08-08-2005, 06:21 AM
It is not legitimate, as an individual, to have beliefs that conflict with one another. An inability to recognize that fact is ignorance, plain and simple. That is beside the point.
...........
I think a bit too much focus is put on internal consistency. The only thing consistency provides is that of no conflicting answers to a question of the system... (i.e. look at the other forms of logic other than boolean, such as Bayesian and Fuzzy etc.)
Also, people can think that their beliefs are internally consistent until they are challenged on them, and usually don't go about trying to pick holes in their own beliefs... People have a psychological selective predisposition towards confirmatory evidence.
Also, people usually don't have boolean beliefs, they have a fuzzier view, kind of like a series of beliefs that are ranked or have a probability of being absolutely true. Consider the term "Tightly held beliefs"... some people can be convinced to change their minds in many areas, but 'core' beliefs are tougher to change...
Sorry for the lack of eoquence.
...........
I think a bit too much focus is put on internal consistency. The only thing consistency provides is that of no conflicting answers to a question of the system... (i.e. look at the other forms of logic other than boolean, such as Bayesian and Fuzzy etc.)
Also, people can think that their beliefs are internally consistent until they are challenged on them, and usually don't go about trying to pick holes in their own beliefs... People have a psychological selective predisposition towards confirmatory evidence.
Also, people usually don't have boolean beliefs, they have a fuzzier view, kind of like a series of beliefs that are ranked or have a probability of being absolutely true. Consider the term "Tightly held beliefs"... some people can be convinced to change their minds in many areas, but 'core' beliefs are tougher to change...
Sorry for the lack of eoquence.