I've come to realize that many of my recent threads hang on what is meant by 'reasonable belief'.

I assert that a 'reasonable' belief is one where one can supply good reasons for that belief.

For example, I cannot offer a good reason to believe in God, therefore, belief in God is an unreasonable belief.

But I also cannot offer a good reason for believing in the validity of reason without assuming the validity of reason.

Consequently, I think that belief in the validity of reason is necessarily unreasonable.

I have no objection to an unreasonable belief in reason. I just think it's unreasonable by definition.

If anyone out there has a better notion of 'reasonable belief' than the one I provided, then I'm interested.

If you disagree, please offer a concise defintion of 'reasonable belief'.

Hello Doctor. I think most people get by without needing to use the term 'reasonable belief', and hence feel no need to define it.
It seems that the term is also useless to you, as you have given examples of beliefs that are not reasonable beliefs, but not one example of a belief that you would describe as a reasonable belief.

A definition that is not met by any object is a useless definition, and I would advocate discarding it to make brain space for other fun things like memorising Jabberwocky.

If you very much would like, for whatever reason, to have a non-null definition of 'reasonable belief' then what about:
"a belief held by an entity that is connected by a sequence of logical steps, starting with the axioms that the entity chooses to accept, where each step is valid according to the logical framework chosen by the entity."
This gives the entity two degrees of freedom: the choice of axioms and the choice of a logical system (propositional, predicate, higher order, fuzzy, modal etc).

DrWho wrote:I've come to realize that many of my recent threads hang on what is meant by 'reasonable belief'.

I assert that a 'reasonable' belief is one where one can supply good reasons for that belief.

For example, I cannot offer a good reason to believe in God, therefore, belief in God is an unreasonable belief.

But I also cannot offer a good reason for believing in the validity of reason without assuming the validity of reason.

Consequently, I think that belief in the validity of reason is necessarily unreasonable.

I have no objection to an unreasonable belief in reason. I just think it's unreasonable by definition.

If anyone out there has a better notion of 'reasonable belief' than the one I provided, then I'm interested.

If you disagree, please offer a concise defintion of 'reasonable belief'.

Say I own a fruit shop. I have a lot of long-term customers. If one of these customers comes to me, and asks me for some fruit, but has not got the money on them, then I would let them have the fruit on account. Likewise, an obviously poorly fed person may motivate me to give them some fruit free. But to a stranger who comes, demanding fruit, and credit?

Every day we use evidence to make rational decisions. So what if those rational decisions are not perfect? But one can train oneself to not be swayed by unusual events, because we remember those more than mundane ones. So we can get unconscious biases.
This "belief" or rather confidence in reason and evidence is perfectly justified. Why believe in something like a god, for which there are no good reasons or evidence?? This is how faith warps one's reason. If god were such a self-evident truth, then everyone would believe, because no argument or evidence would be avilable to argue against a really self-evident truth.

Now, back to the fruit market. Who would you do business with? A reliable and predictable merchant, or one totally driven by whimsy? The unpredictable one would refuse good clients credit, refuse honest and needy beggers, and give unlimited lines of credit to people who hardly ever pay for their fruit!

It is reasonable to believe in any general rule or method that is never known to fail.

andrewk wrote:

If you very much would like, for whatever reason, to have a non-null definition of 'reasonable belief' then what about:
"a belief held by an entity that is connected by a sequence of logical steps, starting with the axioms that the entity chooses to accept, where each step is valid according to the logical framework chosen by the entity."

I don't think this works.

On this definition, I could claim that it's reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. This could be a logical conclusion starting with axioms that one chooses to accept such as "God exists" and "The bible is the divinely inspired word of God"

If you can arbitrarily choose the axioms and the logical framework, then any belief can be reasonable.

SpeedOfSound wrote:It is reasonable to believe in any general rule or method that is never known to fail.

You have given an example of a reasonable belief not a defintion.

What makes a belief 'reasonable'?

What makes a belief 'unreasonable'?

DrWho wrote:

andrewk wrote:

If you very much would like, for whatever reason, to have a non-null definition of 'reasonable belief' then what about:
"a belief held by an entity that is connected by a sequence of logical steps, starting with the axioms that the entity chooses to accept, where each step is valid according to the logical framework chosen by the entity."

I don't think this works.

On this definition, I could claim that it's reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. This could be a logical conclusion starting with axioms that one chooses to accept such as "God exists" and "The bible is the divinely inspired word of God"

If you can arbitrarily choose the axioms and the logical framework, then any belief can be reasonable.

Well there ya have it. Beliefs are in the eye of the beholder.

A reasonable belief is a personal arbitrary determination based upon the collective whole of an individuals life experiences, that which forms an individuals paradigm of acceptable reality.

Weak, but considering where I pulled it out of - ehhh

DrWho wrote:If you can arbitrarily choose the axioms and the logical framework, then any belief can be reasonable.

That's exactly it. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Not 'any belief' though. Some sets of beliefs are self-contradictory, so are unreasonable in that sense. But there is no reason to declare that someone who starts with an axiom that a certain type of entity (god) exists is unreasonable, any more than we should consider as unreasonable someone who chooses to believe that there is more to the world than their own consciousness. The reason atheists spend so much time arguing against theists is that the latter mostly don't declare god's existence as an axiom (presuppositionalists excepted), but instead try to prove it starting from axioms that they think atheists will accept, but they commit logical fallacies along the way.

If you are searching for a definition of reasonable belief that (1) excludes any belief based on axioms and (2) gets further than a solipsistic view , then you will fail. You really would be much better off concentrating on Jabberwocky.

andrewk wrote:

If you are searching for a definition of reasonable belief that (1) excludes any belief based on axioms and (2) gets further than a solipsistic view , then you will fail. You really would be much better off concentrating on Jabberwocky.

I'm not searching for a defintion. I have one. A reasonable belief is one where one can provide good reasons for that belief. I'm quite happy with it. I think you notion is too broad. I don't think there's much of a selection of logical frameworks. There's the law indentity and contradiction along with rules for deductive and inductive inference. That's pretty much it. But it's limited you can't provide a reason for everything and so reasonable beliefs rest on unreasonable beliefs.

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:It is reasonable to believe in any general rule or method that is never known to fail.

You have given an example of a reasonable belief not a defintion.

What makes a belief 'reasonable'?

What makes a belief 'unreasonable'?

What is this an exam? A reasonable belief is a belief in something that always or likely holds true. it's unreasonable if it never or seldom or likely is not true.

DrWho wrote:

andrewk wrote:

If you are searching for a definition of reasonable belief that (1) excludes any belief based on axioms and (2) gets further than a solipsistic view , then you will fail. You really would be much better off concentrating on Jabberwocky.

I'm not searching for a defintion. I have one. A reasonable belief is one where one can provide good reasons for that belief. I'm quite happy with it. I think you notion is too broad. I don't think there's much of a selection of logical frameworks. There's the law indentity and contradiction along with rules for deductive and inductive inference. That's pretty much it. But it's limited you can't provide a reason for everything and so reasonable beliefs rest on unreasonable beliefs.

Yes good reasons like it always works. Never fails. Reason itself for instance always works and never fails. So it is a reasonable belief. So reasonable in fact that we have created a word for this type of high test success based on the word reason itself! Reasonable.

DrWho wrote:I've come to realize that many of my recent threads hang on what is meant by 'reasonable belief'.

I assert that a 'reasonable' belief is one where one can supply good reasons for that belief.

For example, I cannot offer a good reason to believe in God, therefore, belief in God is an unreasonable belief.

But I also cannot offer a good reason for believing in the validity of reason without assuming the validity of reason.

Consequently, I think that belief in the validity of reason is necessarily unreasonable.

I have no objection to an unreasonable belief in reason. I just think it's unreasonable by definition.

If anyone out there has a better notion of 'reasonable belief' than the one I provided, then I'm interested.

If you disagree, please offer a concise defintion of 'reasonable belief'.

Reasonable has a few definitions. One is average or fair and indicates some softness in the level of reason behind it. The word reason itself derives from 'to think over'. So reasoning is to think over. A more rigid definition is to use it as a capital noun to indicate the entire body of logic and intelligence. That's Reason with a capital R. When you refer to the validity of reason you are being circular by definition. Validity is included in the body of Reason. If you want to discuss why reason is reasonable I suggest you are already in trouble of your own making.

But we can go ahead if you like. I think we should start with why it seems like a good idea to have a brain in the first place. So evolution?

DrWho wrote:I've come to realize that many of my recent threads hang on what is meant by 'reasonable belief'.

I assert that a 'reasonable' belief is one where one can supply good reasons for that belief.

For example, I cannot offer a good reason to believe in God, therefore, belief in God is an unreasonable belief.

But I also cannot offer a good reason for believing in the validity of reason without assuming the validity of reason.

Consequently, I think that belief in the validity of reason is necessarily unreasonable.

I have no objection to an unreasonable belief in reason. I just think it's unreasonable by definition.

I think the word “reasonable” behaves like the word “moral”: in ordinary, everyday usage, it implies something transcendent which everyone ought to accept, but when looked at from an anthropological perspective, it turns out to rely on shared assumptions within a group. I think there’s also an element of enforcement: someone who behaves unreasonably or immorally is in danger of being punished by the group, or of putting themselves beyond the pale and being thrown out. It’s about managing cooperation within imperfectly integrated groups of biological organisms. Shared assumptions enable a group to function efficiently, but there’s ongoing tension between individuals who do not have identical goals – what one person claims is reasonable or moral often turns out to benefit that person, or their subgroup, at the expense of others in the group.

zoon wrote:

DrWho wrote:I've come to realize that many of my recent threads hang on what is meant by 'reasonable belief'.

I assert that a 'reasonable' belief is one where one can supply good reasons for that belief.

For example, I cannot offer a good reason to believe in God, therefore, belief in God is an unreasonable belief.

But I also cannot offer a good reason for believing in the validity of reason without assuming the validity of reason.

Consequently, I think that belief in the validity of reason is necessarily unreasonable.

I have no objection to an unreasonable belief in reason. I just think it's unreasonable by definition.

I think the word “reasonable” behaves like the word “moral”: in ordinary, everyday usage, it implies something transcendent which everyone ought to accept, but when looked at from an anthropological perspective, it turns out to rely on shared assumptions within a group. I think there’s also an element of enforcement: someone who behaves unreasonably or immorally is in danger of being punished by the group, or of putting themselves beyond the pale and being thrown out. It’s about managing cooperation within imperfectly integrated groups of biological organisms. Shared assumptions enable a group to function efficiently, but there’s ongoing tension between individuals who do not have identical goals – what one person claims is reasonable or moral often turns out to benefit that person, or their subgroup, at the expense of others in the group.

Zoon presents an operational summary of how vague terms like 'moral' and 'reasonable' function in discourse. Rather than being a theological or philosophical definition, it is more scientific. Otherwise, one will just be giving opinions.

I don't think we should completely discount opinions, and sometimes all we can do to understand what is going on with somebody is to listen to what he or she says. It's not perfect, because we are not mind-readers.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Yes good reasons like it always works. Never fails. Reason itself for instance always works and never fails.

Never is a long time. People live long enough these days to suffer from Alzheimer's. Entire species go extinct. Human beings: Extinction's too good for 'em.

Never may have been the wrong word to use without qualification. How 'bout never that I am aware of?

SpeedOfSound wrote:Never may have been the wrong word to use without qualification. How 'bout never that I am aware of?

Qualifications are good, and all, but then you're out of the realm of theology and philosophy. You mean reliability, but DrWho does not traffic in reliability. I could say that DrWho would never traffic in reliability, but never is such a long time. DrWho practices a discourse of 'belief', and perhaps you do, too. What a useless word. It's 99% useless. Go for that 1% if it makes you feel better, that's what I say, but you have to face the possibility that you are 99% uncertain what someone else is signifying to you. Out of any 100 people, you are the only one who knows what you signify by 'belief'. Listen to zoon. The word 'belief' is colloquial.

I think we are stuck with colloquial with any word don't' ya think?

SpeedOfSound wrote:I think we are stuck with colloquial with any word don't' ya think?

Well, go on with your 'qualifications', then. You can write a long essay about 'reasonable' and another one about 'belief'. Lots of post-structuralist writers have done so. They start with the colloquial and write intricate stuff deconstructing terms like 'belief' and 'reasonable'. Doing philosophy is not possible in an internet forum if you can't get people to read your essays. All that's left after that is giving your opinion, as Austen's Lady Catherine de Burgh would say, "most decidedly".

I think you can write a long essay about the ways in which it is not true that reason never fails. You need also to delineate how you account something a 'failure'. When engineers do reliability analysis, they define 'failure' before they start.

DrWho's strawman is 'perfection'. There is no reliability analysis possible for 'perfection'.

Philosophy is like an archery competition where you name the target only after you've released the arrow. That way, you never fail to hit your target.

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I think we are stuck with colloquial with any word don't' ya think?

Well, go on with your 'qualifications', then. You can write a long essay about 'reasonable' and another one about 'belief'.

You must have mistaken me for a Who?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I think we are stuck with colloquial with any word don't' ya think?

Well, go on with your 'qualifications', then. You can write a long essay about 'reasonable' and another one about 'belief'.

You must have mistaken me for a Who?

Probably not. However, I do think your home-brewed philosophical contraption of R1/R2 has gone beyond the merely colloquial and become a bit idiosyncratic. Somewhere between R1 and R2, words stop being purely colloquial, do they not?