WhoBobWhatPants Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I found this neat little quiz that tests the consistency of your philosophical beliefs. I would be curious to see what results people here get. It is rather short (30 agree/disagree questions) so I'm not sure how accurately it will portray you, I got 0 contradictions. http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/Default.aspx It doesn't evaluate whether or not your beliefs are true or false, it only looks for contradictions/tensions.
Kevin Beal Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 2 tensions (7%),... apparently. It does not say where the contradictions or "tensions" are, though. I'm skeptical, but I have an obvious bias, so, maybe, haha.
Lians Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I apparently have two tensions in my beliefs. You agreed that: The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives But disagreed that: Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world Because governments save the lives of people in the developing world. Seriously, ask the Africans and their well-funded dictators. You agreed that: The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends But disagreed that: People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead The avoidance of context here is quite amusing. How about we build a railway to every place that's inconvenient for walking or cycling? That will surely help the environment. I can theoretically walk anywhere, so we might as well drop the bicycles and trains option. That will surely make the false dilemma more obvious. I reckon the people/person who designed this "health test" aren't particularly good at discerning contradictions. A quick look at the front page proves my point ("Peter Singer & The Drowning Child", "Should You Kill The Fat Man?" and so forth). Still, for a five minute mental exercise in analysing shitty philosophy, the test isn't half bad.
Annick Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Apparently, I have one tension with the environment question.
WhoBobWhatPants Posted January 10, 2014 Author Posted January 10, 2014 I apparently have two tensions in my beliefs. Because governments save the lives of people in the developing world. Seriously, ask the Africans and their well-funded dictators. The avoidance of context here is quite amusing. How about we build a railway to every place that's inconvenient for walking or cycling? That will surely help the environment. I can theoretically walk anywhere, so we might as well drop the bicycles and trains option. That will surely make the false dilemma more obvious. I reckon the people/person who designed this "health test" aren't particularly good at discerning contradictions. A quick look at the front page proves my point ("Peter Singer & The Drowning Child", "Should You Kill The Fat Man?" and so forth). Still, for a five minute mental exercise in analysing shitty philosophy, the test isn't half bad. I suspect they mean realistically walk or bike, etc, of course you "could" walk 1000 miles to get somewhere but it's obviously not practical. I'm also curious how the other tests on the front page prove your point? Because governments save the lives of people in the developing world. Seriously, ask the Africans and their well-funded dictators. yea i disagreed with the The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives question because the logical conclusion of this would be absurd; you would end up spending all the money there is to save lives and the net result would be catastrophic
Sauce Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Wow, I got 0 tensions, But I went in fully with the N.A.P. in mind, and I held true to it to answer every question.
LanceD Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I apparently have two tensions in my beliefs.Because governments save the lives of people in the developing world. Seriously, ask the Africans and their well-funded dictators.The avoidance of context here is quite amusing. How about we build a railway to every place that's inconvenient for walking or cycling? That will surely help the environment. I can theoretically walk anywhere, so we might as well drop the bicycles and trains option. That will surely make the false dilemma more obvious.I reckon the people/person who designed this "health test" aren't particularly good at discerning contradictions. A quick look at the front page proves my point ("Peter Singer & The Drowning Child", "Should You Kill The Fat Man?" and so forth). Still, for a five minute mental exercise in analysing shitty philosophy, the test isn't half bad.You are blaming the test while ignoring the truth it presented to you. In both examples you are making an error as both statements presented cannot exist together. If you are not an anarcho primitivist then you obviously believe it's okay to damage the environment for non necessities. Since the only things considered necessary are food, water, oxygen and shelter allowing the environment to be damaged to provide anything beyond that is contradictory to the statement. As far as the money to save lives. I'm really curious why you would agree with that statement at all. I've seen you write many posts that show off an impressive intelligence and capability for reason. Yet you fell into this trap, because while expending all resources to save lives sounds really nice we would quickly run out of resources to keep the ones who don't need saved alive and destroy our entire society. Aside from the fact that this thought quickly leads to near unlimited violations of principle and morals.
Lians Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 If you are not an anarcho primitivist then you obviously believe it's okay to damage the environment for non necessities. Since the only things considered necessary are food, water, oxygen and shelter allowing the environment to be damaged to provide anything beyond that is contradictory to the statement. The original statement: The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends. You're making quite a leap from unnecessary to necessity. Following basic guidelines to, say, not set the surrounding environment on fire when you're building a house is quite different from fundamental survival needs. As far as the money to save lives. I'm really curious why you would agree with that statement at all. I've seen you write many posts that show off an impressive intelligence and capability for reason. Yet you fell into this trap, because while expending all resources to save lives sounds really nice we would quickly run out of resources to keep the ones who don't need saved alive and destroy our entire society. Aside from the fact that this thought quickly leads to near unlimited violations of principle and morals. Why do you assume that I'm making moral propositions with my answer to that question? It's quite clear that you can't universalize the money-lives proposition because spending all your money to save people's lives will put your own life in danger. That being said, no sum of money can bring back the dead, so financial considerations, within moral bounds, are irrelevant when it comes to avoiding the ultimate end. For example, I'll gladly go into debt to avoid dying from cancer. However, I won't kill and steal to finance my treatment. You are blaming the test while ignoring the truth it presented to you. In both examples you are making an error as both statements presented cannot exist together. The test would present me with truth if it didn't rely on faulty premises (governments save the lives of people in the developing world) and logical fallacies (appealing to objective value by comparing cars to other means of transportation while ignoring the context). I've seen you write many posts that show off an impressive intelligence and capability for reason. I wouldn't put stock in my ability to reason. As long as I adhere to the methodology of philosophy, my conclusions aren't particularly important.
WhoBobWhatPants Posted January 10, 2014 Author Posted January 10, 2014 @Lians, this may help you out a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity I'm interested in designing my own test like this (with more and different questions), however, I have zero programming skills; is anyone interested in helping me out?
Lians Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 @Lians, this may help you out a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity Do you mind explaining how this principle applies to the case of this thread?
WhoBobWhatPants Posted January 10, 2014 Author Posted January 10, 2014 Do you mind explaining how this principle applies to the case of this thread? Sure, it's about giving the quiz questions the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming they mean something absurd. For example, with the questions "People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead" it is reasonable to assume they mean walk, cycle, or train when it is practical instead of when it is 'theoretically possible.'
Josh -Lel- Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Asking if you would increase taxes to save lives is like asking if you would increase the salary of a hitman to save his victims.
Lians Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Sure, it's about giving the quiz questions the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming they mean something absurd. For example, with the questions "People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead" it is reasonable to assume they mean walk, cycle, or train when it is practical instead of when it is 'theoretically possible.' There's a reason why I didn't take this approach. Suggesting a contradiction based on a matter of practicality is insulting to philosophy. I actually elevated the person who came up with the test above the people who claim that the principles of anarchism are wrong because they're impractical.
Josh F Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I apparently have two tensions in my beliefs. Because governments save the lives of people in the developing world. Seriously, ask the Africans and their well-funded dictators. The avoidance of context here is quite amusing. How about we build a railway to every place that's inconvenient for walking or cycling? That will surely help the environment. I can theoretically walk anywhere, so we might as well drop the bicycles and trains option. That will surely make the false dilemma more obvious. I reckon the people/person who designed this "health test" aren't particularly good at discerning contradictions. A quick look at the front page proves my point ("Peter Singer & The Drowning Child", "Should You Kill The Fat Man?" and so forth). Still, for a five minute mental exercise in analysing shitty philosophy, the test isn't half bad. The contradiction is that you've said financial considerations are irrelevant to saving lives, and then considered the financial impact of sending money to save the lives of Africans. You were right to take the financial impact into consideration, too, I shared the same answer as you for the Africa question. As to your second question, same thing. Why do you think it isn't okay to damage the environment unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends? In terms of the NAP, is it immoral to cut down a tree or emit poisonous gas from your car?
Lians Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 The contradiction is that you've said financial considerations are irrelevant to saving lives, and then considered the financial impact of sending money to save the lives of Africans. You were right to take the financial impact into consideration, too, I shared the same answer as you for the Africa question. The context of the question and subsequent analysis implied that if you could save a life, the financial cost would be irrelevant. Governments aren't saving lives. No saving lives, no logical connection, no contradiction. As to your second question, same thing. Why do you think it isn't okay to damage the environment unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends? In terms of the NAP, is it immoral to cut down a tree or emit poisonous gas from your car? Why do you assume that I'm making moral propositions with my answer to that question?
Josh F Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 The context of the question and subsequent analysis implied that if you could save a life, the financial cost would be irrelevant. Governments aren't saving lives. No saving lives, no logical connection, no contradiction. Yeah but the question says the money is being spent on saving lives. The question isn't "do you think government can save lives", right? I just thought it made sense to me personally so I'm trying to get an idea about where we diverged.
Lians Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Yeah but the question says the money is being spent on saving lives. The question isn't "do you think government can save lives", right? I just thought it made sense to me personally so I'm trying to get an idea about where we diverged. Yeah, the language is not particularly precise. I read the analysis that you get after you complete the test and it said that I have a contradiction in my beliefs since governments save lives and therefore higher taxes that go to 3rd world countries as financial aid should be justified based on my answer to the money-lives question.
Nerburg Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I got 1 tension because I misread 'Should voluntary euthanasia remain ILlegal' as legal. I dig the test.
wdiaz03 Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I apparently have two tensions in my beliefs. Because governments save the lives of people in the developing world. Seriously, ask the Africans and their well-funded dictators. Well, If I was a guard in one of Hitlers concentration camps and I let go one out of 100 jews before they go inside the gas chambers, I'm saving lives right? But I think you might have interpreted this question differently that I did. I assumed they meant that live was so important that cost to save lives should not be considered. Meaning we had to throw money at it without thinking. I think you might agree that this is nonsense. The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives I disagreed although "life is quite important" each individual should decide how much to spend on a particular effort to save lives. I'm interested to see how you read this statement. I only got flagged for this one. But I think I have a good explanation to consolidate my beliefs. You agreed that: The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends But disagreed that: People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead What I understood as unnecessarily was any action not applicable to that pursuit. For example Taking the car instead of walking is "OK" because it is necessary to take the car if you want to drive there. but it is not necessary for you to dump trash out of the car window as you drive there.
Lians Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 But I think you might have interpreted this question differently that I did. I assumed they meant that live was so important that cost to save lives should not be considered. Meaning we had to throw money at it without thinking. I think you might agree that this is nonsense. The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives I disagreed although "life is quite important" each individual should decide how much to spend on a particular effort to save lives. I'm interested to see how you read this statement. Since no context for the question was provided, I assumed they were talking about comparing the value of money and human lives in the abstract. In other words, I read the question as: "Does the value of money trump the value of human life?" Note the ambiguous use of irrelevant here. You can just as easily interpret the question as: "Is it possible to save human lives without spending money?" Here's another related version: "Is spending money relevant to saving human lives?" This is why Stef puts such an emphasis on precise language when debating philosophy. For example, the author of the questionnaire uses should to refer to both moral propositions and behavioural guidelines. This approach allows him to easily fit people's malleable interpretation into an agenda, hence why you get shit like governments saving people's lives through taxation. The test essentially evaluates your conclusions, not your understanding of the methodology. It's akin to claiming that someone doesn't understand the principles of mathematics because he made an error in his calculations. That may very well be true, but you won't be able to confirm the claim unless you examine his or her methodology. Did you see any questions like this one: "Reason is necessary but not sufficient in establishing the truth of a proposition. [Agree/Disagree]" How about this one: "Empirical evidence trumps reason. [Agree/Disagree]" Let's assume you disagree with the first proposition but agree with the second. Beep! Why didn't you see questions like these in a "philosophical health check?" The answer to this can be the best take away from the whole ordeal. Having said all this, I think I've derailed the thread too much. Apologies to the author.
Kevin Beal Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Why is having a tension a bad thing? A marker of ill-health? I can value taking it easy on myself, and I can value holding myself to higher standards. There is a tension there, and I'm kind of glad that there is. Does that mean I'm some kind of hypocrite or that my values need serious re-evaluation? No, not really. As much as a tension can describe a logically fatal inconsistency, it can also describe ambiguity or ambivalence. They're all worth exploring, but it's not necessarily a bad thing it's there or a sign of a bad thing.
Josh F Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 but holding yoursel to a standard and taking it easy, which I agree are good, are not really about philosophical consistency. Like exercising a lot and also relaxing a lot isnt a contradiction like being a black guy in the KKK is, lol. Lians, I really liked the IDEA of this test, but I agree the wording was sloppy. I also don't think it challenged enough beliefs.
wdiaz03 Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Since no context for the question was provided, I assumed they were talking about comparing the value of money and human lives in the abstract. In other words, I read the question as: "Does the value of money trump the value of human life?" Note the ambiguous use of irrelevant here. You can just as easily interpret the question as: "Is it possible to save human lives without spending money?" Here's another related version: "Is spending money relevant to saving human lives?" This is why Stef puts such an emphasis on precise language when debating philosophy. For example, the author of the questionnaire uses should to refer to both moral propositions and behavioural guidelines. This approach allows him to easily fit people's malleable interpretation into an agenda, hence why you get shit like governments saving people's lives through taxation. The test essentially evaluates your conclusions, not your understanding of the methodology. It's akin to claiming that someone doesn't understand the principles of mathematics because he made an error in his calculations. That may very well be true, but you won't be able to confirm the claim unless you examine his or her methodology. Did you see any questions like this one: "Reason is necessary but not sufficient in establishing the truth of a proposition. [Agree/Disagree]" How about this one: "Empirical evidence trumps reason. [Agree/Disagree]" Let's assume you disagree with the first proposition but agree with the second. Beep! Why didn't you see questions like these in a "philosophical health check?" The answer to this can be the best take away from the whole ordeal. Having said all this, I think I've derailed the thread too much. Apologies to the author. Its hard for me to see the question as you say it but that is probably because I already associated it to my way of understanding it. But besides that, I think that the test states that even if you have contradictions as long as you have good rational arguments to defend them you are ok, In your case you would not count that question as "wrong". I myself did not put too much emphasis on the final score as long as I was not holding a contradiction, and the only question I missed after further analysis proves that I don't because I can explain that I interpret it wrong. "The test identifies a pair of beliefs as being in tension, where (a) there is a direct contradiction between them, or (b) some sophisticated reasoning is required to allow both beliefs to be held consistently. If two of your beliefs are in tension, we advise that either giving one of them up, or developing some rationally coherent way of reconciling them (assuming you have not already done so)." So I can revise my final score as "Tension free" I can say I enjoyed the test, mostly the way they analyzed the results. I hate tests that just come to a conclusion based on your answers because of the problems you outlined, but this one explained the answers as they meant them, therefore one can revise ones answers if they don't fit their assumptions. I liked that.
Lians Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Even a bad approach can be instructive if you learn from it, hence why I provided arguments, not opinions. If you find the test interesting, take it and learn from it. Be on the lookout for bad philosophy is all I'm suggesting.
Kevin Beal Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 but holding yoursel to a standard and taking it easy, which I agree are good, are not really about philosophical consistency. Like exercising a lot and also relaxing a lot isnt a contradiction like being a black guy in the KKK is, lol. Well, actually yes it is. It's not a moral issue, but it is a matter of values and it is philosophy. But I'll just change it to fit your analogy: I went to school and I couldn't find anyone that I could really connect with. I had a value around not being around people that I couldn't respect (because of the enabling), and I also knew that I needed at least some kind of allegiances in order to simply navigate and survive. Does that mean I shouldn't have made frenemies with them? (This is a less extreme equivalent to the black guy in the KKK analogy.) The mere existence of opposing values doesn't (alone) say anything about any kind of philosophical ill-health. I pay taxes even though taxes go to fund things like wars and kidnapping and rape and theft and murder. I feel a little tension around that. I know that I'm forced to and thus know I'm not responsible for that murder and rape and kidnapping, but there are still two opposing values. I would submit that life is full of these tensions and that they are normal and healthy, like a resistance to a muscle makes it grow. The exploration of these tensions may reveal inconsistencies worth changing your actions or values over, or they may teach you more about the world and you become just a little wiser. The difference being that in the first it's my own misunderstanding or hypocrisy causing the tension, and in the second it's reality that causes the tension. A goal of no tensions is like how I imagine the Venus Project trying to do away with working for a living, everything being free. The value of philosophy is not as much in the things which are irrefutably obvious and true, but those things which are counterintuitive or subtle. (Which I mean as another way of saying there is wisdom in tension).
Nerburg Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I would submit that life is full of these tensions and that they are normal and healthy, like a resistance to a muscle makes it grow. The exploration of these tensions may reveal inconsistencies worth changing your actions or values over, or they may teach you more about the world and you become just a little wiser. The difference being that in the first it's my own misunderstanding or hypocrisy causing the tension, and in the second it's reality that causes the tension. I don't think you're exactly disagreeing with the 'philosophical health test', as they had some clarification of their intent at the beginning and more specifics about the results and what they (could) mean, which were linked at end of the test. . . I can't remember the exact verbiage nor compel myself to go back and look, so my apologies for the lack of specifics for you. I just wanted to mention that my recollection of the test had satisfied those same objections you're bringing to the discussion.
WhoBobWhatPants Posted January 11, 2014 Author Posted January 11, 2014 Yeah but the question says the money is being spent on saving lives. The question isn't "do you think government can save lives", right? I just thought it made sense to me personally so I'm trying to get an idea about where we diverged. Exactly, like they explained at the beginning of the test, it's not about true/false right/wrong, it's about consistency. If you've ever done any critical thinking quizes you will see such questions as "if all ducks bark and sam is a duck then sam barks, valid or invalid?" You're not supposed to get caught up in whether or not ducks bark for real...
Josh F Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Well, actually yes it is. It's not a moral issue, but it is a matter of values and it is philosophy. But I'll just change it to fit your analogy: I went to school and I couldn't find anyone that I could really connect with. I had a value around not being around people that I couldn't respect (because of the enabling), and I also knew that I needed at least some kind of allegiances in order to simply navigate and survive. Does that mean I shouldn't have made frenemies with them? (This is a less extreme equivalent to the black guy in the KKK analogy.) The mere existence of opposing values doesn't (alone) say anything about any kind of philosophical ill-health. I pay taxes even though taxes go to fund things like wars and kidnapping and rape and theft and murder. I feel a little tension around that. I know that I'm forced to and thus know I'm not responsible for that murder and rape and kidnapping, but there are still two opposing values. I would submit that life is full of these tensions and that they are normal and healthy, like a resistance to a muscle makes it grow. The exploration of these tensions may reveal inconsistencies worth changing your actions or values over, or they may teach you more about the world and you become just a little wiser. The difference being that in the first it's my own misunderstanding or hypocrisy causing the tension, and in the second it's reality that causes the tension. A goal of no tensions is like how I imagine the Venus Project trying to do away with working for a living, everything being free. The value of philosophy is not as much in the things which are irrefutably obvious and true, but those things which are counterintuitive or subtle. (Which I mean as another way of saying there is wisdom in tension). Well is their a true tension between giving yourself room to make mistakes and holding yourself to a high moral standard? I only ask this because like you I'm kind of trying to do both. I'm into being an entrapaneur, which is all about making mistakes and taking risks, where as morally I am less lenient.
Kevin Beal Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Well is their a true tension between giving yourself room to make mistakes and holding yourself to a high moral standard? I only ask this because like you I'm kind of trying to do both. I'm into being an entrapaneur, which is all about making mistakes and taking risks, where as morally I am less lenient. I've thought about it some more and I think the distinction you made is totally valid. If there are moral hypocrisies within us, that's not quite the same thing as I was saying. I unreservedly concede that actually those kinds of inconsistencies actually are a measure of philosophical ill-health. And to answer your question, I guess not. It wasn't entirely honest of me to compare the two situations that way.
Josh F Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 so the thing about there being these tensions where things contradict... I feel like sometimes this site has the opposite of that. Things at first which sound like a contradiction but upon further examination is not... and it is a fantastic release of tension... some examples... You dont have to do anything You are goign to die, and should do something you love with all your heart Your family of origin is corrupt Family is important to healthy development Dont be harsh on yourself Hold yourself to a higher standard
Recommended Posts