A new skeptical challenge? 

My videos on the epistemology of disagreement: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RROWX5mU9qg.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WJ94a3liBxY.html

I've been watching you for years. Feels like I learn something every time. Can't remember any of it though.

Nobody: Absolutely nobody: Kane B: Im Kane B, but i forgot my reasons for that belief

I have a bachelor degree in philosophy. Completely forgot everything, now I work in callcenter lol. fml

"Proper ignoring". This is sorta tackled - in detail - in David Lewis's paper 'Elusive Knowledge' (1996); which you've probably read anyway. Your situation can be tackled in two ways: in a "contextualist" way and by employing "proper ignoring". That said, your points and positions aren't identical to those which are tackled in Lewis's paper. Here's something I wrote a while ago on the subject of forgetting one's prior arguments: "David Lewis argues that we know things even though 'we don’t even know how we know'. It could be the case that we don’t actually have 'supporting arguments' to justify our knowledge-claim: we've forgotten them! This means that at one time we had supporting arguments for P; though now we’ve forgotten them. P was justified at time one time; though it's not justified at the present. However, if P was justified at a former time (that’s if it was adequately justified), then perhaps it needn't be justified again today. This may be a question of time constraints or epistemic commonsense. If we had to re-justify all our bits of knowledge again and again, then we wouldn’t have time to acquire new bits of knowledge or even function in the world. "For example, I firmly believe that Adolf Hitler was the dictator of Germany in the 1930s. Indeed I believe that this is a knowledge-claim. However, I haven’t justified this particular belief for some considerable time (for years). Perhaps other beliefs of mine are dependent upon or related to this belief about Hitler. I might have derived other beliefs (or bits of knowledge) from this initial belief. However, if I need to continually re-justify my initial belief or beliefs, then I wouldn’t get around to justifying the beliefs that are dependent upon (or related to or derived from) the initial set of beliefs (which were, after all, justified at one time)..." It may largely boil down to the epistemic fact that we can't be omniscient in all situations - which, of course, is a demand that can't be met. So you can "properly ignore" many things - especially if previously justified or reasoned about. That said, if you were to attend a seminar on - to take your own example - evolutionary positions on morality, then you'd do your homework... *again*.

This is actually a major indictment against Street epistemology. In SE you ask someone to provide reasons for a position they hold but they may not be able to provide the reasons for most of the beliefs they hold at the time of questioning

I’ve been thinking about a closely related problem recently, which I have been calling the instability of beliefs and credences. For example, I have lost confidence over time in the name of the capital city of Zimbabwe to the point where I now would no longer say that I know it. One day, though, I’ll suddenly remember the name and my epistemic status would be changed on a whim, not because of any change in evidence or anything, but rather just because an old memory re-occurs to me. I didn’t think to apply the problem to support for positions held, but that makes a lot of sense to me.

Honestly I get the impression that in the cases you are describing, you really should just say "Well I used to believe x but it's been a while so I'm not sure I do anymore". These things exist on a continuum - for some arguments that struck me forcefully, that I've looked at recently, or were on topics that particularly interested me, I can bring the arguments to mind and reassure myself that they are still convincing to me. For others I can't and have reason to believe my position may have changed, so I don't have a strong belief anymore. In any case, it doesn't seem too problematic to allow that the skeptic here has a point, that there's a bit of a cognitive bias/inertia around continuing to believe things even when we can't recall why we do, and that in many such cases we should recognize that we aren't justified in our belief anymore and should go take a refresher. Interesting video nonetheless, and I'm likely missing something.

After forgetting the explicit knowledge of particular arguments, your sense of what's persuasive is residual knowledge in the form of intuition. Intuition doesn't invalidate the residual knowledge, because the historic explicit knowledge was training, developing and refining your intuition. The mere fact that you no longer find old arguments persuasive is evidence for this development. Yet, it does suggest that you should be skeptical for your explicit beliefs. Thus, it seems sensible to revisit the old arguments before endorsing any of them, and trust your new intuitions about them. Then, declare your current intuition for the revisited arguments. You don't need to declare your beliefs in this process, instead you are declaring the arguments you know are supporting of the position, and declaring your current intuitions about them. What a relief, to live without commitment to your beliefs! Why must this be considered a loss? You've gained freedom within your own mind and speech.

very much admire your mind and your honesty

The funny thing is as you explained the problem of peer disagreement and steadfast vs suspending judgement, my immediate intuition was “if you can’t remember why you believe something then you yourself are just another peer in this case so the steadfast position almost seems a bit dubious”. I’m glad it went that direction.

This happens to me so often it's embarrassing, I will learn something about ethics for example or politics and then I will forget what were the arguments which convinced me, but I remember that I felt they made sense when I heard them, and then someone will ask me to argue my position and i'll do only 20% as well as I could've if my memory wasn't jackshit

"How would I know that? Well I am a knowledgeable man, and it's part of my knowledge. Y'know, if I knew how I knew everything I knew, then I'd only be able to know half as much because I'd be all clogged up with where I know it from. So I cannot always cite my sources, I'm sorry." - David Mitchell

K. Baker "On Certainty".

Suddenly I don't feel so bad.

I think this is an interesting thought. I believe that your argument is true not only for yourself but for essentially everyone. We are all subject to a certain degree of forgetfulness. Very nice to hear your original ideas!

I am an undergraduate in Philosophy and when I am given my essay topics I have to write in my head I will think, "This is easily doable for 6 pages. Hell, I can probably do 15!" But as soon as I start typing, my mind goes a little blank and I forget all my arguments to back the position up. Like I have ideas summed up in my head just in a couple sentences, but I can't give rigorous argumentation for them. It takes a lot of going back to the jargon to refresh my memory. And ofcourse as soon as I turn in the paper, I start to have doubts about the paper I just turned in and I just hope that I will get at most a B. This may be overthinking for me or something; I'm not sure if this is what you are describing either. Hopefully you can find something out with this dilemma you are in!

The epistemology of forgetfulness. I love it.

I had this realization a few months back so I decided to look into some of it again. Thing is, I'm a skeptic now and I was not one before. I'm not worried about coming to outrageously false beliefs now because I tend not to latch on to much in particular, I know to ask the right questions to at least see a flaw in thinking something. I do still find that I am sometimes convinced of false things, but it's easy to discard them when it comes to light (it was not easy previously). I'm not worried about going back to some old beliefs I had because I know they were based on fallacies, and I can keep that in mind when reviewing new things. For the more complex stuff, I think it's okay to acknowledge that you were convinced of it in the past. If you need to use that belief to make an informed decision about something or to have a debate, then brushing up is necessary because it would be difficult to argue for a position you no longer hold, never mind one you don't realize you don't hold. For this, I don't envy you since you have a historical account of your beliefs/ideas laid bare, and somebody could binge years of your videos in a matter of days and come at you from many angles when you're really sitting there like, "I said that? Maybe..."

By the way, what do you think about Kant's arguments about the limits of human understanding (from The Critique of Pure Reason)?

It’s this very problem that lead me to write philosophy. I wanted to be able to retrace the epistemological breadcrumbs. The project is ever-ongoing. I often wish that I could travel to the future and pick up a copy of all that I will eventually write so that I could read it over the course of a week and devote my time to other hobbies.

Here's a personal anecdote: I studied botney in undergrad and currently have a job where I propagate and manage a greenhouse for a small business. Thinking back on my education as a botanist, I don't remember the whole equation for photosynthesis off the top of my head anymore. It's faded from memory. I've acknowledge this, yet I still maintain the rational and correct belief that: Plants require light to survive; utilizing photosynthesis as a mechanism of producing glucose which is used as an energy source for the plants. I have determined this truth using what I'd argue is the best method of understanding the natural world: the scientific method. This method of determining objective truth in the world requires a claim to be placed under scrutiny, testing, evaluation and replication countless time before it becomes accepted as fact. A fact that is supported by evidence. Hence, while i have forgotten the exact specificficities of photosynthesis, I still know it to be true because I adhear to science as the most effective method of understanding the natural world. My point is that's its okay to not remember every detail for every single argument. The most important thing is the way and method you initially used to come to a certain belief. It is always okay to admit you've forgotten something and to then go back and refresh your memory on any given subject. Remember, there is a limit on the amount of information a person can retain at any given time.

I have the same problem. I tend to have difficulty retracing the steps of my thought processes that lead to my conclusions. Several years ago, I started keeping a philosophy diary that I wrote in nearly every day so that I had something to refer to and keep track of what I was thinking. This really helped. Unfortunately I didn't keep it up and eventually this practice withered away. Maybe this is something that might help you? Or perhaps your videos are already a kind of philosophy diary?

I remember a video by Bert Poole close to this topic, where he was talking about his dad who has a severe memory problem still being able to recognize him and say his name, but not knowing how or where from. The justifications were forgotten but Bert thought that his dad still 'knows' his name. I think it was a video on the conditions of knowledge, on improving JTB. :)

I'm impressed with your honesty. I have a bad memory also. You do a great job presenting your ideas though. You are a natural teacher. Also, I've heard good things lately about Lion's Mane mushroom for neuroregeneration if you are interested in that sort of thing. I believe I read that the prefrontal cortex can be damaged through chronic stress and this can lead to memory loss.

I also tend to forget most of what I have learnt or written in previous essays without almost constant thought on that topic. However, I have certainly improved my recall capacities over the years through training, but that tends to be facts and dates and so on, rather than detailed arguments and counterarguments. This has led me to only make very basic arguments when discussing politics with my friends and so on: for example, I hold liberty above equality, and can argue that case pretty well.

I'm sure you have good reasons for your philosophical beliefs, as do those that have the opposite philosophical beliefs. Thus, we suspend judgement and respect both opinions... and keep inquiring!

I help host Talk Heathen which is apart of the ACA which does The Atheist Experience. The main gist of the show is discussing with theists and atheists, often philosophical discourse/arguments are brought up. That said, I constantly struggle with this issue. If I dont constantly read, watch content, or reinforce it daily im finding myself forgetting even the most important reasons for certain positions. Luckily kane, we have your videos for access at any time...thank you for that.

I think what it sounds like you're describing in your responses to the challenge amounts to a kind of self-testimony of beliefs. That is: you are taking it on your own authority, based on your privileged epistemic access to your own thoughts, that there are compelling reasons to believe X. I think the strength of this kind of testimony might be bolstered the same way epistemic arguments in favor of testimony generally are bolstered, such as: 1. Your expertise when forming the reasons for the belief: I may agree with some sentiments as the high-school version of myself on questions of morality, epistemology, etc., but have to admit that the reasons I may have found compelling to believe in X from those years should not hold the same weight as the reasons I found compelling when graduating college with a degree in philosophy. 2. The plasticity of those reasons over time: I may take from my memory that I remember a certain teacher working at my high school. But, the amount to which I may be willing to continue to accept the belief that "[Teacher] works at my old high school" is based on the plasticity of the reasons I have to adopt the same belief. In the course of a single year since I graduated, that belief may continue to be relatively stable. But I also know that people change careers over time, that high school teachers are sometimes traded around to different schools, or, if enough time has gone by, that teacher may have retired or the building may not be a school anymore to begin with. So, I can't take it on good authority 20 years from now that I can accept the same belief. In philosophy, for a corollary example, if it's been a long time since I engaged with a certain discipline closely, there may have been very interesting developments since then that would challenge some underlying set of beliefs you had when forming belief X. 3. Conflicting testimony or concurring testimony: There are times that it seems like I ought to be swayed more by others' testimonials rather than my own. Similarly, if I find that I am continually mistaken about facts in my testimony and am corrected by others', I am probably less willing to accept my testimony as providing a good reason to believe X. But, if concurring testimony by well-educated enough people seem to confirm that I do know enough facts about the belief, I am likely justified in accepting it. 4. One's ability to recall specifics of the testimony: If I can only remember that a given expert said something once that sounded professional and correct about moral realism is not as strong of a reason to believe them as remembering specifics about their argument. Similarly, remembering that there was a thing called the evolutionary debunking argument and that it persuaded you at some point in the past is clearly not as strong of a testimony as being able to remember certain specifics of the argument, even if not in its entirety. While complete and exact recitation may be preferable, I think that we tend to demarcate a certain line of specificity about the specifics of an event or belief that make the testimony viable to us. In court, for example, an attorney might ask a witness specifics about the event in order to gauge the witness' reliability. That being said, the specificity does not need to be incredibly high, but high enough that it seems to be the case that we generally understand the event or belief. While we may know that there are strong challenges to our philosophical beliefs and not be able to recall specific arguments against them, if we take our past endorsement as a kind of testimonial then we can determine if we ought to suspend judgment or continue to endorse that belief, I think.

i literally write mine down (sometimes), as it's too much to just memorise. i believe it's part of this is idea in psychology called the forgetting curve, and one way is to to do spaced repetition and active recall. but yeah these topics are complex and long too remember.

Watched this video a year ago and couldn't relate. Now I don't even know if thinking does anything at all, lol. I forgot all my reasons to believe in what I do

I’m sceptical about this one!

I suppose my comment was to be very much expected, but should I doubt my belief that the argument you just made is right, in a week or two when I'll have forgotten most of its substance?

If you think like a Bayesian this really should not be a problem. But, I am right there with you. There are a few hills I don't mind dying on. But, my willingness to hold fast to them does not mean they are actually correct. I think they are correct, hence why they are my beliefs, but I also know that my beliefs are not necessarily knowledge. My philosophical arguments are arguments for why they count as knowledge not why they count as beliefs. We can give all kinds of psychological answers as to why I believe it. But whether they are true can only be hashed out by philosophy.

The problem is even deeper than forgetfulnes. We actually know that most beliefs of most people form just by accepting what everyone else says and does. It's extremely powerful.

I thought i was the only one with this retention issue.

Wow, this is literally me

The arguments can be complex, - but I think it is a fine quality to re-examine one's justifications for one's beliefs.

Isn’t conciliationism self-defeating? If there are epistemic peers who disagree with conciliationism wouldn’t that force the conciliationist to suspend judgement regarding their own belief?

К сожалению, я сейчас в похожей ситуации

I have the same problem remembering what I read/learn, it is quite annoying and discouraging

Wow man, I felt so alike with the first minutes of the video. I really thought I was the only one being like this haha. Glad to see I'm not, and that being like this doesn't prevent philosophical activity :)

Your AMA answers give me the impression that you retain more than 95 percent! You seem to almost always remember the important details related to questions people ask you! Much better than I could ever do

Just try some psychedelics brother.

This video is funny to me because there is this shortcut that could have brought you to this conclusion much sooner _meditation_ _cough_ _cough_ Almost all the scientists and philosophers I'm friends with are wonderful at "the advanced stuff" but trend towards terribleness at the most basic thing which is paying attention to the awareness that proceeds, is involved in, tinges and contaminates all that more complicated stuff that follows that initial instance of awareness. If you paid exclusive attention to that raw awareness to start with, it becomes utterly clear this "self" is a fictional entity who just habitually repeats things it's used to repeating (and it doesn't even really know why but just has pre-scripted justifications based on a habit it collected at some point) essentially like software that got installed awhile back that's still running in the background. Which is why if one meditates a lot and finds themselves in a kitchen washing a dish. It doesn't feel as though "I'm here doing this because dishes need to get cleaned and I'm achieving my goal based on my belief and desire" - it feels instead like - "When I'm in this thing I call a kitchen this tends to happen and the reasons that seem to make this happen just clearly aren't obvious at all now that I'm paying attention to what this actually is like and really I'm just repeating a past habitual action that occurs on occasion when I find myself in this kitchen thing and I also tend to repeat this other behavior of defending this action by listing beliefs and desires that I don't even remember being installed in my head" everything in this latter version takes several steps back from what is normally just taken for granted. If you'd pay very close attention to that initial _seemingness_ that underlies these everyday activities, it is so clear there isn't someone who is constantly re-instantiating these beliefs about them in any sound way, but more accurately there is this character who in a pre-scripted manner just habitually takes ownership of this ad hoc explanation of why they were doing "X" but since that character isn't actually real, and the explanations are ad hoc and habitual, and since all the definitions in play are idealized to the point of being nothing more than fairy stories, it's just clear there is no reason behind these beliefs even if you again and again collapse into these particular behavior patterns (including the behavior of listing your beliefs) the repetition of these patterns in no way constitutes knowing anything about what is actually happening, and to the extent one pays attention, it is clear that you have no idea what is going on, even in the case of the most conventional actions, you really don't know what those are if you pay closer attention, you can see they're not only defined by fiat but are flat out fraudulent. It's only through a chronic lack of attention on awareness itself that one finds appeal in cataloging all these beliefs and philosophical positions and starts to identify with them, but that is all just nonsense that follows from not paying attention to the very first instance of awareness itself. And since there is no ego/self, or justified beliefs, and since greater attention on awareness reveals that your behavior is just the totality of nature doing it's thing (like the weather or rocks rolling down a hill) then suspending judgement will have no effect on your practical behavior, because those behaviors just occur for no good reason anyway, so suspending judgement is at least honest, the alternatives to that only become tempting when a person pays very little attention to the initial instance of their awareness and instead redirects their energies to the complex games that follow from a lack of attention on basic awareness. But it's like building a castle on a quicksand foundation, the castle is very beautiful, complex and ornate, but it's foundation is totally illegitimate and spawned entirely from this baseline attention deficit disorder. Notice how in large part this video was inspired by your *paying closer attention* to the way you forget the justifications for the things you claim to believe. Now just imagine if you paid even closer attention to the inner workings of this guy you call "Kane"... if you paid even deeper attention to that character, the rest of your beliefs would become so precarious that they'd all just break.

I do not recall the first time I met my father. Does this mean I should be skeptical of my claims to know him? If I want to be an absolutely pure philsophical reasoning machine, then perhaps I should. But reasoning is only a good thing because of its practical utility. If there is a point where reasoning becomes an impediment, it should be dropped. There is no way to prove or disprove solipsism without circularity. Any rules of logic can't be justified without appeal to rules of logic. The perfect reasoning machine could never get started.

Interesting thoughts.

This would be more of a problem to an internalist than externalist right? Idk much about how internalists talk about memory and forgotten beliefs

Is that why you became an error theorist? Cause you forgot more sophisticated meta ethics arguments? 😂

Perhaps some philosophy of cognitive enhancement is in order..? 🤔

Thats maybe true, but we did not forget that you once had a neckbeard. We remember for you.

Nice thumbnails recently

This is very nice, actually! And very funny, indeed!

Топеч.

He needs a non-neckbeard beard. Then the ladies will come knocking.