Wednesday, November 27, 2024

Definition: Error Theory

An important task for one who wishes to have a satisfying, coherent worldview, is to explain why other people do not share one's worldview. If intelligent, good, educated, and well-informed people reject one's worldview, and are unmoved by the arguments or reasons one cites for one's worldview, it is natural that one begin to doubt that one's arguments or reasons are persuasive; unless one can come up with a satisfying explanation for how the relevant persons might remain unmoved, despite their intelligence, goodness, education, and cognizance. In short, one will want error theories, or accounts that allow one to synthesize the appearances as experienced by one's opponents, with the truth of one's own worldview.

We may classify error theories as surface, shallow, and deep. A surface error theory is one wherein one simply makes some generalized accusation against the other person, without clearly, explicitly linking it to the propositions, arguments, or reasons that are being offered: "You are a bad person, and that is why you believe this!" In other words, one denies that the other person is in fact intelligent, good, educated, or well-informed. On this point: we are thus very good at catching minor faults in others ("You slightly misrepresented my position!") and we often use this to rationalize why the other person disagrees with us, and to sooth our doubts; all of which is almost always unproductive and uncivil, I suspect, and to be avoided. (Really, this is almost not so much a theory so much as a claim: "The other person is ignorant, bad, or somehow malfunctioning." We assume, rightly, that these might serve as good explanations as to why the other person disagrees with us; but we do not see why.)

A shallow error theory is a more nuanced explanation that tries to not only state, but make intelligible why someone believes something false; to draw out the connection between their badness, ignorance, or malfunctioning, and their error: "They believe in X, because they are committed to Y for dubious motive Z, and X is not compatible with Y." These theories are characterized by being accessible, and by not tending to require substantive commitments to any particular theory of the mind, the world, or the good.

A deep error theory is a more nuanced explanation that tries to make intelligible why someone believes something false, in light of a substantive theory of the mind, the world, or the good: "They believe in X because this mental faculty of theirs, which has function Y, is malfunctioning because of Z, and we  could not have known about this, or explained it clearly, except for my theory of the mind, the world, or the good, which says ABC."

Monday, November 25, 2024

Definition: Internal, External, and Natural Critique

As a prelude to my Encyclopedia of Apologetics series, I shall explain my subsequent classification of critiques of a given worldview as Internal, External, and Natural. 

An internal critique relies upon the assumptions of the worldview itself to challenge the worldview, whether by rendering it incoherent, implausible, or otherwise problematic. For example, one might argue that Christianity is committed to the inerrancy of Scripture, which contains contradictions; therefore, Christianity is incoherent. 

An external critique relies upon assumptions that would be denied by the worldview; this sort of critique is not meant to persuade someone who accepts the worldview, but to enhance the reasons for objecting to a worldview already rejected. For example, one might argue that it is plausible that Christian Scriptures were assembled through purely natural processes riddled with human errors, which do not clearly evince divine guidance. (In fact, this sort of critique is in part a positive account given by some other worldview of the worldview being critiqued: an error theory, will be part of a positive theory of the world.) 

A natural critique is one that tests the assumptions of the worldview against the basic, universal principles of human reason; any worldview contrary to these principles is irrational. For example, someone might argue that there are no basic, universal principles of human reason, and that reality is incoherent, and the mind absurd, and that nothing is stateable or knowable; but this is contrary to the basic, universal principles of human reason, and so is irrational. A worldview which asserted such things would not be in the running for acceptance by rational people.

Definition: Error Theory

An important task for one who wishes to have a satisfying, coherent worldview, is to explain why other people do not share one's worldvi...