more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Moore's Paradox: one is strongly disposed not to believe both P and that one does not believe that P, while realising that these propositions are perfectly consistent with one another.
Gist of Idea
We strongly desire to believe what is true, even though logic does not require it
Source
Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 2)
Book Ref
Harman,Gilbert: 'Change in View: Principles of Reasoning' [MIP 1986], p.19
A Reaction
[Where in Moore?] A very nice example of a powerful principle of reasoning which can never be captured in logic.
| 19304 | The rules of reasoning are not the rules of logic [Harman] |
| 19303 | Implication just accumulates conclusions, but inference may also revise our views [Harman] |
| 19305 | The Gambler's Fallacy (ten blacks, so red is due) overemphasises the early part of a sequence [Harman] |
| 19308 | We strongly desire to believe what is true, even though logic does not require it [Harman] |
| 19307 | If there is a great cost to avoiding inconsistency, we learn to reason our way around it [Harman] |
| 19309 | Logic has little relevance to reasoning, except when logical conclusions are immediate [Harman] |
| 19306 | It is a principle of reasoning not to clutter your mind with trivialities [Harman] |
| 19310 | High probability premises need not imply high probability conclusions [Harman] |
| 19311 | In revision of belief, we need to keep track of justifications for foundations, but not for coherence [Harman] |
| 19312 | Coherence is intelligible connections, especially one element explaining another [Harman] |