Free Will? What do you mean "free"?

Two Definitions

Considering the concept of free will is tricky. When people talk about it, they often interchangeably use the phrase "free will" to mean one of two things:

1. Contra-causal Free Will: The state of being able to choose an action without interference from any causal chain of events.
2. Compatibilistic Free Will: The state of being able to choose an action even if it is determined by a causal chain of events.

Nonsense

The idea of contra-causal free will is what most people have in mind when they use the term "free will" without disambiguation. This kind of free will is simply impossible. Not because the laws of physics don't allow it... but it because it doesn't make any sense.
Consider what it would take to make this kind of free will a reality: We would need a "soul" or "spirit" of some kind that could make choices apart from causes in the physical world. But, this "soul" would have to work in some way. Wouldn't it have to obey the "physics" of the "spirit world"? In other words, a spiritual entity would still be necessarily subject to spiritual causes. And if it is subject to spiritual causes, then it is not un-caused and the soul/spirit has no free will.
To say that contra-causal free will exists is to say that the soul does not work in any particular way, has no explanation and follows no rules of causality. Adopting this point of view is not only nonsense, it also makes all the qualities of the soul arbitrary and random.

Compatibilism

Compatibilistic free will, on the other hand, must exist. It says that we are "free" in the sense that we take in caused inputs, process them "as we choose" (deterministically) and generate caused outputs. The problem I have with calling compatibilism a kind of "free will" is that it's horrifically misleading.
Demonstrating that compatibilistic free will exists can be too easily confused with demonstrating that "free will" exists in the classic (contra-causal) sense. This becomes more noticeable when you realize that hand-held calculators and bouncy balls have compatibilistic free will just like us humans. They only differ in degrees of complexity and predictability. The term "free will" becomes all but meaningless under Compatibilism.

Political Parties: Don't Choose, Align.

Did Someone Say Party?

Did you know there are more than just Republicans and Democrats? It's true! There are actually quite a few parties. Here are some of the major ones:

• Democratic Party
• Republican Party
• Libertarian Party
• Constitution Party
• Green Party

Which one do I belong to? Well... none of them.
Which one do my views most strongly align with? Well... I don't want to say... yet.

I would encourage you, however, to read overviews of each platform and form options for yourself about them. A platform is just a set of positional statements about specific real-world issues. It's my hope that you will form these opinions from a hedonistic point of view. You should consider how each position affects people's happiness and make a decision according to that standard. I've given you what I think are the right set of tools... now it's up to you to think for yourself.

Identity & Political Parties

A final word about political parties: If/When you find that you agree with one more than the rest, don't stake your identity on it. When someone criticizes "your" party, recognize that they are not criticizing you. They are criticizing an idea... an idea that you may or may not be right about. Sometimes it's an issue specific idea. Other times it's a core ideological/philosophical idea. Either way, you should try to glean their argument their criticism and argue it out.
A truly good idea can withstand argument. And if your idea can't hold its own in a word fight, maybe you should consider the other guy's idea instead of your own. We are all human. Not all of us are right about everything. Be willing to not only correct others, but also correct yourself when necessary. It's okay to change your mind.

Ok, Democracy. Now What?

I hope I have been able to convince you that a Democracy is the ideal form of government. If we make societal decisions according to societal happiness we need to know if the people are going to be happy with each decision we make. The only way to do this is to ask the people... in other words, take a vote.

Capitalism or Socialism? "Conservative" or "Liberal"?

Frankly, it doesn't matter. I see each of these systems as a means to an end. A tool that may (or may not) maximize our happiness. I know it would be convenient for our ethical system to mindlessly determine the way our government should work in absolute terms but that's not reality. We will have to think through each decision and how it impacts societal happiness. There is no room for being intellectually lazy in a democracy.
I think we can still take a look at the strengths and weaknesses of each system and make some generalizations from a utilitarian point of view:

	Capitalism	Socialism
Strengths	High Economic Efficiency Encourages Property Stewardship	Ensures Equality of Opportunity Allows for Collective Action
Weaknesses	Reduces Equality of Opportunity Prevents Collective Action	Clunky/Reactive Economy Discourages Property Stewardship

Economic Efficiency. Pure capitalism excels at maximizing GDP and ensures the largest sum total of wealth is generated for a given society (albeit poorly distributed wealth). It utilizes the self interest built into human nature to accomplish this.

Equality of Opportunity. Socialism ensures that everyone has the same chance to do well in life as everyone else. Capitalism, by contrast, tends to make is easy for the rich to get richer and makes it hard for the poor to get the jump start they need to make a good wage.

Property Stewardship. Capitalism, again taking advantage of selfish human nature, ensures there is a steward for everything (i.e. the owner). Homes, cars, land and property of any kind need to be maintained or taken care of. Socialism doesn't naturally ensure this maintenance gets done. We humans tend not to take good care of things if we don't have a vested interest in them.

Collective Action. Imagine a meteor large enough to extinguish human kind is on a collision course with Earth. Preventing the meteor from landing would require extensive resources from humanity. In a capitalistic society, a charitable fund would have to be established to pay for the effort and many people would fail to contribute thinking "someone else will do it". In a socialistic society, however, the government could acquire whatever resource it needed to ensure Earth's safety.
Simply put, some projects have necessarily public consequences and are only successfully if everyone cooperates. Full societal cooperation is only realistically achievable through socialization and/or regulation.

• Global warming & carbon emissions
• Water table monitoring and action
• Meteor monitoring and action
• Pollution of natural resources
• Over-harvesting prevention (deforestation, game hunting, fishing)
• Etc, etc, etc.

Some Generalizations & Conclusions

Informed voting is a moral imperative. If only a few vote, then a democracy becomes a functional oligarchy. If everyone votes but does so uninformed, we have a society that makes poor decisions. In order to maximize societal happiness, you need to be an informed voter. Voting in an informed way, then, is a moral virtue. Don't throw away your voice through whim or silence.

Education is the most important thing to socialize. Having an informed voter-base is essential to the core of a properly functioning democracy. And you cannot be informed without at least a basic education. Without an informed voter-base, decisions can be made haphazardly. Equal and easy access to education, then, is a necessary democratic backbone. This alone justifies public (socialized) education to me.

Lean to Capitalism in times of scarcity. Capitalism is very good at being efficient with whatever limited natural resources an economy has to work with. I think this is a good starting point for gauging how capitalistic or socialistic our society should be. In times of scarcity, we should socialize and regulate less. In times of plenty, we should socialize and regulate more. I am suggesting that there is not only a balance between socialism and capitalism, but that it is a moving target. Something to think about as you head to the polls.

Ethics to Politics

How to Choose a Party

Political parties are generally formed based on feelings about specific social/government issues. Should the government do X? Should it stay out of Y? Should the government tax more or less... spend more or less? But should we really be forming political positions based on feelings? I don't think so. The stakes are too high. We need to really think these things through.

Think about the sentence:
What government should do needs to be figured out.
The word "should" is a reference to ethics.
The phrase "figured out" is a reference to epistemology.

You see, the right system of government is built based upon a specific epistemology and ethical framework. In general, we can see where we might land on political issues depending on where we have landed in the  epistemological and ethical departments. Consider the following table:

System	Evidentialism	Philosophical Skepticism	Authoritarianism
Objective Egoism	Democratic Capitalism	Individualist Anarchism	Dictatorial Capitalism
Objective Altruism	Democratic Socialism	Collectivist Anarchism	Dictatorial Socialism
Utilitarianism	Democracy	Anarchism	Dictatorship

Now, I know that Egoists can advocate Socialism and Evidentialists can advocate a Dictatorship but those positions would be cognitively dissonant with one another. The table above attempts to estimate where someone would probably land if they thought about how their philosophical views affect their political views.

The Table Explained

Evidentialism leads to Democracy. Evidentialists agree that no individual has a monopoly on truth. Just like science works using a peer review process, so does government function with a democratic voting process. Evidence has to be checked and cross-checked.

Philosophical Skepticism leads to Anarchy. Since knowledge about what the government should (or should not) do is impossible, the government shouldn't do anything. Since subjective feelings guide the philosophical skeptic, everyone should just do what they want.

Authoritarianism leads to Dictatorship. Placing your guide to reality on a person (or a book) instead of evidence naturally leads to a government that is structured that way. Weather that arbitrarily selected guide is a king (monarchy), a small group of elite (oligarchy), or a holy book (theocracy) each is still a form of dictatorship.

Egoism leads to Capitalism. This connection should be easy to see. Egoism values self interest. Capitalism is a system that values and is driven by self interest.

Altruism leads to Socialism. Rejecting yourself in favor of others naturally leads to the rejection of private property. Holding a good for yourself (privately) is principally selfish. The only system based on these principles is Socialism.

Utilitarianism is Capitalist/Socialist neutral. A Utilitarian isn't concern with the Capitalism/Socialism dichotomy. He just wants a system that makes the broadest number of people happy. Sometimes that might mean a capitalistic approach. Other times it may mean a socialistic approach. The framework we choose for each government related question is based on happiness outcomes, not on the intrinsic focus of the system.

It should be clear now that I think any good government starts with a foundation of democracy. I hope you think that too.

Objecting about Objectivity

Why Objectivity Matters

Someone might ask why an ethical system needs to be objective. The answer comes in the form of another question: "Why come up with an ethical system in the first place?" The answer is so that we can make moral judgement and evaluate behavior according to a moral standard. In a subjective ethical system, the only person in a position to evaluate one's behavior is himself. If we want to evaluate someone else's behavior in a social society, we need an objective ethical system.

What About Objective Forms of Egoism & Altruism?

This is great question! Egoism & Altruism as defined in the previous post are subjective. However, there is a way to define them that objectifies them. Consider the following table:

System	Subjective Form	Objective Form
Egoism	Pursue happiness for myself.	Pursue happiness for myself AND allow others to do the same.
Altruism	Pursue happiness for others.	Pursue happiness for others AND graciously accept altruism from others.
Utilitarianism	N/A	Pursue happiness for all men including yourself.

If we eliminate the two subjective systems we are still left with three candidate ethical systems. How do we justify our selection given that all three systems are useful and objective? Just ask yourself something basic:
"Who's happiness is more valuable? Mine? Or yours?"
The objective answer is that our happiness is equally valuable. Only Utilitarianism recognizes this reality. The other two systems irrationally focus on one which is actually equal in value to the other.

Why Not Objective Egoism?

Objectivism is the most prominent philosophy that defends Objective Egoism (even though they define it in subjective terms). Advocates of Objective Egoism will attack Utilitarianism claiming that considering the happiness of all equally places an impossible burden on everyone. However, considering all men equally does not mean influencing all men equally. The fact is that we are closer to certain people more than others. We can affect change in certain lives more than others. We are finite and limited. Utilitarianism can and should be applied in the context of this fact of reality.
We humans spend a vast majority of our time taking care of our own needs and wants. Is this compatible with Utilitarianism? I say "absolutely yes!" The happiness of everyone is (generally) most efficiently maximized by having each individual look after their own needs and wants. Who else is better suited to fulfill your needs and desires than you? For most of us, the answer is no one. In this sense, a kind of secondary egoism plays a significant role in a well designed utilitarian philosophy.
Even though Utilitarianism and Objective Egoism are fundamentally different, they agree on a great deal when it comes time for practical application.

Why Not Objective Altruism?

Objective Altruists will try to attack Utilitarianism and Objective Egoism claiming that they lead to selfishness, which is "intrinsically bad". They will often reach this conclusion because they feel that selfishness is just bad. Not only is this appeal to emotion fallacious, it's also generally untrue.
It turns out that, if you use your moral intuitions as a guide, selfishness can easily play a positive role. We feed ourselves, think for ourselves, protect ourselves from harm, and enjoy our lives. These things are all selfish and they all seem good to our moral intuitions.

Why Utilitarianism

Again, I want to suggest that my happiness is equal in value to any other normal human being on this planet. This fact is what brings us to Utilitarianism instead of other ethical systems.

Who's Happiness?

This is a continuation of my discussion on ethics. If haven't read my last few blog posts, you might want to read the ones on purpose & morality for some context first.

Three Systems

Once you arrive at the conclusion that morality is about the happiness of intelligent agents, there follows a very important question: Who's happiness should I be morally concerned with? There are three schools of thought on this question:

1. Egoism: The idea that morality is concerned exclusively with one's own happiness.
2. Altruism: The idea that morality is concerned exclusively with the happiness of others.
3. Utilitarianism: The idea that morality is concerned with both one's own happiness and the happiness of others.

While we examine these three ethical systems, it's important to understand that we are, fundamentally, attempting to define what we mean when we say "morality." A good definition needs to be:

1. Useful (giving us a method for determining the morality of a given action.)
2. Objective (giving us the same answer regardless of who's perspective we happen to have.)

Usefulness

As far as usefulness is concerned, all three systems seem to fit the bill. It is clear established weather or not the happiness of each affected entity should be weighed. Egoism is cognitively the easiest because there is only one entity to consider. Altruism and Utilitarianism, however, are more complex because more than one entity may be under consideration. In political decisions, even entire populations would have to be considered.

How much weight of consideration would we give each affected entity under Altruism or Utilitarianism? The rational answer to that should go back to the root of morality and values: intelligent agency. The degree with which an agent is "intelligent" is the same degree with which we give it moral consideration. This has some fascinating implications with respect to controversial issues like abortion & the humane treatment of livestock. But we'll save exploring that for another time.

Regardless of the added complexity associated with Altruism and Utilitarianism, they are still very useful and provide clearly defined guidelines for establishing the morality of a given action. All three systems pass this first test.

Objectivity & Equality

As far as objectivity is concerned, only Utilitarianism gets a passing grade. It should be clear that Egoism and Altruism are subjective (by definition) since they define morality in the context of a particular perspective. Consider what would happen if two men stumbled upon a diamond in the dirt at the same time:

1. If the two men were Egoists, they might fight each other for it if the happiness derived from walking away with the entire diamond is worth more than the cost of taking a few punches. The outcome is both good (for the man who walks away with the diamond) and bad (for the man who lost.)
2. If the two men were Altruists, they might encourage the other man to take it leading to an endless tautology of selflessness: "You take it"; "No, you take it"; "No, I insist, you take it". In the end, one of them might give in. If so, that outcome would be morally bad (for the taker) and good (for the other man).
3. If the two men were Utilitarian, they might recognize that their interest and right to the diamond is objectively equal. They would seek out a way to maximize the happiness derived from the diamond between the two of them. This might mean taking it together to a pawn shop and splitting the earnings. Both men derived happiness from the event and no one was left in a state of unnecessarily suffering.

The interest of any man, if viewed objectively, is no more important than the interest of any other. This observation of equality is foundational to establishing a proper understanding of morality. Utilitarianism, then, is the proper moral system of choice.

Values, Morality & Happiness

Just as the concept of purpose is derived from intent, so is the concept of value. When something is able to fulfill its purpose, we call that thing "valuable." A car only has value if it runs. Value is also tied with the concept of desire. Follow an object's chain of purpose to the intelligent agents that gives it value and you will see what I mean. If all of humanity no longer wanted to travel anywhere, cars would no longer have any value. Also, if all the oil and gas on Earth suddenly vanished, cars would no longer have any value. So let's establish the prerequisites for value:

1. The object must have a purpose (given by an intelligent agent.)
2. The object must be in such a condition that it can fulfill its purpose.
3. The object must be desired by (by an intelligent agent) for its purpose.

Think about these three conditions for a while. You should begin to see that "value" simply describes the purpose relationship between an intelligent agent and another object.

Self-Assigned Value

If value is the purpose relationship between an intelligent agent and an object and intelligent agents are self-purposed, then it follows that intelligent agents are the beginning of value. This makes perfect sense when you consider a hypothetical universe that has no intelligent agents... just rocks, planets & galaxies bumping into one another. Is there any value in such a universe? Does the concept of value even make sense in that universe? I don't see how.
As intelligent beings, humans define their own purpose. This means that the "ultimate" value is a direct function of our own desires. Stated another way, the existence of desires from intelligent beings is the source of any meaningful value. This is how I understand the solution to the classical "is/ought" distinction. Our desires exist ("is") and so we have values ("ought").

Happiness: The Highest Value

To reach the final step in my value system, we need to make two basic observations:

1. Happiness, by definition, is is a desirable experience.
2. Morality, by definition, is ideal (or desirable) behavior.

The conclusion to reach, then, is that morality is fundamentally about the happiness of intelligent agents. More happiness is what we call "good" and less happiness is what we call "bad."

Morality, then, is the science of maximizing the happiness of intelligent agents.

What About Purpose?

Before we can approach the topic of morality in an atheistic context, we need to address a more basic issue that theists often bring to the discussion: purpose. It is frequently claimed that an atheistic world-view offers no "ultimate" purpose or meaning. Let's unpack that assertion.

What is Purpose?

If you look up "purpose" in the dictionary, you will see immediately that purpose is function of creative intent. We make pencils for the purpose of communicating. We make cars for the purpose of traveling. In this sense of the word, the claim that humanity has no "purpose" is legitimate because purpose is only a property of created things. Let's call this "intrinsic purpose."
However, things that were not created can be given purpose by creative entities. Consider a shard of obsidian. It wasn't crafted by an intelligence but by natural volcanic forces. Even so, men in Earth's early history picked up obsidian shards and used them as cutting tools. In other words, it seems that purpose can be given by an intelligent entity. Let's call this "extrinsic purpose."

Intrinsic Ultimate Purpose

What is meant by "ultimate purpose"? Let's consider the definition of ultimate purpose as "the end of a purpose chain." First let's try this in the context of intrinsic purpose.
Consider a pencil sharpener. What is it's "ultimate purpose"? Well, it's direct purpose is to sharpen pencils. But then we must ask, "What is the purpose of a pencil?" The pencil's direct purpose is human communication, etc, etc. We could follow this chain of purpose until we reach the end.

1. The purpose of a pencil sharpener is to service a pencil.
2. The purpose of a pencil is to service human communication.
3. The purpose of human communication is to service humanity.
4. Humanity has no intrinsic purpose; it was not created.

This chain ends with nothing. We would say the pencil sharpener has no "intrinsic ultimate purpose." What if there was a God?

1. The purpose of a pencil sharpener is to service a pencil.
2. The purpose of a pencil is to service human communication.
3. The purpose of human communication is to service humanity.
4. The purpose of humanity is to serve/worship God.
5. God has no intrinsic purpose; it was not created.

It seems that, even if there were a God, there would still be no "intrinsic ultimate purpose." Adding God in the chain doesn't stop us from concluding that God has no purpose external to himself.

Extrinsic Ultimate Purpose

The theist might interject at this point and claim that God gives himself his own purpose. Such a claim is certainly legitimate if we are allowing extrinsic purpose to enter the discussion. Just as the un-created obsidian shard is given purpose by an intelligence, so to can an un-created God be given purpose by an intelligence (himself.)

However, this kind of reasoning supposes that intelligent agencies can give themselves "extrinsic ultimate purpose." And if that is so, then humans can also give themselves "extrinsic ultimate purpose." This is the beginnings for a moral framework based on human values: humanism.

Intelligent Agents Give Purpose

It should be noted that any intelligent agency is capable of manufacturing extrinsic purpose. Purpose is something that is established once an intelligence makes up its mind toward some goal. Even in a theistic framework, humans can manufacture purpose for themselves.

At least one intelligent agent is necessary for a rational framework of purpose, but not God specifically. To think that God is necessary for purpose is to confuse the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic purpose.

Why You Shouldn't Believe in God

Should you believe in God? The answer to this question is exquisitely clear once you understand a few things about the nature of the "god" concept.

When Pigs Fly

Believing in God is a lot like believing in a species of pig that can fly. Both beliefs...

• lack a method by which you could test it. (non-falsifiable)
• have no physical (repeatable, testable, scientific) evidence to back them up.
• violate our current understanding of the world based on physical (repeatable, testable, scientific) evidence.
• rely exclusively on "eye-witness" testimony for validation.

You don't have to be rocket scientist to know that beliefs fitting these criteria epistemologically cry out for our disbelief. But if you remain unconvinced, let's get straight to the heart of my disbelief. In particular, the third bullet point: they violate our current understanding of the world.

"Supernatural" Really Means "Anti-natural"

You and I don't believe in flying pigs (even if someone claimed they saw one) primarily because their existence would be inconsistent with things we know about the world we live in:

• Pigs don't have wings (at least not naturally.)
• Pigs lack an aerodynamic shape, size and density. The lift generated from the pig's wings would be insufficient to sustain flight.

God belief is similar because the "god" concept would also be inconsistent with something we know about the world:

• Intelligence is a direct consequence of physical brains.

To accept that God exists is to deny (at least in part) that intelligence is a product of brains. This is the trouble with supernatural claims in general (water to wine, resurrection, reincarnation, etc.) Metaphysically, they claim something that's "beyond" nature. An existence behind existence as it were. Epistemologically, they claim something that's contrary to nature (as we know it.) Putting verifiable, scientific facts against the "someone said so" of testimony should be a no-brainer.

What About Abductive Reasoning?

Some people (usually Christians) will point to God as the "best" explanation for some event or feature of the natural world (cosmological anthropics, the resurrection, etc.) To understand why I reject this form of reasoning, read my previous post on abductive reasoning. God is like the "invisible aliens" explanation in that post. We don't have any knowledge about "god" nor do we have any positive evidence for it. Before you can abduct to an explanation, you must first have some inductive knowledge about that explanation that justifies suspecting it.

What are your thoughts on the God question? Are there any epistemological angles that I am neglecting?

The Mad Scientist Problem

The Problem

Let's imagine we have a mad scientist who is performing an experiment on a caged man who is unaware the mad scientist exists. In order to get food, the man must press a button on a food dispenser. However, the dispenser is rigged to deliver a mild electric shock to the man 50% of the time. After some time, the man learns that there is about a 50% chance of shock. At this point, the mad scientist then alters the machine to deliver a shock 75% of the time without the man's knowledge. This problem has a two questions:

1. Without further button pressing, does the man "know" there is a 50% chance of shock despite the scientist's alteration?
2. After encountering higher levels of shock, when should the man move from attributing the higher rate to a streak of bad luck to "knowing" the nature of the dispenser has changed?

The Nature of Statistics

The first question is easily answered once you understand something about the nature of statistical knowledge: We are using knowledge about the past to try and predict the future. When the man claims to know there's a 50% chance of shock, he is not claiming knowledge about specific future outcomes. Instead, he is claiming knowledge about the past and using that knowledge to infer the nature of the dispenser.
Here the man is making a legitimate provisional assumption: the nature of reality is consistent. In physics, we make the same kind provisional assumptions. In fact, these assumptions have names: Uniformitarianism and Methodological Naturalism. We assume that the universe has a specific nature and it will always behave according to that nature... whatever that nature might be.
One might assert that the man really doesn't "know" the dispenser has a 50% chance of shock because its not "true" anymore. This is nothing more than an appeal to the unknown to invalidate what is known. The very same  flaw we discovered in Philosophical Skepticism.
The profound truth is that all our knowledge is based on past experience. If we allow this to cripple our knowledge of the future, we are left with nothing to work with rationally. The whole point of reason, logic & thinking is to make future predictions. Without this element, "knowledge" is useless.
The only rational answer to the first question is "yes."

Something's Up

The answer to the second question is a bit fuzzier and a little misleading. There is no specific point at which the man suddenly changes his mind about the nature of the dispenser. Rather, the change becomes increasing apparent with each successive trial. A good rule of thumb statistically is that 1000 trials offers roughly a 3% margin of error... although to be fair, there are variables in this calculation that are simply not known. Weather the man averages the last 100 trials or the last 1000 trials, he will eventually arrive at the correct conclusion: the nature of the food dispenser has changed.

The A+ Problem

As promised, here is the first example of Foundational Evidentialism in practice:

The Problem

Your child comes home and claims they got an A+ (100%) on a recent math test. Do you take their word for it or demand more evidence (e.g. the graded exam paper)? Here's the relevant evidence:

• Your child has been historically honest about their exam grades 72/75 times.
• Your child's math grades are typically C (70%) average with a standard deviation of 10%.

If this is starting to sound like a math problem, you'd be right. Typically in real life, our minds will estimate these values (and the answer) for us unconsciously and quickly. We might even include other factors we are unaware of. These subjective estimations are easily thrown off by subtle cues, childhood indoctrination, personal disposition or any degree of altered state of mind. We are using hard numbers in this example to keep the answer as objective as possible.

Cause and Effect

Establishing the accuracy of truth claims like this one requires understanding that testimony is part of a cause and effect relationship. Regardless of weather or not your child actually got the A+, you know that they did claim it. The fact that they claimed it is an effect. Our job, in this logic problem, is to establish the most likely cause of that effect. Here are the most likely causes:

• The child is lying about their grade
• The child actually got an A+

There are, of course, other possible causes... perhaps the child is being mind-controlled by invisible aliens or perhaps the child is a clone impersonator from the 4th dimension. We don't consider these possibilities. Why not? Two reasons:

1. No Knowledge. We don't exactly know anything about "invisible aliens" or "clone impersonators." We don't know anything about their likelihood as candidates for an explanatory cause. By contrast, we know a lot about the honesty of children. In this case, we even have data regarding the specific child's honesty and academic records.
2. No Positive Evidence. I happen to know a little about exobiology (alien life), "extra" dimensions and cloning. My knowledge about these related concepts tell me that these hypotheses are inconsistent with repeated observations. So, given the only evidence about these hypotheses is negative, they shouldn't be considered. It only makes sense to consider explanations with at least some positive evidence.

It's important to note that these excluded explanations are not "ruled out" per se. They are still possibilities... There's just no logical justification for including them in the reasoning process.

Abductive Reasoning

This kind of reasoning (comparing the relative likelihood of competing explanations) is called abductive reasoning. In this form of reasoning, we don't judge the likelihood of each explanation independently. Instead, we compare their relative likelihoods and proceed with the most likely explanation. Let's get to it...

Doing the Math

First, let's consider the odds that the child is lying. Calculating this value is easy, since it is practically given:

Second, let's consider the odds that the child got an A+. This calculation requires a strong understand of probability distribution functions and calculus:

At this point, it should be clear that you should ask to see the graded exam before taking your child at their word. Perhaps if the child was more honest and/or got better grades, the result would have been different. Either way, there is a clear, objective method for figuring out weather or not you should believe someone when they make a claim. That is point of this exercise.

The Three Branches of Evidentialism

If we work with the definitions of truth and knowledge as laid out in previous posts, then we begin to see an epistemology form that looks a lot like evidentialism. Evidence can be strong or weak with respect to a conclusion just like we can have varying degrees of certainty with respect to our knowledge. A perfect fit.

In philosophy, it generally goes uncontested that beliefs should be supported by evidence. It doesn't really make sense to have it any other way. But isn't there a problem here? Don't our beliefs about evidence have to be supported by evidence also? We could be stuck here forever wondering about how to justify the evidence for the evidence for the evidence for the evidence of something. No matter what we do, true justification is out of reach... or is it?

Philosophers have thought about this "infinite chain of evidence" problem. However, there are varying positions available on how to solve it.

Philosophical Skepticism

In this view, no belief is truly justified. This position essentially gives up on trying to justify any belief at all because it claims the problem is unsolvable. This position is useless to me. If justification is impossible, what's the point of even thinking about all this stuff? I need a system that helps me form beliefs as accurately as possible... not one that prevents me from forming any at all... or worse, makes belief arbitrary.

Coherentism

In this view, the beliefs at the end of the chain are justified if they all harmonize and make sense together. While this does solve our "infinite chain" problem, it creates another. This easily allows for beliefs that have no basis in reality. I can come up with a complex set of coherent beliefs about the intricacies of what happens to me after I die... but that doesn't mean those beliefs are true. If we don't have assurances that those beliefs are true, they cannot be justified. Having assurance of truth is, after all, what justification is all about.

Foundational Evidentialism

In this view, the beliefs at the end of the chain are justified when they are "self-evident." In the most common form of Foundational Evidentialism (aka Foundationalism), self-evident beliefs are formed directly from our senses. When we hear a bird or see a sun-rise, these things are self-evident.

This system ensures that our beliefs will be based in reality because sensory perception is the foundation for all other derivative beliefs. This also solves the "infinite chain" problem by ending each chain in something seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, etc.

Our method of justification, then, is to start with the truth claim and work logically backward toward the self-evident observations that justify it. It also gives us a means of discovering (unclaimed) truth, which is the same method in reverse: Start with self-evident observations and work logically forward toward the truth. This is the foundation of the scientific method and science has proved its usefulness time and time again.

In the next post, we'll examine a few examples and see how Foundational Evidentialism is used in practical, everyday situations.

Three Working Definitions of Knowledge

Knowledge is a little more difficult to pin down than truth. Understanding what knowledge is begins with its definition and one's theory of knowledge is guided by this definition. Remember, "knowledge" is just a word... not a metaphysical thing that's "out there somewhere." We ought to select a definition that's useful to us and easily communicated.
Here are the three major definitions I have ran into:

Absolute Knowledge

(Championed by Immanuel Kant & Philosophical Skepticism)
Knowledge is only that which we know to be true with absolute, 100% certainty. I haven't really found this definition to be useful, since (under this definition) no one "knows" anything. Knowledge is an impossibility; metaphysically unreachable for any mind with limited knowledge. This is easily demonstrated through a syllogism:
Premise 1) Human minds have limited knowledge.
Premise 2) What one does not know may render prior knowledge incorrect.
Conclusion) Humans can't know anything.

Kant readily accepts this conclusion. This doesn't lead me to think I can never know anything. Instead, it leads me to look for a better definition. Perhaps a more useful one?

Contextual Knowledge

(Championed by Ayn Rand & Objectivism)
Knowledge is only that which we know to be true with absolute, 100% certainty as framed in our knowledge context. This definition is a little more difficult to grasp and requires further explanation.
This model disregards that which is outside our knowledge and evaluates certainty only in the context of existing knowledge. For example, in the context of Newton's observations, Newton had certain knowledge that F = ma described the relationship between force and mass. In the context of Einstein's observations, Einstein had certain knowledge that F = ma was wrong and that  described the relationship between force and mass.
According to this model, both men had certain knowledge about force in the context of all their knowledge. I find this aspect of the definition difficult. I have found it a complex en-devour to communicate well with others using this definition of knowledge. This is because what is certainly true for one person may be certainly false for another. To me, this takes away from the intuitive objectivity of knowledge. If something is certainly true, it must be true for all observers.

Uncertain Knowledge

(Championed by Evidentialism)
Knowledge is that which we know to be true with varying degrees of certainty. No knowledge is ever 100% certain (unless one is omniscient.) In this view, knowledge exists in a spectrum of certainty rather than as an absolute. For example, we may know that things that are almost certainly false (a man flying without the aid of technology), things that are unlikely to be true (me winning the lottery), things that could be true or false (even number of grass blades in my yard), things that are likely to be true (me waking up tomorrow morning), and things that are almost certainly true (Einstein's general relativity).
Like Rand's model, we use the context of our observations and existing knowledge to reach conclusions about new observations. However, because of man's limited knowledge, everything we know is regarded with some degree of uncertainty... however small.

If you haven't already guessed, I favor this definition of knowledge. It is the one I will be using throughout the remainder of my discussion of epistemology... Unless you can convince me a different definition would be more useful and easily communicated?

What Is Truth?

What is truth? Is it objective, something outside us? Is it subjective, something exclusively in our minds? These kinds of questions can be tricky but they don't have to be. Let's start by defining our terms. I like this particular wording from Merriam-Webster because it gives us a definition that is useful:
truth the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality


This definition alone starts to clear up some of the questions we might have about truth.

Objective or Subjective?

objective (link)
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
subjective (link)
characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

In one sense, truth (as defined above) can be thought of as subjective. It's a construct of concepts that correspond (are in accord) with objective reality and concepts are of the mind. When the mind goes, the concepts do as well. This is not to say that truth is whatever we want it to be. On the contrary, truth has to correspond to reality. If this correspondence fails, the concept you hold is not true. Truth seems to hold elements of subjectivity and objectivity. It acts as a bridge between subjective experience and objective reality. This is how I see truth.

Consider a metaphor. Like truth it corresponds to something.

Metaphor: Electric circuits are like rivers.
In this metaphor, the "river" is what we have in our minds. The subjective component of the metaphor.
"Electric circuits" are what really exist. The objective component of the metaphor.
Truth Claim: Gravity pulls matter toward itself.
In this truth claim, there are concepts that compose it: gravity, pulling, matter, direction, etc. These concepts break down into other concepts until we get to something that is perceived by our senses. All of this stuff is utterly mind-dependent. In a word, it's subjective.
All of these concepts, however, come together to describe something that other minds can experience independent of my own. These concepts correspond to something: reality. That is the objective component of truth.

What do you think about this model of truth? Is it correct? Is it... true?

Epistemology

Epistemology tries to answer questions like:

1. What is knowledge?
2. What is truth?
3. How should we form beliefs?
4. How do I know what I know?

When thinking about which epistemology is correct, we come across an interesting paradox. How do we know that a certain epistemology is correct? To answer that question, we'd have to have an epistemology already established.... and whether you realize it or not, you already do. If you think you know anything at all, you have an epistemology. You can't have knowledge without a method of acquiring it. It just doesn't make sense. Maybe you haven't thought about it explicitly before. Maybe you don't always apply it consistently to everything you call "knowledge." But you do have an epistemology.
As we weigh various epistemologies against one another, here are the criteria I think we should be looking for:

1. Internal Consistency. Does the method make sense? Are we guaranteed not to arrive at contradictory knowledge with this method?
2. Usefulness. Knowledge is a tool and it should be demonstrably useful. Does the method help us with real-life day-to-day scenarios? Does it produce workable, useful results?
3. Reality-Based. Knowledge is about the truth of reality. Does this method link us to reality in a coherent and logical way?
4. Complete. Does the method define the terms knowledge, truth & belief? Does it lay out specific methods to follow for discovering knowledge?

These are just my idea of what a good epistemology is. Do you think these are valid criteria? Would you perhaps add you own? Would you remove one of my mine? Let me know what you think and why in the comments section.

After we get this nailed down, we will take a look at some specific epistemologies and see how they measure up.

What is Philalethea?

Philalethea?

It is an invented word from the Greek:

• "Philo" is a prefix meaning "love of"... just like philosophy is the "love of wisdom."
• "Alethea" is the word for "Truth"

That should really sum it up about me and the purpose behind this blog. When I engage in discussion about philosophical topics, I don't just want to hear arguments for each side and then stop. The end-game in philosophy is to form well-thought views that correspond to reality; views that are true.

Philosophical View Testing

I have a lot of views on a lot of different philosophical topics... and I am betting you do too! I don't want to just push my own views. I think my views are correct... but just because I think that doesn't mean they are. What better way to test my views than in a public context where they can be subjected to criticism and critique from others. "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." (Proverbs 27:17)

If we are lucky, we might even come to consensus in the course of discussion. And if we do, then it is worth the time.

Where to Start

A natural starting point for this blog will be a more detailed exposition of my own philosophical views. It's my hope that this will be a catalyst for discussion. In the end, I would like to spend a majority of my time responding to detractors (people who disagree with my views.) I would like to consider them and weigh them publicly and openly. I hope you'll join me on this journey toward a more collaborative and convergent philosophy.