On Beliefs & Justification
Posted in Epistemology, Logic, Thinking Critically on | 3 minutes | 3 Comments →
I was skating this morning when I encountered a most interesting situation that reminded me of an online discussion at a certain blog I visit.
A woman was walking west on the sidewalk along 16th Street's westbound lane, as I was skateboarding east (approaching her) also in the westbound lane. A few steps in front of the woman and just to her right sits a pad of concrete that I occasionally like to "ollie" up on and off while in transit. It's fun! However, the woman did not know that I occasionally do this. So, when I ollied onto the sidewalk headed for the concrete pad, she flinched and tried to get out of my way, as she obviously thought I was going to run into her.
Although she was wrong, let's distill this into two hypotheses: The first states that I was fully aware of the woman and actually heading for the concrete pad to do my trick (CP). The second hypothesis states that I wasn't heading for the pad at all, rather skateboarding recklessly (SR). Note that SR and CP are mutually exclusive, and note that only one of them can be correct: I was either skateboarding recklessly and unconcerned for the woman, or I knew exactly where I was going and that she wasn't in harm's way. In actuality – unless she wanted me to run into her (some women are like that here, you know) – I know that she didn't even conceive of CP as a valid hypothesis, because she moved directly into my path. We almost did collide!
Food for thought: Even though she moved into my way as opposed to out of it, was the woman's decision rationally justified? Wasn't she just acting logically on behalf of all the currently available evidence? If so, how would things change if the woman had known about the CP prior? Would her decision to move remain rationally justified? What if the two winos across the street had taken to arguing about the matter, with one wino claiming I knew what I was doing and the other claiming I was skateboarding recklessly? Although only one wino could be correct, wouldn't both winos be rationally justified sans further evidence? In other words, even though only one can be correct, neither of their claims are out in left field.
At the very least, can't we say that neither wino is talking irrationally? Why or why not?
Dominic Saltarelli
says...Dude, she flinched. Just how much time did she have to think about the situation before reacting? There’s nothing rational about dodging, you just do it.
And the wino supporting the CP theory would clearly have the upper hand.
Keeping your balance on a skateboard clearly indicates you know what your doing and suggests an intent to stay on the board, so that you could keep skateboarding. Further observation I’m sure would also reveal that you were looking forward at the time and knew what was in front of you, and thus were aware of the woman’s location.
I’m sure there are other pertinent facts that could be highlighted, but these I think are sufficient to lend substantial weight to the CP and weaken the SR such that the CP is the more rational of the two.
The only way to level the field between the two would be to start introducing unknowns as possibilities (what if the skateboarder is a perv who just wanted to faceplant into her boobs, etc…) rather than deal with just the objective facts at hand.
I also realize that I just gave you the idea to purposefully faceplant into a woman’s boobs and then play it off as an accident.
You’re welcome.
cl
says...Dominic, I realize that the woman’s action was certainly instinctual, perhaps even entirely. I knew that going into this, and that was the reason for the “if she’d known about the CP” question.
I hesitate to claim the CP has the upper hand. There are possibilities equally reasonable as the CP. As one example, here in San Francisco, people absolutely freak out and take any means necessary when they believe they’re about to miss the bus. The woman was smack-dab between two bus stops, with a bus approaching one right where the winos were, incidentally the same direction in which I was headed. Is it not reasonable I was headed for the bus, and being careless in my panic state? I’ve seen grown adults maul one another to catch a $2 MUNI ride.
Lastly, excepting the most absolute sense, I disagree that any one thing can be “more rational” than another. To me, rationality and the lack thereof are Boolean. I’ve not heard a good case for ‘degrees of rationalism’ or anything similar.
Now that takes the standard “purposely fall in front of a pretty girl and play it off with confidence” strategy to whole ‘nother level!
Dominic Saltarelli
says...Well, replace “more rational” with “more justified belief” then. Just so long as you get my point.
And rushing to catch a bus is an unknown. While you could have been doing so, it also equally possible that you were not. They did however have the shared observation that you were looking forward and could thus see the woman in front of you.
Like I said, in order to equalize the hypothesis, you have to start introducing unknown factors to raise up the SR, which makes it the weaker of the two hypothesis.
Now, as far as applying your strict definition of rationality, if the question is Boolean, then they’re both rational. I just wasn’t viewing the “rationality” of a hypothesis in that manner.