52.1.16 Anyone who believes

Accounts Playable

I don't understand how A is better than D. Isn't the conclusion in the passage stating that the belief is incorrect? Doesn't D mirror this? A's conclusion isn't parallel since it states that the actual thing (unicorns) don't exist. Shouldn't it say that the belief in unicorns is false?

DumbHollywoodActor

Welcome to Unicorn and Centaur Hell!

nicole.hopkins

Haha.

This is a pet question for many (most?) of us.

I recommend you watch JY's video for this as it's a very specific flaw that, once you learn it, will never defeat you again.

c.janson35

You have to ask yourself this question, which is key: what does it mean to say that a belief in X is false?

How can a belief in X existing be false? There's only one way: X does not exist.

So, the conclusion is slyly telling us that ETs do not exist because the belief in them is false. This matches exactly with the conclusion in A.

c.janson35

D, on the other hand, says there's no good reason to believe in centaurs, which is different than saying that centaurs conclusively do not exist.

Accounts Playable

This question sucks. I did watch JY's video, and now my head hurts.

@c.janson35 Thanks! I do understand that D is definitely an imperfect answer choice and that no good reason isn't parallel, but in answer choice A, does "demonstrating that there are no centaurs" mean the same thing as "conclusively refuted?" The passage seems more certain that centaurs flat out don't exist while answer A is just saying we haven't found them. This seems like a black swan problem to me.

nicole.hopkins

@"Accounts Playable" said:
does "demonstrating that there are no centaurs" mean the same thing as "conclusively refuted?"

They don't need to exactly match in terms of the specific reasoning. They just need to have the same exact flaw.

DumbHollywoodActor

@c.janson35 said:
How can a belief in X existing be false? There's only one way: X does not exist.

I think there are metaphysical quandaries about the truth or falsity of a belief one can get into by this reasoning. SPOILER ALERT: My children’s belief in Santa Claus is true even if Santa’s actual existence is not.

Instead, I think the flaw in the stimulus just boils down to trying to combine a premise about the belief of something with a premise about the existence of something. There is absolutely nothing to deduce from such a combination. It’s be like adding 14 plus a fire engine. The conclusion is irrelevant. Once you recognize that flaw and you keep it to that criteria, you can easily kill (B), (C), and (D). Only two answers remain: (A) and (E). And you can quickly eliminate (E) because it’s a classic Sufficiency/Necessity confusion flaw. (A) is the correct answer.

c.janson35

I would argue against you here @DumbHollywoodActor. It is true that your children believe in Santa, but their belief is not true (sadly). It is a different thing to assign a truth value to a belief than to say whether or not it is true that someone has a belief.

I could believe the moon is made out of cheese. It is true then, that I believe this. But my belief, if we were to assign a logical truth/falsity to it, would be false because the moon isn't made ou of cheese.

DumbHollywoodActor

@c.janson35
But by that reasoning, you could say a lot of beliefs are not true: Jesus, aliens, fat-free mayonnaise.

Right?

That's why I find it problematic.

nicole.hopkins

I think I side with @DumbHollywoodActor on this one. How can the existence of anything that supersedes empirical categories be conclusively refuted? Such as ... Santa, unicorns, centaurs, little green men that communicate with me incessantly UNLESS I am wearing my tinfoil hat.

Belief and existence are categorically independent of one another, at least as far as magical beings are concerned.

c.janson35

@dumbhollywoodactor Well in the examples you gave you are assuming that all of those things have been conclusively proven to not be true. That's a different matter.

c.janson35

@nicole.hopkins I agree with you, but you are arguing with the premises of the stimulus. It has been conclusively proven that centaurs do not exist. We are taking that as a fact.

DumbHollywoodActor

@c.janson35 said:
Well in the examples you gave you are assuming that all of those things have been conclusively proven to not be true. That's a different matter.

But didn’t you just apply that reasoning to Santa Claus? How is that different than my examples?

"The truth of a belief in something requires that that something irrefutably exists” seems awfully controversial. The LSAC does not want to touch that kind of controversy with a 10-foot pole. That’s why I think my explanation is better, because it avoids that controversy.

nicole.hopkins

@c.janson35 said:
I agree with you, but you are arguing with the premises of the stimulus. It has been conclusively proven that centaurs do not exist.

Actually I was just arguing with your post I'm not actually talking about this Q at all. (And I agree with your point, were I talking about the Q)

c.janson35

@DumbHollywoodActor yea you're right about Santa, I was taking his conclusive non-existence for granted because you did in your original post lol. Sorry Santa. I won't make the same mistake with the Easter Bunny.

It doesn't seem controversial to me because just because truth isn't conclusively proven to be true doesn't mean it isn't false, which seems in line with LSACs thinking.

nicole.hopkins

@c.janson35 said:
I won't make the same mistake with the Easter Bunny.

Thank God ...

nye8870

@DumbHollywoodActor said:
SPOILER ALERT: My children’s belief in Santa Claus is true even if Santa’s actual existence is not.

Ummm...He was just spotted at the DemDebate... so...Yeah. Your kids are correct.

DumbHollywoodActor

@nye8870 said:
Ummm...He was just spotted at the DemDebate... so...Yeah. Your kids are correct.

Are you calling Bernie Sanders Santa Claus???! LOL!!!!

DumbHollywoodActor

If so, then, clearly, Jim Webb was on the “Naughty” list!