Methods Of Inquiry

I hope to explore the different understandings we have in regards to how we ascertain Truth.
We seem to be constantly bickering in many threads as to who is right and who is wrong about various ideas and notions.
So, I thought we should examine how we arrive at "what we know", and leave out the particular things we think we know about.
At least in this thread.

So I'll start with an examination of Faith.
As we all have at least some faith in our convictions.

I'll post the following and then add more later after we discuss (or ignore) what I wrote!

(This is all based upon the book Philosophy: An Introduction, Randall and Buchler)​

 

Part I​

Faith​

We all have certain beliefs that we hold in relation to our understanding of the world.
These beliefs become habitual as we continually use them to make sense of what we experience on a day-to-day bases.
This habitual reliance on our beliefs leads to a conservative mindset as we develop Faith in those beliefs.

This faith in our beliefs can take on different forms.

Faith based on Tenacity
If we believe in something even when confronted with any evidence to the contrary, we have developed a Tenacious aversion to the disruption of our comfort level. We tend to ignore or avoid anything that would upset our emotions and/or require a level of intellectual effort.

Faith based on Will
If we believe in something in spite of a lack of evidence, we do it because we Want to believe. Even though there is no evidence for our belief, we don't really care.

Faith based on Experience
Finally we have faith based on what we have experienced in the past. We have faith that even if we presently experience something that causes us doubt, we still believe that further investigation will confirm our past convictions.

In Faith based on Tenacity, emotion overrides intellect.
In Faith based on Will, mental conflict overrides intellect.
In Faith based on Experience, relies on an intellectual analysis of the past.

So we have three different types of Faith.

 

In philosophy the term Common Sense is not used to mean a trait of someone who has basic intelligence or basic shrewdness, as in "He has common sense".

Common sense in philosophy is sense or belief that is common.
As in, we all believe that food will satisfy hunger, water will put out a fire, and so on. These beliefs are based on basic everyday living. All that we need to establish these beliefs are functioning senses, memory, and rudimentary thought processes. They form the bases for the more deliberate beliefs that are built upon them.
We are not really going to get into the basic Common beliefs that allow us to function on a daily bases, but will be looking at more advanced thought processes.

 

I'll be getting to that!....Stay tuned!

 

Part II​

Sources of Faith​

​

We have looked at three types of Faith.

Faith based on Tenacity, or Emotion.
Faith based on Will, or avoidance of Mental Conflict.
Faith based Past Experience.

Now we will look at the origin of these different types of Faith.

The first source of Faith is Authority.

Any belief that is not arrived at independently, is based on an Authoritarian source. That is, the individual transfers his independent responsibility for the belief to another individual or organization.
The transference must be complete as any doubt as to the reality of the belief will nullify the validity of the Authority source. To question any alternative explanation for the belief, other than that stated by the Authority, is to deny that the Authority is indeed an Authority. The Authority becomes nothing more than another opinion with no more value than any other opinion.
So that any belief based on Authority can not tolerate alternative opinions.

The rational for deferring to an Authoritarian source is that as a common individual can err in their belief, an organization or trained individual is designed or educated for the specific purpose of ascertaining the truth of that belief. A group of individuals, or the training of an individual, will guarantee the validity of the belief. Further, the truth of the belief has withstood the test of time as it has been reviewed by a number of individuals, over time, who comprise the group or train the Authoritarian individual.

But, as an individual an error, so can an organization.
In addition, as the Authoritarian pronouncement can not be questioned (or the organization fails) no advancement of knowledge can be made on that subject. Any errors made by the Authority are immune from inspection and errors are then perpetuated along with truths.
Finally, if we grant that the Authority is sound in its pronouncements, or beliefs, we will always find that there are multiple Authorities.
And now we must determine which Authority is the final Authority. But the only way to do this, if will stick to the Authoritarian method of validating our Faith in a belief, is to appeal to a higher Authority. Which in turn can be disputed. And we end up with an infinite search for the ultimate Authority.

In summery, one source of our faith in a belief is based on Authority.
We assume the Authority is more knowledgeable than we are.
The Authority can not be questioned, as it would no longer be an Authority.
Authorities can also err.
There is no means of determining the Final Authority by using the Authoritarian method of determining our Faith in our Beliefs.

Next: the two types of Authority.​

 

Authority of parents, schools, community, government, etc. We all default to a Faith in Authority to one degree or another, it is one of the basic building blocks of society.

However Absolute Authority is to be avoided, that is why we have safeguards built into our form of government, the cultivation of independent thought by our schools, and the Scientific Method...which we'll get into sooner or later.

 

How so?

Argument from Authority
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct but may be questioned

Argument from Absolute Authority
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is absolutely correct and can not be questioned

What does this have to do with "perceiving anything real is forbidden"?

 

Well let's review for clarity.

How did I get from a method of inquiry to an argument from authority?

I was taking about our beliefs.
I stated that we have faith that our beliefs are accurate.
I outlined three types of faith.

Then I proceeded to start to explain the origin of the faith we have in our beliefs.
One source of faith in our beliefs is based upon our recognition of an authority who we assume knows more than we do. We have in a belief not because of our individual experience, but because of our reliance on some sort of authority separate from us.

If we inquire, "Is the Earth flat?" And if we do not resort to direct experience to resolve that question but instead accept the opinion of a religious book or a scientific paper, we have used an authority source as a method of resolving the inquiry.

While that is not an argument from authority it is a method resolving an inquiry.
An argument from authority would be to present an argument based on an authoritarian source.

The distinction between absolute authority and authority will become clearer once we investigate the different types of authority.
For example, a Dictatorship would be a form of an absolutely authoritarian government. Whatever the dictator dictates is final, he is the only authority allowed in that form of government.
A Representative Republic is an example of a government not based on absolute authority. While the government is authoritarian, the authority is broken down so that it may be challenged by different branches of that government and even by the governed themselves.