work for INTJs.
Recommended Posts