A new skeptical challenge?

I've forgotten all of the reasons for most of my views. I know that many of the arguments I found persuasive in the past would no longer be persuasive to me, were I to revisit them. Doesn't this undermine the justification for most of my views?

[KaneB]

My videos on the epistemology of disagreement:

[hilbert]

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

[Tschoo]

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

[justus]

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

[drakemarsaly]

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.

[joelturnbull]

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.

[paulaustinmurphy]

"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*.

[DigitalGnosis]

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

[adamkarlovsky]

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.

[bigboy]

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.

[joshuaklein]

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..."

[Mon]

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!

[WalRUs]

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!

[HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

"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

[ryanhorner]

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.

[aeonian]

very much admire your mind and your honesty

[BurnigLegionsBlade]

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

[jmike]

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.

[neoepicurean]

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.

[absupinhere]

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.