In setting up our tedious thought experiment, I described two mutually exclusive hypotheses, H1 and H2, with supporting evidence, V1 > V2, saying that H1 appears to be true, but other reasons, R2 > R1, indicating that accepting H2 appears to be advantageous.
And I left you with this question: How do we choose which hypothesis to accept and which to reject?
There is more than one way to approach this problem. Two of the most commonly-trodden paths can be called the path of evidence and the path of expedience.
If we choose the path of evidence, we must ignore R2 > R1, focus on V1 > V2, and accept H1 because it appears to be true. But on this path we might suffer, because R2 > R1.
If we choose the path of expedience, we can dismiss V1 > V2, focus on R2 > R1, and accept H2, even though it appears to be false. And we may not suffer at all, again because R2 > R1.
In other words, on the path of expedience, there can be reasons which are not related to the evidence but which are so compelling that accepting a false hypothesis looks like the best possible decision.
And on this path, just as we would say R2 > R1, we could also say R2 > V1. That is: the other reasons are more important than the relevant evidence; and these reasons justify our acceptance of a hypothesis which appears to be false.
In more general terms:
On the path of expedience, other reasons can be more important than evidence, so sometimes R > V.
But on the path of evidence, nothing matters except the evidence. So V > R always.
Some people would say that it is delusional to follow the path of evidence at the risk of great suffering, when the path of expedience offers more safety and less risk.
These people would generally get poor marks in Epistemology. But they would likely survive a hostile takeover.
There is a third path. If we don't want to reject H1 because V1 > V2 and H1 is true, but we don't want to reject H2 because R2 > R1 and accepting H2 would be advantageous, we might accept both H1 and H2, even though they cannot both be true.
This path, which we might call the path of dual inclusion, is more difficult to justify, and more difficult to navigate, than either of the paths described previously. But people who are sufficiently delusional can do it with ease.
Next: Dr. Fetzer On YouTube
Previous: "Assassination Science" and Dr. James H. Fetzer
Home: Contents
~~~
Your comments are invited.
Previous: "Assassination Science" and Dr. James H. Fetzer
Home: Contents
~~~
Your comments are invited.
