EPISTEMOLOGY PART 9: THE ARBITRARY
Arbitrary, the Roach Motel of Epistemology
Following the proper cognitive path of reason and its method of logic will allow you to figure out what is true or false in most cases. Even if you make a mistake initially, and hold a view that is false, by adhering to reason you will be able to change your mind when confronted with the evidence. However, there is another cognitive path available to humans, one that is used far too often, that obliterates the concept of true or false. This is the arbitrary. “Arbitrary” means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual. Its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. An arbitrary idea is a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality. Holding arbitrary ideas is worse than holding false ideas, because the mind has completely obliterated any means of objectively identifying ideas in reality, and it has abandoned the mechanism to correct any errors. It's the Roach Motel of epistemology, once you check in, you can't check out!
THE ARBITRARY
Examples of arbitrary statements include someone telling you that their astrological sign of Capricorn has an impact on their destiny, that they were an Arabian princess in a previous life, that they are a psychic, or even that God created the universe. Such statements are not true or false, because in order to determine something is true or false you need to use reason, and reason rests upon the law of identity and identifying things in reality. There is no objective observation or logic that validates astrology, reincarnation or any of the supernatural, as by definition supernatural means something we can't identify (see Metaphysics Part 3). When someone asserts an arbitrary statement, they have broken all the rules of epistemology and therefore cannot be argued with rationally. The only way to deal with an arbitrary statement is to treat it as though nothing had been said, because cognitively nothing has been said! Depending on the social situation, like in a dinner with the in-laws for instance, saying nothing at all might be appropriate, just don't condone or help justify the arbitrary assertion. Most arbitrary beliefs people hold are guarded by intense emotions, and it's often inadvisable and unproductive to try to reason with.
A popular argument among the faithful today towards atheists is "you can't prove there isn't a God." This is true, but that statement is the equivalent to having one's cake and eating it too. You can't violate all the laws of knowledge, come up with an arbitrary statement not based in reality, and then ask someone to obey the proper laws of knowledge to prove the statement wrong! Proving a negative is cognitively impossible, because it involves identifying something that doesn't exist (impossible) and then proving it doesn't exist (impossible). We can't prove that God doesn't exist, nor can we prove that there isn't an invisible pink fairy above my left shoulder following me around. The onus of proof is always on the person who asserts an idea, not the other way around. If someone asserts there is a God, then it's on them to provide evidence. Without proof or evidence that can be grounded in reality, an assertion of the arbitrary should be ignored, unless you want to get bogged down in a useless debate. Most atheists make the mistake of getting trapped into an argument that is unwinnable. The starting point shouldn't be that God is a rational proposition, so what are your reasons for not believing. As a philosopher, the starting point is, existence exists, and I am aware through my consciousness. If looking at the world objectively doesn't provide evidence of a God (which it won't), then there is no reason for the thought to enter the mind, just as there is no reason for demons, gremlins or Santa Claus to enter the mind. You shouldn't be an atheist because you hate religion, think it's cool, or want to piss of your parents. You should be one because it's the default starting point of philosophy, and knowledge should always be based off of reason, not emotion (see Epistemology Part 6). Then, get over yourself. You've avoided one simple (albeit important) error, but hardly something to applaud yourself for once you realize the enormity of the rest of philosophy ahead of you!
Examples of arbitrary statements include someone telling you that their astrological sign of Capricorn has an impact on their destiny, that they were an Arabian princess in a previous life, that they are a psychic, or even that God created the universe. Such statements are not true or false, because in order to determine something is true or false you need to use reason, and reason rests upon the law of identity and identifying things in reality. There is no objective observation or logic that validates astrology, reincarnation or any of the supernatural, as by definition supernatural means something we can't identify (see Metaphysics Part 3). When someone asserts an arbitrary statement, they have broken all the rules of epistemology and therefore cannot be argued with rationally. The only way to deal with an arbitrary statement is to treat it as though nothing had been said, because cognitively nothing has been said! Depending on the social situation, like in a dinner with the in-laws for instance, saying nothing at all might be appropriate, just don't condone or help justify the arbitrary assertion. Most arbitrary beliefs people hold are guarded by intense emotions, and it's often inadvisable and unproductive to try to reason with.
A popular argument among the faithful today towards atheists is "you can't prove there isn't a God." This is true, but that statement is the equivalent to having one's cake and eating it too. You can't violate all the laws of knowledge, come up with an arbitrary statement not based in reality, and then ask someone to obey the proper laws of knowledge to prove the statement wrong! Proving a negative is cognitively impossible, because it involves identifying something that doesn't exist (impossible) and then proving it doesn't exist (impossible). We can't prove that God doesn't exist, nor can we prove that there isn't an invisible pink fairy above my left shoulder following me around. The onus of proof is always on the person who asserts an idea, not the other way around. If someone asserts there is a God, then it's on them to provide evidence. Without proof or evidence that can be grounded in reality, an assertion of the arbitrary should be ignored, unless you want to get bogged down in a useless debate. Most atheists make the mistake of getting trapped into an argument that is unwinnable. The starting point shouldn't be that God is a rational proposition, so what are your reasons for not believing. As a philosopher, the starting point is, existence exists, and I am aware through my consciousness. If looking at the world objectively doesn't provide evidence of a God (which it won't), then there is no reason for the thought to enter the mind, just as there is no reason for demons, gremlins or Santa Claus to enter the mind. You shouldn't be an atheist because you hate religion, think it's cool, or want to piss of your parents. You should be one because it's the default starting point of philosophy, and knowledge should always be based off of reason, not emotion (see Epistemology Part 6). Then, get over yourself. You've avoided one simple (albeit important) error, but hardly something to applaud yourself for once you realize the enormity of the rest of philosophy ahead of you!
Even today, most people aren't atheists, they are "agnostics". To many, it seems like a safe way to hold an opinion without offending others. The term can apply to God or other arbitrary notions, but being agnostic amounts to saying, "I'm not sure. It's possible, but I have no way of knowing, so I'll just say I don't know." Epistemologically, this is like throwing in the towel. First, to say it's "possible" is wrong, as we covered last post that the possible needs evidence. Also, it gives validity to an arbitrary assertion. Is a God possible? What evidence suggests it is? If there is none, then it's wrong to suggest it is possible. Instead of dismissing an arbitrary statement, they have given it validity by saying it can't be proved wrong (which is nonsensical as I showed above). By trying to take the safe road, agnostics are actually making a grave philosophical error that will have repercussions in their minds whether they realize it or not. There are two reasons people become agnostic. One is intellectual cowardice. The other is more sinister, and amounts to a gleeful feeling that someone takes in telling others that nothing is knowable and that their minds are impotent. We'll get more into this in ethics, but it's important to take a definite stand on things that you do know, and not fall into the agnostic trap and play it safe. If you don't have any knowledge on a subject, then that's fine, you just don't know. Just don't give an arbitrary statement validity it doesn't deserve.
Before we end epistemology, well examine a couple fallacies that are arbitrary in nature, but that are ever present in both philosophy, popular culture and drunken debates. You should already have the ammunition to slay them, but just in case, let's see how to smash these fallacies!
Before we end epistemology, well examine a couple fallacies that are arbitrary in nature, but that are ever present in both philosophy, popular culture and drunken debates. You should already have the ammunition to slay them, but just in case, let's see how to smash these fallacies!
THE "MATRIX" FALLACY
This philosophical fallacy existed long before the famous movie, but it's summed up best by referencing it. The argument, by skeptics, generally goes something like this; how do you know you or the world even exists? How do you know you're not just plugged into the Matrix and falsely believe reality exists, when it's just your brain hooked up to a computer?
This is essentially the same arbitrary argument as the religious one above about proving there isn't a God, ironically often put forth by those who think believing in God is silly. Indeed, no one can prove that they're not in the Matrix, just as they can't prove there isn't a God. Both are arbitrary statements, and they can't be proven true or false, because that would require them to enter the field of valid knowledge. The only real response is to ask what evidence someone has that you are plugged into the Matrix. Unless it's Morpheus offering you the red pill, chances are there is no evidence to supply, and the argument must be dismissed.
This philosophical fallacy existed long before the famous movie, but it's summed up best by referencing it. The argument, by skeptics, generally goes something like this; how do you know you or the world even exists? How do you know you're not just plugged into the Matrix and falsely believe reality exists, when it's just your brain hooked up to a computer?
This is essentially the same arbitrary argument as the religious one above about proving there isn't a God, ironically often put forth by those who think believing in God is silly. Indeed, no one can prove that they're not in the Matrix, just as they can't prove there isn't a God. Both are arbitrary statements, and they can't be proven true or false, because that would require them to enter the field of valid knowledge. The only real response is to ask what evidence someone has that you are plugged into the Matrix. Unless it's Morpheus offering you the red pill, chances are there is no evidence to supply, and the argument must be dismissed.
THE "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" FALLACY
This one is used by the faithful and skeptics alike. They both use it to assert the human mind is impotent, but for different reasons. The faithful use it to convince you that your mind is useless alone without God, while the skeptic uses it just to tear down the human mind in general. There are many ways to put forth this fallacy, but one might attempt to show you that you can't even be sure of something simple and obvious. Take gravity, for instance. You might think you're sure that if you drop a glass it will fall to the floor but are you absolutely certain? How can you be? Even if it's been the same your whole life and for thousands of years, how can you be 100% sure it will happen tomorrow, or in 15 minutes? Or, if one is a lazy philosopher they might proclaim the self-refuting phrase, "no one can be certain of anything" (which, to their credit, most serious skeptic philosophers would know better than).
The idea of "absolute certainty" goes above and beyond the scope of human experience and knowledge, and is thus a supernatural, mystical notion. In essence, saying "can you be absolutely certain" means "can you rise above your human consciousness and be all-knowing and omniscient". No, of course not. We can only be contextually certain, which was covered last post. Any claims to absolute certainty requires the supernatural, which is arbitrary and invalid in this world. Any philosopher that puts forth human knowledge can't be valid without absolute certainty misunderstands the nature of our consciousness and ability to reason. Many philosophers have gone down the skeptical road, but it's the most destructive of all roads to go down. Ultimately, it leads to no knowledge and nothingness, as if you are truly consistent you can't know anything, then even the words coming out of your mouth are meaningless. The rest of philosophy not only shouldn't be studied but can't be studied under such detachment of human knowledge from reality.
This one is used by the faithful and skeptics alike. They both use it to assert the human mind is impotent, but for different reasons. The faithful use it to convince you that your mind is useless alone without God, while the skeptic uses it just to tear down the human mind in general. There are many ways to put forth this fallacy, but one might attempt to show you that you can't even be sure of something simple and obvious. Take gravity, for instance. You might think you're sure that if you drop a glass it will fall to the floor but are you absolutely certain? How can you be? Even if it's been the same your whole life and for thousands of years, how can you be 100% sure it will happen tomorrow, or in 15 minutes? Or, if one is a lazy philosopher they might proclaim the self-refuting phrase, "no one can be certain of anything" (which, to their credit, most serious skeptic philosophers would know better than).
The idea of "absolute certainty" goes above and beyond the scope of human experience and knowledge, and is thus a supernatural, mystical notion. In essence, saying "can you be absolutely certain" means "can you rise above your human consciousness and be all-knowing and omniscient". No, of course not. We can only be contextually certain, which was covered last post. Any claims to absolute certainty requires the supernatural, which is arbitrary and invalid in this world. Any philosopher that puts forth human knowledge can't be valid without absolute certainty misunderstands the nature of our consciousness and ability to reason. Many philosophers have gone down the skeptical road, but it's the most destructive of all roads to go down. Ultimately, it leads to no knowledge and nothingness, as if you are truly consistent you can't know anything, then even the words coming out of your mouth are meaningless. The rest of philosophy not only shouldn't be studied but can't be studied under such detachment of human knowledge from reality.
Congratulations, this is the end of Epistemology! A
lot has been covered, and it may be necessary to re-read posts or do
further research on your own to have a proper understanding. The next
step will be to take our rational view of existence and knowledge and
apply it to ourselves, which is the study of ethics.