How do we Reason that Something is True or False?

IrishMark

Hi all, Came across this when reading Edmund Burke earlier:
"to know whether any proposition be true or false, it is a preposterous method to examine it by its apparent consequences".
Was wondering two things.
First, how else might one reason something is true or false and;
Second if one does decide the veracity of a statement based upon its apparent consequences, how may one ensure that that decision finds the proposition to be true and not just best out of a number of propositions?
Best,
Mark.

Morbert

What is the context of the quote? We often decide what is true or false based on apparent consequences. It is not preposterous at all.

Cannibal Ox

I think he means that you shouldn't shy away from an enquiry because of the potential consequences. It's from 'Letter to a Lord', link.

IrishMark

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think he means that you shouldn't shy away from an enquiry because of the potential consequences. It's from 'Letter to a Lord', link.

Don't know where you got 'Letter to a Noble Lord' from. It's actually from 'A Vindication of Natural Society'. And, if anything, I think he means we should shy away from an enquiry if it means we examine it by its potential consequences.

Morbert wrote: »

What is the context of the quote? We often decide what is true or false based on apparent consequences. It is not preposterous at all.

I agree it's not preposterous at all. The piece is written in a sarcastic tone, especially this part. Despite that, there is an implication that there is an alternative method of reasoning. This is what I'm trying to get at. What other method of reasoning is there?

Morbert

IrishMark wrote: »

Don't know where you got 'Letter to a Noble Lord' from. It's actually from 'A Vindication of Natural Society'. And, if anything, I think he means we should shy away from an enquiry if it means we examine it by its potential consequences.



I agree it's not preposterous at all. The piece is written in a sarcastic tone, especially this part. Despite that, there is an implication that there is an alternative method of reasoning. This is what I'm trying to get at. What other method of reasoning is there?

Judging what is true or not based on apparent consequences is inductive reasoning. An alternative method of reasoning would be deductive reasoning, where you establish something is true by defining and using a set of rules to show that it follows from some premise or set of axioms. Scientists primarily use inductive reasoning. Mathematicians use deductive reasoning.

slowburner

Morbert wrote: »

Judging what is true or not based on apparent consequences is inductive reasoning. An alternative method of reasoning would be deductive reasoning, where you establish something is true by defining and using a set of rules to show that it follows from some premise or set of axioms. Scientists primarily use inductive reasoning. Mathematicians use deductive reasoning.

So why is Burke against inductive reasoning?
Are inductive/deductive reasoning the same philosophical terms as knowledge acquired 'a posteriori' and 'a priori' ?

Cannibal Ox

slowburner wrote: »

So why is Burke against inductive reasoning?
Are inductive/deductive reasoning the same philosophical terms as knowledge acquired 'a posteriori' and 'a priori' ?

Nope, inductive and deductive are different approaches/methods to a problem. A priori and a posteriori are Kant's distinction between what is known prioir to experience and what's known after experience (that's very simplified! If you know Hume, it's to do with his argument that you can only establish cause after experience, Kant tries to show that you can know things prior to experience, rather then only and ever knowing things after experience, which is fundamental to any kind of objective/scientific knowledge).

IrishMark wrote:

Don't know where you got 'Letter to a Noble Lord' from. It's actually from 'A Vindication of Natural Society'. And, if anything, I think he means we should shy away from an enquiry if it means we examine it by its potential consequences.

Sorry, this is several months late!

You're right about the title of the piece, but I think you're wrong about the context. If you look at the first few paragraphs, he's discussing a meeting with another person (presumibly the noble lord) where the other person said, we should stop because of the consequences. His point is that you should never stop because of the consequences, because as long as you follow the correct methods the truth will come out. Which is good, according to him, regardless of what impact that has on you.

slowburner

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Nope, inductive and deductive are different approaches/methods to a problem. A priori and a posteriori are Kant's distinction between what is known prioir to experience and what's known after experience (that's very simplified! If you know Hume, it's to do with his argument that you can only establish cause after experience, Kant tries to show that you can know things prior to experience, rather then only and ever knowing things after experience, which is fundamental to any kind of objective/scientific knowledge).

Dim and distant embers are being rekindled.
I have very little memory of Hume but Kant sticks with me for some reason.
It always struck me as a petulant sort of debate.

An a posteriorist's argument
Can you know something without experience?
No - all knowledge is the product of experience, everything you know is the product of a subjective analytical process.

An a priorist's argument
Can you apply principles to knowing without experience?
Yes.
You can apply principles. Test them. Then analyse the results.
If true, this passes into knowledge as truth.
If false, this passes into knowledge as experience.

Both arguments seem to me to result in the processes of scientific analysis - am I missing something?

18AD

slowburner wrote: »

An a posteriorist's argument[/I]
Can you know something without experience?
No - all knowledge is the product of experience, everything you know is the product of a subjective analytical process.

An a priorist's argument
Can you apply principles to knowing without experience?
Yes.
You can apply principles. Test them. Then analyse the results.
If true, this passes into knowledge as truth.
If false, this passes into knowledge as experience.

Both arguments seem to me to result in the processes of scientific analysis - am I missing something?

It's been a while, but:

A posteriori results in probabilities as our best knowledge.

A priori is anything that relies solely on reason. So for Kant, maths is an a priori discipline, but biology is not.

Manach

From a historical PoV, I'd try and put this in terms of the initial context of Burke giving that statement as a starting point. Offhand, re-reading Edmund Burke: His Life and Opinions by Ayling.

Cannibal Ox

slowburner wrote:

Both arguments seem to me to result in the processes of scientific analysis - am I missing something?

On Kant, very closely. Kant is trying to provide the basic argument for knowing something. Which is fundamental to any scientific analysis.

Hume on the other hand is offering skepticism. His argument says, you cannot know that A causes B independently of experience.

The closest philosopher that I can think of who tries to develop a scientific, or at least mathematical approach, to philosophy is Descartes.

On the a priori and a posteriori, they're Kant's distinction between (very simply) what is known prior to experience and what is known after experience. In a way, he tries to take part of Hume's argument and also tries to make space for an objective truth. However, it's an incredibly complex argument and I wouldn't want to pretend that I actually understand a tenth of it!

On the historical context, there's a view that says the Enlightenment philosophers emerge after the theologically inclined philosophy of medieval period and, basically, provides the grounds for a break from theological approaches to secular, scientific reason.