How do we call a tendency of people to call things facts without further justification?


People usually talk as if it was some absolute truth what they are saying. What philosophy has taught me is that we cannot be sure of anything. For everything there exists some counterargument. If a person tells me that 2+2=4 without some other information to justify it (by saying for example that it is true only if you accept some axioms and rules of inference as true), it doesn't seem obviously true to me at all. Another example could be the following: I'm standing on a street, next to me stands John and right in front of us stands a huge house. John tells me "in front of you stands a huge house," as it was some absolute fact that cannot be doubt by some "brain in a vat" argument. Yes, it makes sense to me that he doesn't say "In front of you stands a huge house if you accept that what you see is real etc etc."

I wonder how do we call this tendency to call things to be facts without further justification, even though we might sometimes know that the thing we are saying is based on some implicit assumptions of ours? Is there some name in philosophy for common assumptions in the community (in a sense as if it would be some "axioms" which the community in which a person lives implicitly assumed and don't justify, because everyone know the assumed "axioms" in this community)? Are there some keywords for this topic you would recommend me to google and read about?


Posted 2020-04-17T08:38:46.343

Reputation: 355

1Dogmatists..... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA – 2020-04-17T09:18:49.787

This "tendency" is called common sense: doubting apparent facts is idle without a positive reason to do so, even as some will turn out to be false. The implicit assumptions Peirce called "indubitable beliefs". Wittgenstein called (some of) them "hinge propositions":"The questions that we raise and our doubts depend upon the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn... If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put." True/false does not apply to these.

– Conifold – 2020-04-17T10:05:04.843

Thank you. Is there also some key word for some common community assumtions, based on which the community members can talk without necessity to constantly use the words like "probably", "if you accept this, than it could be true" etc? Meaning some name for a set of assumtions in some particular community which if I could read, I would instantly know why the people in this community talk the way they talk (meaning talking as if some things were facts). – TKN – 2020-04-17T10:13:48.987

Example of such a community would be members of computer science university who talk between each other without mentioning the knowledge and assumtions behind their words. For a person not from this community it would be difficoult to listen, because that person doesn't have this background knowledge as community members do.. – TKN – 2020-04-17T10:18:43.660

1I don't know what it's called, this tendency we have to be unaware of how little we actually know. but it may be the greatest problem of philosophy and the most significant obstacle. You can see it at work all the time. It's the opposite Cartesian doubt. . . , – None – 2020-04-17T11:52:38.213

1Pragmatism. Questioning any other domain as deeply as philosophy simply is not practical. And philosophy itself is a degenerate case of a language game. Check out the later Wittgenstein... Your case of the community with a common agreement to not question a given set of facts is the general case for all communities with languages. You don't need a word for something that is true of all cases to which it might be applied. It becomes a corrollary to the definition. – hide_in_plain_sight – 2020-04-18T00:15:54.903

1I think you have a wrong idea about it. There is no name because there is no "set of community assumptions". There are no "assumptions", as in something that is or can be spelled out that others can recognize and take into account. There is not even a neutral language in which to spell them out. Others, like you, have to master the community's practice itself to "get" it. And that is far more like training than reading. It requires acquiring practical skills, not applying non-existent universal rules to community-specific premises. The rules and the skills are themselves community specific. – Conifold – 2020-04-18T01:10:52.447

@MauroALLEGRANZA Yes that is correct and would tend make the original question more psychological than philosophical. Some people are so egocentrically sure of their own opinion that they cannot distinguish their own opinion from objective truth. – polcott – 2020-04-18T17:19:34.297

@MauroALLEGRANZA On the other hand when the set of analytical knowledge is defined as [expressions of language verified as true entirely on the basis of their semantic meaning specified as stipulated relations between expressions of this language] then we have an objective criterion measure to determine membership in this set. – polcott – 2020-04-18T17:21:46.403

"it was some absolute fact that cannot be doubt by some "brain in a vat" argument." If what is experienced as a set of physical sensations corresponds to the conception of a huge house, then we can say that huge house exists even if it only exists as the experience of a set of physical sensations. In this case reality is defined as the experience of a set of physical sensations. – polcott – 2020-04-18T17:59:47.540



You may like to look up conventionalism first and proceed further as you discover more concepts.

However, I'd like to add here that even as you seek a term to name a certain attitudes in people's spoken words, your examples, especially the first one, 2+2=4, could have been more involved, like for ex failure+anxiety=suicide. You can't accept the truth of this assertion without hearing some additional explanations. 2+2=4 is quite clearly a universal truth, since all of us have learnt this by rote since our kindergarten days. Conventionalism obviates a need for explanations in much of our daily communications.

It is in fact a trait with people to talk about certain issues as if it is self evident universally even when a deeper lookup raises some doubts and even down right contradictions. It would go unchecked within communities who have been told that the implied truth is a fact. Much of the religious superstitions fall in this category.

After reading Ayn Rand, and several times over, I revised much of the common expressions I had taken for granted as true. In one sense, I was like that character in Atlas Shrugged, the 'wet nurse' Deputy Director of Distribution appointed at Reardon Steel. He was a qualified engineer who accepted unchecked truths like "there are no absolutes". His metamorphosis as a man of wisdom is one of many ways that Rand taught me & rectified my own wisdom.

I am in a way stating in conclusion that you may like to review your own philosophic learning. You've said at the outset "philosophy has taught me is that we cannot be sure of anything". If that were to be true, how are we at all going to exchange ideas, understand each other, and grow individually? Please think it over in right earnest. Best wishes.

Bridventure PR

Posted 2020-04-17T08:38:46.343

Reputation: 11

Thanks for your comment. Just to react on your "If that were to be true, how are we at all going to exchange ideas, understand each other, and grow individually?", I would like to say that you are right in that, but also I would add that we should always doubt things we think we know "for sure". Rethinking some knowledge often leads to new insights in a lot of domains and usually better conceptual understanding of the world. – TKN – 2020-04-17T20:13:02.280

For example, when I was younger I have never questioned science, meaning scientific method. Now after I have read some philosophy, I see a lot of implicit premises in scientific method which can be questioned. – TKN – 2020-04-17T20:18:57.993

A better way to put what you want to convey is, we should be open to new evidences that may turn our "for sure" things upside down. This is anyway s given once you are scientific (logic, evidences, reality). Pl clarify which 'philosophy' led you to question scientific methods & which are those implicit premises you want to question. I may also like to caution in your doubting things always, as you may end up getting a knitted brow permanently, like a Doubting Thomas . – Bridventure PR – 2020-04-19T05:22:19.803


It's a normative bias: the tendency to accept the conventional as true. I see a red ball, and I am accustomed (from habit and experience) to the idea that the red balls I see are tangible artifacts in the world, not holograms, hallucinations, or hairless hedgehogs. So I skip over all the intermediary logical steps and assert that the red ball is real. If I have a reason to question it, I can, but there is a vast difference between questioning an instance ("is that particular red ball real?") and questioning a norm ("are any of the red balls I ever see real?"). Questioning norms creates existential angst and other distressing 'dark nights of the soul', so people resist it as they can.

Ted Wrigley

Posted 2020-04-17T08:38:46.343

Reputation: 9 139