[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.
If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Although I agree that as far as assessing the logical worth of a decision that's the assumption we make, and the only assumption we can make in that framework, still, there is evidence that the process may actually be reversed in at least some of our actions. Decision first, reasons to follow. I think that process is observable in posting on internet forums. Any further comments of mine would need to be in the psychology forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure much of the time you're right and we make the decision first and then attempt to justify it - I know I do that a fair bit. Is this type of behavior illogical? Seems kinda necessary for learning - try it on for size and if it fits then work out why?

Its quite a good method for testing beliefs/actions (although it can be hard work for all involved). I have an intuitive feel that B is true so I boldly state that B is true and then try to justify it/defend it against all comers. (Isn't that what your doing with this thread?). I like to think I'm honest so if I discover the position is unsupported I will tend to abandon it (this can be a painful process).

The problem is its often completely bogus. Some people will maintain their position even if the argument is clearly faulty because they have no interest at all in whether their belief is logical (that may be fair enough but if honest they wouldn't pretend it was as a result of logic). The clearest example of this is the ID argument for god - most people who spout ID do not believe in god because of ID and would not have a weaker belief in god if they understood that the ID argument is faulty.

Don't take it to physcology, philosophers are better at sorting this mess out [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

chez