On Consistency

[GhostWriter16]

What is an opinion worth? You could say opinions and beliefs may have differences, so do the apple and the orange

So you're consistent. Good. What if one of your opinions becomes untenable by a recent scientific advance? Is consistence still as valuable? When does it become stubborn?

We're defining it differently. My definition of consistency is to have views that don't contradict each other. For instance, if you hold that government should not regulate people's bodily choices, and therefore you believe abortion should be legal for this reason, and then you turn around and say heroin should be illegal (I had a teacher in school argue both of these premises simultaneously) you're being a hypocrite. That's inconsistent, and therefore bad. Now, you might be pro-choice for some OTHER reason and want to ban heroin, but you can't get away with that particular argument unless you follow it to its logical conclusion.

You're defining consistency and sticking to one's guns even when proven wrong.

Which isn't how I define it at all.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

We're defining it differently. My definition of consistency is to have views that don't contradict each other. For instance, if you hold that government should not regulate people's bodily choices, and therefore you believe abortion should be legal for this reason, and then you turn around and say heroin should be illegal (I had a teacher in school argue both of these premises simultaneously) you're being a hypocrite. That's inconsistent, and therefore bad. Now, you might be pro-choice for some OTHER reason and want to ban heroin, but you can't get away with that particular argument unless you follow it to its logical conclusion.

You're defining consistency and sticking to one's guns even when proven wrong.

Which isn't how I define it at all.

What if one draws their line where the choice lands on their body, leaving heroin use and abortion within the realms of acceptable choices?

What if that's an individual's best approximation of a moral perfection?

Why is that individual's decision any different from any others?

 

[Perfection]

Consistency in beliefs. That's a good place to start.

Consistency in beliefs is important because truth does not contradict truth. If you have inconsistent (taking inconsistency to mean contradictory), and then one or both must be wrong.

We're defining it differently. My definition of consistency is to have views that don't contradict each other. For instance, if you hold that government should not regulate people's bodily choices, and therefore you believe abortion should be legal for this reason, and then you turn around and say heroin should be illegal (I had a teacher in school argue both of these premises simultaneously) you're being a hypocrite. That's inconsistent, and therefore bad. Now, you might be pro-choice for some OTHER reason and want to ban heroin, but you can't get away with that particular argument unless you follow it to its logical conclusion.

You're defining consistency and sticking to one's guns even when proven wrong.

Which isn't how I define it at all.

One must be very careful in discrediting that style of argument because one might not be stating an absolute. One might hold that it's important for the government to allow people to make their own choices about their own bodies and for that reason abortion should be allowed but also hold that under certain circumstances (heroin use) there are reasons for doing so that are more important then that concern.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Consistency in beliefs is important because truth does not contradict truth. If you have inconsistent (taking inconsistency to mean contradictory), and then one or both must be wrong.

Well, the available truths any one person possesses are limited and varying by individual, yes? If I see a giraffe once in my lifetime and it just so happens that it's been painted blue, wouldn't it be understandable that my grasp of reality says "Giraffes are blue" is a truth?

Perhaps striving for consistency is a more valiant goal than being consistent is itself. Or perhaps it should be, since any idea of attaining complete consistency is utopian.

 

[Lone Wolf]

If I see a giraffe once in my lifetime and it just so happens that it's been painted blue, wouldn't it be understandable that my grasp of reality says "Giraffes are blue" is a truth?

Your belief would be wrong, but it wouldn't be inconsistent. Inconsistency is a sign of being wrong, but you can be wrong while being perfectly consistent.
Furthermore, I think we're discussing ethical norms here, rather then factual claims - internal consistency, not consistency with the outside world.

 

[Defiant47]

Actually, Perfection is right on the money here.

If you're inconsistent, you have a 100% chance of being wrong on something (i.e. at least one thing).

If you're consistent, you have the opportunity to be right on everything you say. Or wrong. But it's no longer 100% chance that you're wrong on at least one thing. It's at most 100%, but can be less.

 

[Perfection]

Your belief would be wrong, but it wouldn't be inconsistent. Inconsistency is a sign of being wrong, but you can be wrong while being perfectly consistent.

I feel this espouses my view exactly.

Furthermore, I think we're discussing ethical norms here, rather then factual claims - internal consistency, not consistency with the outside world.

There's not too much direction on this thread here. In any case one might consider ethical claims to be factual claims (moral realism) so the same value of consistency applies. If you're not a moral realist, that argument might not hold water, but that's just a larger part of the problem of moral realists having difficulty in talking about what one should or should not do, anyways.

 

[Borachio]

you can be wrong while being perfectly consistent.

At first sight, I'm inclined to agree with this. But I wonder if it is really true.

For example, consider a schizophrenic with an elaborate world view that is, apparently, internally consistent. Isn't the fact that their world view is inconsistent with that of the rest of humanity an indication (indeed, the only indication) that they are actually wrong?

Can you provide an example of someone who is wrong while being perfectly consistent?

edit:

I think we're discussing ethical norms here, rather then factual claims - internal consistency, not consistency with the outside world.

But somehow I missed this.

 

[Antilogic]

Can you provide an example of someone who is wrong while being perfectly consistent?

G-Dubs on economics.

(Sorry, I felt like I was teed up for this one! )

 

[Perfection]

At first sight, I'm inclined to agree with this. But I wonder if it is really true.

For example, consider a schizophrenic with an elaborate world view that is, apparently, internally consistent. Isn't the fact that their world view is inconsistent with that of the rest of humanity an indication (indeed, the only indication) that they are actually wrong?

Can you provide an example of someone who is wrong while being perfectly consistent?

When Albert Einstein first devised relativity was not his views in some ways inconsistent about what everyone else thought about physics? Inconsistency with the views of others does not mean incorrectness. Conversely when everyone was consistent in believing Newtonian physics (a gross oversimplification of reality of course) it was still in some very important ways wrong.

I don't see that humanity as a whole has some special perspective. Even if we all agree with something, it doesn't mean we collectively couldn't be subject to the same sort of problems that can make a single person hold a wrong belief.

However, you are nearing something important, because if your world view does not correspond with how the world actually is (ie you are inconsistent with it), then that pretty much espouses the core nature of what it is to be wrong. So in that sense if you are consistent with reality you are right, and if you are inconsistent you are wrong and thus you cannot be wrong without some sort of inconsistency.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think Borochia is on to something.
The reason why I think religious people to be delusional comes down to issues of consistency. There is no reason why I should believe in the Christian Gods but not in the flying spaghetti monster. Except that many others believe in the Christian God on the one hand and the "feeling" that faith in this God was true on the other hand. However, both arguments could ne applied onto different issues as well, yet aren't. A Christian will not believe anything just because many believe so. And a Christian will not blindly trust any "feeling" he has.
There herein revealed inconsistency demonstrates that there is something off with the justification of faith. There is no "good" reason for faith because their is no reason people would care to consistently apply.
Similarly, a crazy person will lack consistency.
So I would argue that while within the limited and artificial and so kinda by definition false frame of a theoretic model something can be consistent and false, within the frame of practical experience consistency means truth. And consistency is indeed the only way we have to look for truth.

 

[BvBPL]

Inconsistency is a sign of being wrong....

No it isn't. Inconsistency can be indicative of an mind open to change, a topic which is sufficiently unimportant to warrant a consistent opinion or point of view, or a topic sufficiently complex that a consistent opinion is not useful.

You can be perfectly inconsistent and be right.

And consistency is indeed the only way we have to look for truth.

No. See the discussion of Newtonian / Ensteinian / Quantum physics above. Those systems are all inconsistent with each other, but they are also all true.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

When you say they were inconsistent with each other, I expect that they actually contradict themselves in predictions of specific occurrence, which makes them impossible to be all true. To merely explain things different is in itself not inconsistent as long as this does not result in direct clashes, but is absolutely consistent with the scientific view of the world when those different explanations are simply the result of different observations of different phenomenas.
Consistency in the end is nothing else than judging the same, same. If things are not the same, then it is not in itself inconsistent to judge them differently.

No it isn't. Inconsistency can be indicative of an mind open to change, a topic which is sufficiently unimportant to warrant a consistent opinion or point of view, or a topic sufficiently complex that a consistent opinion is not useful.

You can be perfectly inconsistent and be right.

If you are perfectly inconsistent you make differentiations for no reason. To be right nevertheless would be a matter of mere chance. I think I understand what you are saying. But at this point we need to differentiate between theoretical and practical applications of the consistency-test. In theory, it is, I maintain, the ultimate and finale measure of truth. In practice, we usually lack time and resources for an adequate consistency-test weather we are more right or wrong than others. Which makes consistency a criteria to be handled cautiously rather than dogmatically.

 

[Perfection]

I think Borochia is on to something.
The reason why I think religious people to be delusional comes down to issues of consistency.

I might agree. Your issues with consistency might full well explain why you believe religious people to be delusional.

There is no reason why I should believe in the Christian Gods but not in the flying spaghetti monster. Except that many others believe in the Christian God on the one hand and the "feeling" that faith in this God was true on the other hand. However, both arguments could ne applied onto different issues as well, yet aren't. A Christian will not believe anything just because many believe so. And a Christian will not blindly trust any "feeling" he has.
There herein revealed inconsistency demonstrates that there is something off with the justification of faith. There is no "good" reason for faith because their is no reason people would care to consistently apply.
Similarly, a crazy person will lack consistency.

Christians don't actually believe that the only reason for their belief is faith and that others believe it. I'm not saying they're right, of course, but that hardly sums their views.

So I would argue that while within the limited and artificial and so kinda by definition false frame of a theoretic model something can be consistent and false, within the frame of practical experience consistency means truth. And consistency is indeed the only way we have to look for truth.

I don't think we can look for truth without looking for consistency, but I don't think that gives much insight into how to go about looking for truth.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I might agree. Your issues with consistency might full well explain why you believe religious people to be delusional.

Now what is that supposed to mean?

Christians don't actually believe that the only reason for their belief is faith and that others believe it. I'm not saying they're right, of course, but that hardly sums their views.

Doesn't matter, the principle stays the same. Faith on account of faith always boils down to inconsistent standards.

I don't think we can look for truth without looking for consistency, but I don't think that gives much insight into how to go about looking for truth.

Logic? Pretty much consistency in action I think. Scientific method? Pretty much about producing consistent results in a consistent environment.

 

[BvBPL]

Consistency in the end is nothing else than judging the same, same. If things are not the same, then it is not in itself inconsistent to judge them differently.

That is too narrow a definition. Consistency is useful because it allows us to predict related behaviors, not because it describes how the same behavior repeats itself. Under your definition, dropping a bowling ball from a height allows one to demonstrate the consistency of what happens when you drop a bowling ball, but it doesn't make any sort of statement about how consistently this happens if you drop a bell or other object from a height because there the variables are different.

Alternatively, consider a person that on Monday has breakfast and is in favor of public funding for the arts, but on Tuesday does not have breakfast and is now against public funding for the arts. In the manner you define consistency, this person would not be inconsistent because there is a change in his situation, that being whether or not he had breakfast as well as the day of the week, even though those changes are not material. This is an incorrect determination to because the person is, in fact, being inconsistent.

In point of fact, it wouldn't even matter if there was a material change in circumstances. Even if our guy received, on Monday evening, demonstrable evidence that public funding of the arts was bad, slept on this fact, and determined on Tuesday morning that he should be against public funding he would still be inconsistent.

In contrast, if the person was in favor of public funding on Monday because his brother just got a grant and in favor on Tuesday because he believed space aliens had rewired is brain in that manner he would be consistent in conclusion, if not in his decision making process.

Consistency is not the repetition of physics, it is the quality of being internally harmonious and non-contradictory, particularly, albeit not exclusively, as it applies to arguments and assertions.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Sorry but by now I am just confused. Maybe I was talking just trash

 

[Perfection]

Now what is that supposed to mean?

It's over your head, don't bother.

Doesn't matter, the principle stays the same. Faith on account of faith always boils down to inconsistent standards.

What exactly do you mean by "Faith on account of faith"?

Logic? Pretty much consistency in action I think. Scientific method? Pretty much about producing consistent results in a consistent environment.

Yeah but these sorts of consistency are quite different. And I already stated that true facts by there nature are consistent with reality. You're not giving much in terms of direction here.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It's over your head, don't bother.

But that is exactly why I bother.

What exactly do you mean by "Faith on account of faith"?

When there is no consistent* justification of the validity of faith, faith becomes inherently self-related in its justification. It is so, because it is so. There is a God, because there is one. I believe in it, because I do. Faith on account of faith.
*Whereas such a justification has to not only be consistent in itself but also has to be consistent with the perceivable world, and those two consistencies have to be consistent with each other, I believe.

Yeah but these sorts of consistency are quite different. And I already stated that true facts by there nature are consistent with reality. You're not giving much in terms of direction here.

If truth is by definition consistent with reality, then consistency is truth - unless - unless falsehood can also be consistent with reality.
Can it?