Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Münchhausen trilemma

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#51

Post by stcredzero »

humanrebar wrote: post #2

In the situations where Münchhausen trilemma is applicable, people tend to use a version of abductive reasoning, which is finding the simplest narrative or explanation that fits the known facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning It's important to keep the Münchhausen trilemma and abductive reasoning in mind when discussion controversial issues where one side feels they have proof and the other side is…

abductive reasoning, which is finding the simplest narrative or explanation that fits the known facts.

The problem there, is figuring out what "simplest" means. To many people, "God" seems like the simplest explanation for the universe, even though what the word implies is very complex. It's the same phenomenon as people who say, "Scientists can't explain magnets, the liars!" Magnets seem like a magical extra, but it turns out that electromagnetism is a fundamental. It's a rock sitting on a tabletop that's complex and turns out to need explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMSaCrcAmM

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#52

Post by dmreedy »

Maybestring wrote: post #48
the_af wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, I don't think people really debate emotionally charged issues from first principles. I think it's an error to think of this as a matter of logical axioms. That's not how people (usually) debate.

Its obvious that logic isn't a good model for how people form and change opinions. (I just feel that it isn't) So... what's the state of the art?

It's been out of favor since Derrida, but I think Structuralism is due for another pass in the limelight. An extreme subjectivism about reality, shaped by the stimuli you are exposed to. These external stimuli are what define your axioms, and from there, you use the same (fuzzy, bad, and prone to inducing contradctions) logic as everyone else. It provides a compelling model for why people have difficulty reconciling their opinions; they're not even talking about the same things, just using the same words, the same signs.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#54

Post by TimTheTinker »

To me, this is a great illustration that there's no other coherent place to start any form of discussion, reasoning, or belief than with axioms (or assumptions). Regressive and circular arguments only shift the problem.

I believe that if one is looking for truth in a big-picture sense (religious or philosophical), the best approach is to evaluate various existing systems of axioms/assumptions and apply a twofold test to each: (1) correspondence to reality and (2) internal consistency. It's a given that applying the first test requires stepping into the subjective, since one must honestly apply it to personal experience.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#55

Post by ethn »

To be clear this trilemma is only a problem for rationalists, like Hans Albert. This problem doesn't exist for German Idealists like Kant or Schelling or even the empiricists.

You escape the problem of infinite regression through acknowledging that the only thing real is experience, which lends you to the haven of relative objectivity, which is that of which modern science has become.

You would think that the conjurer of the paradox would have shifted to empiricism or idealism—maybe my faith in people betrays me.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#56

Post by tunesmith »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #54

To me, this is a great illustration that there's no other coherent place to start any form of discussion, reasoning, or belief than with axioms (or assumptions). Regressive and circular arguments only shift the problem. I believe that if one is looking for truth in a big-picture sense (religious or philosophical), the best approach is to evaluate various existing systems of axioms/assumptions and apply a twofold test…

Combine it with Hume's Guillotine and you realize that all "should" conclusions really just start with moral "value" axioms.

So then you can make a distinction between people that reason correctly from values that are different than yours, and people that reason badly from their axioms.

And you can also make a distinction between philosophies that are based off of unprovable beliefs (which is fine), and philosophies that are anti-factual (which isn't). I like to define the former as religion and the latter as ignorance, but unfortunately there are a lot of the latter that claim it's religion.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#57

Post by kazinator »

Those three options are not "equally" unsatisfactory. In fact, the axiomatic option is almost always entirely satisfactory. The marvel and utility of an axiomatic foundation cannot be categorically compared to the absurdity of regressing ad infinitum or going in circles.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#58

Post by tunesmith »

Sangermaine wrote: post #33
the_af wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion. Do note that often in this kind of controversial topics, the axioms are not held consistently by a given side (or the actual axioms are hidden and differ from the stated ones). For example, "it's always wrong to end a life [except when bombing abortion clinics | except when…

Well, the real mistake is believing that people think or behave in a consistent manner. All attempts at "rational" debate starts from this flawed premise, and thus always fails.

"All" and "always" are too strong. It's definitely possible to engage in rational debate with an intent to be consistent, and update one's own views when a conflict is discovered. It's just not universally done.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#59

Post by tunesmith »

arf wrote: post #11

Let the set M = {circular, regressive, axiomatic} to be the set of "unsatisfying" arguments that may be used to prove any truth. Let the mapping J: powerset(M) -> to map some subset of M to a theory of justification such that the believers in said theory only find usage of some combination of the said subset to be "acceptable". Then: J({}) is in {Skepticism} J({circular}) is in {Coherentism} J({axiomatic}) is in {Fou…

J({circular, regressive}) is twoyearoldism. Where they ask why incessantly and don't care if you lead them in a circle.

J({regressive, axiomatic}) seems contradictory, so maybe that's {}.

Re: Münchhausen trilemma

#60

Post by stochastic_monk »

kazinator wrote: post #57

Those three options are not "equally" unsatisfactory. In fact, the axiomatic option is almost always entirely satisfactory. The marvel and utility of an axiomatic foundation cannot be categorically compared to the absurdity of regressing ad infinitum or going in circles.

Much like how theorists could take the axiom of choice after the Gödel incompleteness theorems. Sure, it causes inconsistencies, but you can’t get anywhere without them.
Post reply on HN