Rational beliefs should be able to withstand scrutiny and opposing arguments. The inability to do so indicates that the belief is more about personal bias and emotional investment rather than objective analysis.

  • spujb@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I believe the sun will rise tomorrow and if I said to you I had a sincere counterargument I’d be lying.

    Pardon me for being utterly emotional about things I guess lol.

    • oo1@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Sunrise is a matter of perspective though and I don’t think it is a very well refined scientific explanation of a broad set evidence. Ask a polar bear or an emporer penguin at this time of year. Or consider the majority of places in our solar system.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        that’s a hypothetical, not a counterargument.

        yes if i lived in one of the polar circles the sun may not rise. but i don’t live there.

        this whole thread just needs a dictionary and some tea. buncha ppl stressing out and arguing semantics about pretty well-defined terms.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      An asteroid or a rogue planet that we somehow failed to detect could collide with the earth, stopping its rotation. Unlikely but not impossible.

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is a good example showing OP was being too broad. I like the sentiment but think they should limit it to topics for which there is a sizable amount of genuine dissent (meaning we don’t have to invent an argument for an hypothetical unreasonable contrarian) and that aren’t easily demonstrably falsifiable (meaning we are covering opinions and theories, not matters of objective fact).

      OP likely was meaning to apply this to controversial social policies or philosophical questions exploring what values people prioritize. Too often loud voices demonize “the other side” and dismiss them out of hand with strawmen.