[lit-ideas] Deciding Not To Believe Anything Without Having A Good Reason For It
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 21:55:20 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 11/28/2013 7:16:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, an
online review of Craig's book, Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction" included:
>What would happen if you decided not to believe anything without having
a
good reason for it?
and W. O. and P. E. are now discussing it. Good!
I find the question is somewhat posed not too grammatically.
We may need to quantify over variables!
I, for one, don't like the use of 'you' as used generally. I actually find
it pretty rude!
So I would rephrase:
State the consequences of a rational agent deciding NOT to believe anything
(here we may need to quantify over propositions) without having a good
reason for it.
There's one negative too many in the phrasing: the 'decide not' (which
would use ~ as a symbol for 'not') and the 'without' (which would also use ~):
double negatives should cancel out.
There may be an affirmative way to state the question, but then blame the
reviewer.
The use of 'good' is, as W. O. notes, a bit of 'moral' epistemology. Or
not.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Deciding Not To Believe Anything Without Having A Good Reason For It - Jlsperanza
