Agenda?

[wittgenstein]

If a person wants to prove their proposition does that mean that it is probably false?
I think that is an example of ad hominum. Attack the argument not the person!!!
To accuse a person of having an agenda has NOTHING to do with the truth value of the proposition he is proposing.

 

[meltzerboy]

If a person wants to prove their proposition does that mean that it is probably false?
I think that is an example of ad hominum. Attack the argument not the person!!!
To accuse a person of having an agenda has NOTHING to do with the truth value of the proposition he is proposing.

Logically, I believe you are correct. But psychologically, there is an illusory correlation.

 

[Tomdstone]

If a person wants to prove their proposition does that mean that it is probably false?

No. For example, suppose I want to prove that on the real line, Cauchy sequences converge. The proposition is true, but i may want to explore the two different ways of proving this. One way using the nested interval theorem, and a second way using the fact that every sequence has a monotone subsequence.

 

[laircy]

No, but sometimes people distort things to suit their agenda.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To accuse a person of having an agenda has NOTHING to do with the truth value of the proposition he is proposing.

To accuse a person of having an agenda may be connected with the proposition he is proposing.

For example, Satan has an agenda, and therefore his propositions are full of lies.

As for example when he told Eve she could be equal to God by eating the fruit.

That proposition was certainly guided by Satan’s personal agenda to ruin Eve’s happiness.

 

[Rhubarb]

Depending what you believe about propositions, I suppose. If you consider a proposition a truth-determinate sentence, then no matter what anyone thinks about the content of the proposition, it will be true or false.

If I have an agenda to make someone believe that the sun is shining and I suggest “The sun is shining at time T!” my agenda doesn’t make the proposition false. The only thing that makes the proposition false is whether it is the case or not that the sun is, in fact, shining at time T.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I don’t think that “agenda” is a concrete enough concept to reason about. I think it would be better to ask something like:

If someone has a strong motivation to believe a particular proposition, is that proposition more likely to be wrong?

The answer there is trivially no. Obviously the correctness of the proposition is irrelevant to whether or not we are motivated to find it. For example, “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” is wrong independently of what financial motivations tobacco companies might have.

Put another way, the probability of a proposition being correct is not affected by random people’s interests. The probability of the correctness of “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” is the same no matter what tobacco companies would prefer.

However, there is another angle, which is to ask:

If someone has a strong interest in believing a particular proposition, are they more likely to believe that proposition independently of its correctness?

The answer here is almost certainly “yes.” Tobacco companies are certainly more likely to believe that “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” because of their strong financial motivations for reaching that conclusion. Or in other words, the more motivated to believe a particular proposition someone is, the less surprised we should be when they end up believing it.

But doesn’t that mean that the tobacco company’s interests make their conclusion more likely to be wrong? No What it means is

That a motivated party believes the proposition is not evidence for the correctness of the proposition

Or in other words, the more motivated to reach a particular conclusion someone is, the less we should take their evidence into account when considering the proposition for ourselves.

Edit: providing an example

Imagine I were considering the proposition “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” and thought the chances of it being correct were about 50/50.

You might tell me “the tobacco companies believe smoking doesn’t cause cancer, but have huge financial interests in that conclusion.”

I would not say “Well lets ignore their interests! since they believe it, I’m inclined to agree and say that it is most likely that smoking does not cause cancer.”

I would also not say “Well, because they are so strongly interested, they are probably wrong, so I think smoking probably does cause cancer.”

What I would say is: “Well, it’s no surprise that they believe what they are motivated to believe, so it doesn’t tell me anything. My probability is stuck at 50/50.”

 

[wittgenstein]

1. Manson is a liar.
2. Manson said that 1+1=2
3. Therefore 1+1 does not equal 2.
   If Manson has an agenda, is crazy or whatever character defect he has,has nothing to do with the claim that 1+1does =2.

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t think that “agenda” is a concrete enough concept to reason about. I think it would be better to ask something like:The answer there is trivially no. Obviously the correctness of the proposition is irrelevant to whether or not we are motivated to find it. For example, “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” is wrong independently of what financial motivations tobacco companies might have.

Put another way, the probability of a proposition being correct is not affected by random people’s interests. The probability of the correctness of “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” is the same no matter what tobacco companies would prefer.

However, there is another angle, which is to ask:The answer here is almost certainly “yes.” Tobacco companies are certainly more likely to believe that “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” because of their strong financial motivations for reaching that conclusion. Or in other words, the more motivated to believe a particular proposition someone is, the less surprised we should be when they end up believing it.

But doesn’t that mean that the tobacco company’s interests make their conclusion more likely to be wrong? No What it means isOr in other words, the more motivated to reach a particular conclusion someone is, the less we should take their evidence into account when considering the proposition for ourselves.

Edit: providing an example

Imagine I were considering the proposition “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” and thought the chances of it being correct were about 50/50.

You might tell me “the tobacco companies believe smoking doesn’t cause cancer, but have huge financial interests in that conclusion.”

I would not say “Well lets ignore their interests! since they believe it, I’m inclined to agree and say that it is most likely that smoking does not cause cancer.”

I would also not say “Well, because they are so strongly interested, they are probably wrong, so I think smoking probably does cause cancer.”

What I would say is: “Well, it’s no surprise that they believe what they are motivated to believe, so it doesn’t tell me anything. My probability is stuck at 50/50.”

Great explanation! Thank you. But…what is your agenda?

 

[meltzerboy]

1. Manson is a liar.
2. Manson said that 1+1=2
3. Therefore 1+1 does not equal 2.
   If Manson has an agenda, is crazy or whatever character defect he has,has nothing to do with the claim that 1+1does =2.

Yes, of course. Manson’s agenda and character play no role here because they are no doubt directed toward things other than solving simple arithmetic problems.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Great explanation! Thank you. But…what is your agenda?

So one question I asked myself while writing was:

Is a strong motivation to find the ‘true’ answer a motivation that would disqualify someone’s belief as evidence?

My answer to myself was: No. Being highly motivated to find/believe the ‘true’ answer is not the same as being motivated to believe a particular position. Why? Because being highly motivated to believe the “true” answer should not bias you towards any answer when you begin your investigation. In other words, if you want to find out which website design truly makes your company the most money, you’re not going to a-priori choose design A over design B. Instead, you’d do A/B testing and pick the one that actually turned out to be the best.

Unfortunately, most people would probably say that they are principally motivated by the truth, so we frequently run into people with beams in their eyes calling out people with splinters. It is not an easy thing to be aware of all your internal motivations and subconscious preferences.

 

[Flopfoot]

It is true that

1. If a person has no reason (motive) to lie, they are probably telling the truth.

But it is not necessarily true that

1. If a person has a reason to lie, they are probably not telling the truth.

To assume that 2 follows from 1 is an example of the inverse fallacy.

It really annoys me when people say things like “pharmaceutical companies want to make a profit from selling us medicines, therefore the medicines are probably unnecessary”.

 

[wittgenstein]

Yes, of course. Manson’s agenda and character play no role here because they are no doubt directed toward things other than solving simple arithmetic problems.

A proposition does not require absolute certainty for a reference to its advocate’s character to be superfluous.

1. Hitler thought that dogs are loyal.*
2. Therefore dogs are not loyal.

• It could be that dogs defend and obey us, not out of loyalty but because they like treats.
  OR

1. Joe only wants to be paid back the $15 he loaned me. His agenda is to get his money.
2. I paid him $10
3. Joe says that I owe him $5 because 15-10=5
4. Joes agenda for saying that 15-10=5 is to get his money.
5. Since him saying that 15-10=5 is agenda driven 15-10=5 is false.

 

[Ignatius]

If a person wants to prove their proposition does that mean that it is probably false?
To accuse a person of having an agenda has NOTHING to do with the truth value of the proposition he is proposing.

It doesn’t prove the proposition is false. But, to asses the truth of a proposition requires objectivity. If there is an agenda driving it, this calls into question objectivity of the proponent.

 

[Flopfoot]

Why would someone spend their time trying to prove a point if they had no interest in the outcome? Objectivity just means you have to try and prove it in an objective way, not that you have to be an objective person.

 

[Tomdstone]

But, to asses the truth of a proposition requires objectivity. If there is an agenda driving it, this calls into question objectivity of the proponent.

I disagree. A student in high school Euclidean geometry wants to pass her course and it is required that she prove that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. She proves this using SSS=SSS. Her proof is true and correct even though she is not objective. She is not proving this because she is objective. She is proving this because she needs to pass the course so that she won’t be chewed out by her parents.

 

[Rhubarb]

The truth of a proposition doesn’t change because of an agenda. The agenda would change which propositions are put forward, and some of the propositions put forward may be blatantly false.

(1) If the world is older than 6000 years, then there would be written documents older than 6000 years.
(2) There are no written documents older than 6000 years.
∴ (3) The world is not older than 6000 years.

1, 2, and 3 are all propositions and regardless of your agenda they have determinate truth values. You may accept or reject 1 and 2 because of an agenda, but that doesn’t change their truth values. People often accept false propositions and reject true propositions.

And yes I know the argument is blatantly unsound.

 

[Ignatius]

I disagree. A student in high school Euclidean geometry wants to pass her course and it is required that she prove that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. She proves this using SSS=SSS. Her proof is true and correct even though she is not objective. She is not proving this because she is objective. She is proving this because she needs to pass the course so that she won’t be chewed out by her parents.

First of all, that is not what promoting an agenda means. There is a difference between an external agenda and a proper motivation.

At any rate, she must objectively understand it, or she will not be able to put it into use on the final. It is objectivity that brings true understanding, trying to twist things to fit an agenda most often leads to error and lack of understanding.