Thanks, Massimo! I was reading this in preparation for the upcoming in-person Meetup and had a question about "Coherenterism":
While I understand that math and logic are self-contained systems, their principles seem to gain some degree of external validation when applied to the real world (e.g. in fields like physics), where mathematical models make highly accurate predictions. Doesn't this "empirical success" suggest that some mathematical and logical principles go beyond just their internal consistency? Wouldn't that empirical validation be good enough to accept them as really valid and then break the kind of circularity you're talking about?
Spoiler alert: While writing this, I realized that the answer might already be implicit in my own question. Perhaps "good enough" doesn’t imply "necessity"... but I’d still love to hear your thoughts.
Demian, very good question! But no, I don’t think any demonstrated correspondence with reality reinforces the truth of a mathematical or logical theorem, because they are true by definition, i.e., they cannot *possibly* be incorrect (unless someone made a mistake in the proof, but that’s a separate issue).
What those cases you mention do is to confirm something we all know: the universe is regulated by systems, which we call laws of nature, that are internally coherent. As such, there *has* to be some mathematical or logical model that describes them correctly.
Think of the analogy with Borges’s library: since the library contains all possible sentences written in correct English, it *has* to contain what I just wrote in this comment. But that doesn’t tell you anything other than these lines are, in fact, written in correct English (I hope!). Does this make sense?
That makes a lot of sense. It seems that, no matter how accurate our current systems are in certain cases, there’s still an potential significant delta between them and the kind of perfect system (or ruling principle?) you mentioned.
This also got me thinking about something else... I’ve always believed that relying on logic and physics (like the Stoics do to guide their actions) was the best possible approach. And honestly, I still think that. However, I now see a problem with the idea that even the Stoic Sage could ever achieve a perfect assent. It wouldn’t just require a flawless evaluation of impressions, but also that the underlying logical system itself be true. I suppose I’ve placed too much faith in logic, but even that, it seems, is fallible!
Anyway, too many questions on my end—I’ll save some for the in-person meetup.
P.S. I’m from Borges’ city (Buenos Aires), so I loved that reference!
Demian, one of these days I’ll have to make it to Buenos Aires!
You are correct about the problem the Stoics have with the infallibility of the sage. Which the Academic Skeltics (Carneades, Cicero) pointed out. That’s why I consider myself a Skeptical Stoic, pretty much like Cicero.
I think Descartes actually said “I think therefore I am”, not the other way round which would imply some sort of panpsychism, I think. 😃
Anyway, more substantially, this quote from Feynman is relevant to this post:
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.
A very interesting post. I found myself drawn to skepticism during the pandemic, often feeling that much of what was being portrayed as "science" did not make sense to me (e.g., the rules on wearing and then taking off masks in restaurants; vaccines stopping transmission, and so on) What is challenging today, I find, is finding individuals with whom you can indeed have a conversation on searching for the truth, or at least nailing down the questions one should ask, without being dismissed as either being completely mad or belonging to the fringe territory (e.g., being a COVID denier - which I am not, by the way) I find it this aspect very challenging, Dimitrios
Jim, you raise good questions. We need to remember that to be a skeptic means to engage in inquiry and to accept human (and especially one's own) epistemic limitations. Regarding covid, or viral diseases in general, it's complicated!
It occurs to me that the skeptical challenge is simply a manifestation of the Socratic Method. I can imagine Socrates engaging in an elenctic dialectic every time I encounter dogma.
Robert, though the Pyrrhonians did not link themselves to Socrates, the Academic Skeptics certainly did. And early (pre-Carneades and Cicero) Academic Skepticism was indistinguishable from Pyrrhonism...
The Oracle of Delphi left us with 3 Maxims to investigate and test -- their validity.
Nothing to Excess
Know Thyself
Certainty Brings Ruin
The third one leads me to be wary and skeptical of certainty since it can be a form of insanity as was demonstrated recently in the midterms of the American election cycle....as the news pundits warned of a “red tsunami” because they were biased and wedded to previous occurrences of history, when the power of The White House is usually defanged during the middle of it’s term in office.
Being skeptical offers a refuge against the three lies politicians use to justify themselves i.e.; lies, damn lies and statistics. Socrates is the one that breathes the most life into the healthiness of being skeptical just by the way he asks questions to those who make claims based on their perceptions and use history as a defense against skepticism.
It seems that skepticism is a pillar of reasoning that adds to the credibility of “reason” being divine, since, it protects us from going over a cliff. And anything that contributes to our wellbeing and progresses us on the road to Ataraxia and Eudaimonia is divine -- because it will be another notch of lightness, happiness and joy....in our lives -- which (to me) is divine.
It's taken me a long time for me to get comfortable with skepticism, but I'm in a place now where I'm content with not having certitude about many fundamental things. I suspect a big part of why many other people struggle with skepticism is that they feel they need certitude in order to act in the world. I think of the example of a political activist, or an entrepreneur, who aspires to something daunting or seemingly unlikely, and believes in themselves in an almost delusional way. Shifting to a more probabilistic mindset (e.g. "I am unlikely to triumph, but there's still a chance and that might be worth doing") is probably very difficult for some people.
I think a probabilistic attitude is difficult for most people. Because it carries uncertainty, and therefore self-doubt. What if I commit everything I've got to X and X turns out to be wrong?? But that's why skepticism is so important: it makes us more thoughtful and less committed to ideas, and I think that's a good thing...
It seems to me that a useful implication of the fallibilism perspective is that the problem of Truth is irreducible; it’s an artifact of the human mind conflating language universals with some presumed veridical reality.
This is demonstrated by the practical upshot of fallibilism, empirical methods. No scientist grapples day-to-day with the question of whether they are finding absolute Truth. Scientific truths are based not so much on infinite regress as infinite revision.
But, as you say, humans are intuitively uncomfortable with this uncertainty. They gravitate toward Beliefs about the world. I personally think this is best explored from the perspective of human coalitional psychology. But that’s probably off topic.
I agree, except that I do know a number of scientists, and science popularizers, who are not as careful with truth-sounding statements as they should be...
Gary, I haven't deleted anything from Medium, I'll look into it. You are not the only one who has asked to import some of those essays here into Substack, so I'll begin doing that once I completely close my Medium series, at the end of this year.
Thanks, Massimo! I was reading this in preparation for the upcoming in-person Meetup and had a question about "Coherenterism":
While I understand that math and logic are self-contained systems, their principles seem to gain some degree of external validation when applied to the real world (e.g. in fields like physics), where mathematical models make highly accurate predictions. Doesn't this "empirical success" suggest that some mathematical and logical principles go beyond just their internal consistency? Wouldn't that empirical validation be good enough to accept them as really valid and then break the kind of circularity you're talking about?
Spoiler alert: While writing this, I realized that the answer might already be implicit in my own question. Perhaps "good enough" doesn’t imply "necessity"... but I’d still love to hear your thoughts.
Demian, very good question! But no, I don’t think any demonstrated correspondence with reality reinforces the truth of a mathematical or logical theorem, because they are true by definition, i.e., they cannot *possibly* be incorrect (unless someone made a mistake in the proof, but that’s a separate issue).
What those cases you mention do is to confirm something we all know: the universe is regulated by systems, which we call laws of nature, that are internally coherent. As such, there *has* to be some mathematical or logical model that describes them correctly.
Think of the analogy with Borges’s library: since the library contains all possible sentences written in correct English, it *has* to contain what I just wrote in this comment. But that doesn’t tell you anything other than these lines are, in fact, written in correct English (I hope!). Does this make sense?
Thanks, Massimo!
That makes a lot of sense. It seems that, no matter how accurate our current systems are in certain cases, there’s still an potential significant delta between them and the kind of perfect system (or ruling principle?) you mentioned.
This also got me thinking about something else... I’ve always believed that relying on logic and physics (like the Stoics do to guide their actions) was the best possible approach. And honestly, I still think that. However, I now see a problem with the idea that even the Stoic Sage could ever achieve a perfect assent. It wouldn’t just require a flawless evaluation of impressions, but also that the underlying logical system itself be true. I suppose I’ve placed too much faith in logic, but even that, it seems, is fallible!
Anyway, too many questions on my end—I’ll save some for the in-person meetup.
P.S. I’m from Borges’ city (Buenos Aires), so I loved that reference!
Demian, one of these days I’ll have to make it to Buenos Aires!
You are correct about the problem the Stoics have with the infallibility of the sage. Which the Academic Skeltics (Carneades, Cicero) pointed out. That’s why I consider myself a Skeptical Stoic, pretty much like Cicero.
Encyclopedic! Fascinating!
🙏
I think Descartes actually said “I think therefore I am”, not the other way round which would imply some sort of panpsychism, I think. 😃
Anyway, more substantially, this quote from Feynman is relevant to this post:
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.
Sounds like Feynman was a perfect skeptic...
Thank you Massimo. I am indeed on a journey here.
A very interesting post. I found myself drawn to skepticism during the pandemic, often feeling that much of what was being portrayed as "science" did not make sense to me (e.g., the rules on wearing and then taking off masks in restaurants; vaccines stopping transmission, and so on) What is challenging today, I find, is finding individuals with whom you can indeed have a conversation on searching for the truth, or at least nailing down the questions one should ask, without being dismissed as either being completely mad or belonging to the fringe territory (e.g., being a COVID denier - which I am not, by the way) I find it this aspect very challenging, Dimitrios
Jim, you raise good questions. We need to remember that to be a skeptic means to engage in inquiry and to accept human (and especially one's own) epistemic limitations. Regarding covid, or viral diseases in general, it's complicated!
It occurs to me that the skeptical challenge is simply a manifestation of the Socratic Method. I can imagine Socrates engaging in an elenctic dialectic every time I encounter dogma.
Robert, though the Pyrrhonians did not link themselves to Socrates, the Academic Skeptics certainly did. And early (pre-Carneades and Cicero) Academic Skepticism was indistinguishable from Pyrrhonism...
The Oracle of Delphi left us with 3 Maxims to investigate and test -- their validity.
Nothing to Excess
Know Thyself
Certainty Brings Ruin
The third one leads me to be wary and skeptical of certainty since it can be a form of insanity as was demonstrated recently in the midterms of the American election cycle....as the news pundits warned of a “red tsunami” because they were biased and wedded to previous occurrences of history, when the power of The White House is usually defanged during the middle of it’s term in office.
Being skeptical offers a refuge against the three lies politicians use to justify themselves i.e.; lies, damn lies and statistics. Socrates is the one that breathes the most life into the healthiness of being skeptical just by the way he asks questions to those who make claims based on their perceptions and use history as a defense against skepticism.
It seems that skepticism is a pillar of reasoning that adds to the credibility of “reason” being divine, since, it protects us from going over a cliff. And anything that contributes to our wellbeing and progresses us on the road to Ataraxia and Eudaimonia is divine -- because it will be another notch of lightness, happiness and joy....in our lives -- which (to me) is divine.
It's taken me a long time for me to get comfortable with skepticism, but I'm in a place now where I'm content with not having certitude about many fundamental things. I suspect a big part of why many other people struggle with skepticism is that they feel they need certitude in order to act in the world. I think of the example of a political activist, or an entrepreneur, who aspires to something daunting or seemingly unlikely, and believes in themselves in an almost delusional way. Shifting to a more probabilistic mindset (e.g. "I am unlikely to triumph, but there's still a chance and that might be worth doing") is probably very difficult for some people.
I think a probabilistic attitude is difficult for most people. Because it carries uncertainty, and therefore self-doubt. What if I commit everything I've got to X and X turns out to be wrong?? But that's why skepticism is so important: it makes us more thoughtful and less committed to ideas, and I think that's a good thing...
It seems to me that a useful implication of the fallibilism perspective is that the problem of Truth is irreducible; it’s an artifact of the human mind conflating language universals with some presumed veridical reality.
This is demonstrated by the practical upshot of fallibilism, empirical methods. No scientist grapples day-to-day with the question of whether they are finding absolute Truth. Scientific truths are based not so much on infinite regress as infinite revision.
But, as you say, humans are intuitively uncomfortable with this uncertainty. They gravitate toward Beliefs about the world. I personally think this is best explored from the perspective of human coalitional psychology. But that’s probably off topic.
I agree, except that I do know a number of scientists, and science popularizers, who are not as careful with truth-sounding statements as they should be...
Looking forward to more posts on scepticism. Is there any chance you would do a sceptic meditations pod cast?
My substack has posts on skepticism: https://ataraxiaorbust.substack.com/
Yes, but of a very particular type. And definitely not the sort of skepticism advocated here.
Andrew, not a bad idea. Currently I don't have time for a new project, but we'll see...
Gary, I haven't deleted anything from Medium, I'll look into it. You are not the only one who has asked to import some of those essays here into Substack, so I'll begin doing that once I completely close my Medium series, at the end of this year.