The Abuse of “Self-Evident”

“A self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true simply by understanding it; its truth does not require proof or further argumentation.” This underscores the intrinsic nature of self-evident truths, often accepted without external validation.
“Throughout history, various ideas claimed as self-evident have come under scrutiny and have been demonstrated to be false or not universally accepted.” This quote points out the fallibility of self-evident claims over time.
“The advancement of science and philosophy has shown that some beliefs previously held as self-evident were based on limited understanding.” This highlights the evolving nature of knowledge and the impact of scientific and philosophical progress in challenging established norms.
“It is important to approach claims of self-evidence with a critical mindset, acknowledging the context in which such claims are made and considering the possibility of alternative perspectives or new evidence.” This suggests a cautious and open approach towards self-evident claims, valuing critical thinking and the potential for revision in light of new insights.

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

When an idea is under scrutiny, its defenders occasionally claim the idea is “self-evident” and needs no argumentation or evidence. Is there any philosophical weight behind this notion of “self-evident”? Are there cases when ideas claimed to be “self-evident” were demonstrated to be false?

The notion of “self-evidence” holds a significant philosophical weight, especially in epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. A self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true simply by understanding it; its truth does not require proof or further argumentation. This concept is deeply rooted in the history of philosophy, with thinkers like Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and René Descartes discussing the nature of self-evident truths.

Philosophical Significance of Self-Evidence:
- Aristotle introduced the idea of self-evident principles in his work, especially concerning logic and ethics, suggesting that some truths are foundational and do not require demonstration.
- Thomas Aquinas further developed this concept in the context of theology and natural law, arguing that certain truths about God and morality are self-evident to human reason.
- René Descartes famously sought indubitable foundations for knowledge, positing that the existence of the self as a thinking thing (“I think, therefore I am”) is self-evident.
Criteria for Self-Evidence:
- A proposition is self-evident if, upon understanding it, one recognizes its truth immediately.
- Self-evidence often requires a certain level of intellectual maturity and understanding; what is self-evident to one person may not be so to another.
- It is generally accepted that for a proposition to be self-evident, it must be both true and necessarily true in such a way that denying it would involve a contradiction.
Controversies and Challenges:
- Throughout history, various ideas claimed as self-evident have come under scrutiny and have been demonstrated to be false or not universally accepted. For example, certain ethical or political assertions, such as those found in the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”), while powerful and inspiring, have been contested and debated over time regarding their application and interpretation.
- The challenge with self-evident truths lies in the subjective nature of understanding and the different levels of insight among individuals. What one culture or individual may hold as self-evident, others may question or reject.
- The advancement of science and philosophy has shown that some beliefs previously held as self-evident were based on limited understanding. For instance, certain “self-evident” truths in the realm of physics were challenged by the development of quantum mechanics and relativity theory.
Conclusion:
- While the notion of self-evidence plays a crucial role in the foundations of knowledge and ethics, its application is nuanced and complex. Philosophical scrutiny and the progress of human knowledge continually test the boundaries of what is considered self-evident.
- It is important to approach claims of self-evidence with a critical mindset, acknowledging the context in which such claims are made and considering the possibility of alternative perspectives or new evidence.

In sum, while the concept of self-evidence is philosophically significant, history and ongoing inquiry show that its application requires careful consideration and openness to revision.

Absolutely! Here’s a breakdown of the idea of “self-evident” truths and some of the issues surrounding them:

The Concept of ‘Self-Evidence’

Intuitive Certainty: Ideas considered “self-evident” are often those with an immediate and intuitive sense of certainty that feels unnecessary to justify. Think basic mathematical axioms (1+1=2) or the principle that something cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously.
Foundation of an Argument: Self-evident truths are frequently the starting points of arguments. If you accept the initial premise, the reasoning that follows from it becomes much more difficult to refute.

Philosophical Debate

There’s significant philosophical disagreement around self-evident truths:

Existence: Do they actually exist? Some philosophers argue that nothing is truly self-evident, and all concepts require some level of justification. They maintain that what seems self-evident often reflects cultural conditioning rather than an absolute truth.
The Basis of Knowledge: Philosophers who do believe in self-evident truths still debate their role. Some believe they are the foundation of all knowledge, while others argue that even self-evident truths need some external justification or connection to experience.

Historical ‘Self-Evident’ Truths That Were Wrong

History is packed with ideas once considered self-evident yet later overturned:

Geocentrism: The seemingly obvious idea that the Earth is the center of the universe needed a lot of arguing (and evidence) to be refuted.
Euclidean Geometry: For centuries, Euclid’s axioms on geometry were considered self-evident, until the exploration of non-Euclidean geometries challenged their universal application.
Intuitive Notions of Physics: Before Einstein, everyday observations made concepts like the absolute nature of time seem self-evident. Relativity radically changed those assumptions.
Social ‘Truisms’: Throughout history, many harmful beliefs about race, gender, and social hierarchy were widely accepted as self-evident. These have been challenged and debunked.

Why Studying This Matters

Investigating the concept of “self-evidence” is important for several reasons:

Critical Thinking: It encourages us to question our deeply held assumptions and think critically about the origins of our beliefs.
Intellectual Humility: Recognizing that “obvious” truths have been wrong before fosters intellectual humility and an openness to changing our minds.
Combating Dogmatism: Understanding how ‘self-evidence’ is used in arguments helps us see how it can be used to shut down discussion rather than encourage open inquiry.

Let me know if you want to dive deeper into any of these specific examples or explore the works of philosophers who grapple with the concept of self-evident truths!

It would seem, given the dubious track record of ideas deemed “self-evident”, the lack of rigor in its definition, and its use as a conversation stopper, that we would be better off avoiding the term and instead stick to the epistemically rigorous practice of requiring evidence and argumentation for all of our claims. Would you agree?

Your observation raises a valid point about the importance of evidence and argumentation in establishing the truth of claims, particularly in academic, scientific, and philosophical contexts. The skepticism towards the term “self-evident” stems from its potential misuse and the subjective nature of what may be considered self-evident to different individuals or cultures. Here are a few considerations to ponder regarding the role of self-evidence and the emphasis on evidence and argumentation:

Value of Evidence and Argumentation:
- The emphasis on evidence and rigorous argumentation is fundamental to critical thinking and the scientific method, which have undeniably advanced human knowledge and understanding. This approach minimizes the risk of accepting false beliefs and enables a systematic evaluation of claims based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
Limitations of Self-Evidence:
- The concept of self-evidence, due to its inherent subjectivity and potential for misunderstanding, does have limitations, especially when used without critical examination or when assumed to be universally recognized. It’s also true that historical and cultural contexts can shift what is considered self-evident.
Philosophical Consideration of Self-Evident Truths:
- Despite its challenges, the concept of self-evident truths plays a role in foundational philosophical inquiries, such as those related to the existence of a priori knowledge (knowledge that is independent of experience). Philosophers argue that certain axiomatic truths or principles of logic and mathematics may need to be accepted as self-evident for the edifice of knowledge to stand.
Practical and Ethical Considerations:
- In practical terms, demanding evidence and argumentation for every claim can be seen as epistemically rigorous and is crucial in many contexts. However, in everyday reasoning and certain ethical or existential considerations, the sheer volume of information and complexity of arguments can make it impractical or impossible to demand exhaustive evidence for every single claim.
Balanced Approach:
- A balanced approach recognizes the importance of evidence and argumentation while also acknowledging that in certain philosophical or foundational discussions, some premises may be accepted as self-evident to allow for further exploration and dialogue. The critical element is maintaining an openness to questioning and re-evaluating what is considered self-evident in light of new evidence or arguments.

In conclusion, while there is significant merit to the suggestion of prioritizing evidence and argumentation over claims of self-evidence, it’s also important to recognize the nuanced role that self-evident propositions play in certain philosophical contexts. A critical and open-minded approach that values evidence and rigorous argumentation, yet understands the philosophical implications and applications of self-evident truths, seems most prudent.

I’d mostly agree, but with some important caveats:

Why Your Critique Is Valid:

“Self-Evidence” vs. Evidence-Based Inquiry: You’re absolutely right that a relentless focus on evidence and rigorous argumentation is far superior to relying on intuition labeled as “self-evident”. This aligns with scientific principles and promotes critical thinking.
History as a Cautionary Tale: The numerous historical examples of flawed “self-evident” truths underscore the importance of being willing to revise or abandon ideas when presented with contradictory evidence.
Shutting Down Debate: Using “self-evident” as a rhetorical cudgel discourages critical examination and undermines the pursuit of better understanding.

A Few Caveats:

Degrees of Self-Evidence: While the term can be misused, let’s not completely discard the idea that some things may indeed have a high degree of intuitive certainty. There’s a difference between the complexity of moral concepts and a basic axiom like “A thing cannot be and not be at the same time.” This doesn’t change the need for evidence, but helps nuance the discussion.
Practical Heuristics: It’s impractical to constantly re-examine the most foundational building blocks of knowledge. While we should be open to revising even our most basic beliefs if necessary, there’s value in allowing some tentative sense of confidence in certain propositions to function productively in everyday life.
Starting Points of Argument: Philosophers struggle with this as well. Even the most careful arguments likely begin with some unproven assumptions, potentially taken as axiomatically true for the purposes of the argument.

A Suggested Approach

Perhaps a more productive stance is:

Healthy Skepticism: Maintain a critical attitude toward all claims, including those presented as “self-evident”.
Open to Revision: Accept that what seems obvious may later be proven false. Be willing to change your mind.
Prioritize Evidence: Whenever possible, ground beliefs in evidence-based reasoning and avoid terminating discussion by falling back on “self-evidence”.
Nuance on Axioms: Acknowledge that some basic functional assumptions may be necessary but always view them as provisional.

It’s less about totally banishing the term “self-evident” and more about understanding its limitations and the superiority of an evidence-focused approach to understanding the world.

Provide an example of an idea that is, by some, deemed “self-evident” and provide an argument that this term contributes to the idea an important quality beyond what evidence and argumentation can.

One idea often deemed “self-evident” by some is the principle of ethical egoism, which suggests that individuals ought to act in their own self-interest. This principle is considered self-evident by its proponents on the grounds that acting in one’s own self-interest is a natural and fundamental aspect of human behavior. The argument here is not just about observable evidence of self-interested behavior in humans but also about a deeper, intuitive understanding of human nature and motivation.

Contribution of the Term “Self-Evident” to Ethical Egoism Beyond Evidence and Argumentation:

Intuitive Understanding: The term “self-evident” captures the intuitive appeal of ethical egoism. It suggests that the principle resonates with an internal, almost instinctive understanding of human motivation. This intuitive appeal is something that might not be fully captured through empirical evidence or logical argumentation alone, as it speaks to a deep-seated sense of how individuals perceive their motivations and interests.
Foundational Assumption: By claiming ethical egoism as self-evident, proponents can use it as a foundational assumption for building further ethical theories or arguments. This foundational status means that it serves as a starting point that does not require further justification, allowing for the construction of complex ethical systems based on this premise. In this way, the term “self-evident” contributes a kind of foundational certainty that is difficult to achieve through argumentation alone.
Moral Intuition and Common Sense: The notion of self-evidence in the context of ethical egoism appeals to common sense and moral intuition. It suggests that some moral truths might be so fundamental that they are immediately accessible to our moral reasoning without the need for elaborate philosophical justification. This appeal to common sense and moral intuition is significant because it suggests that certain ethical principles are not only accessible through rational analysis but are also deeply ingrained in our moral consciousness.
Philosophical Tradition and Debate: The assertion that ethical egoism is self-evident situates the idea within a broader philosophical tradition that values intuitive knowledge and self-evident truths. It invites ongoing philosophical debate about the nature of self-evidence, the role of intuition in ethical reasoning, and the relationship between self-evident principles and empirical evidence. This debate enriches the philosophical discourse by challenging thinkers to consider the limits and possibilities of knowledge, both empirical and intuitive.

In summary, claiming that ethical egoism is “self-evident” contributes something important beyond what evidence and argumentation can offer by invoking an intuitive understanding, providing a foundational assumption for further theory building, appealing to moral intuition and common sense, and enriching philosophical discourse. While the reliance on self-evidence has its critiques and limitations, its role in certain philosophical arguments highlights the complexity of human understanding and the diverse ways in which we come to know and justify our beliefs.

You said, “The term “self-evident” captures the intuitive appeal of ethical egoism. It suggests that the principle resonates with an internal, almost instinctive understanding of human motivation.“
But grounding self-evidence in an internal human motivation is epistemically inappropriate, right?

Grounding a claim of self-evidence in an internal human motivation does raise significant epistemic concerns, especially regarding the objectivity, universality, and reliability of such a foundation for knowledge. The critique you’ve highlighted touches on some key issues:

Subjectivity and Variability: Internal human motivations are highly subjective and can vary greatly among individuals, cultures, and contexts. What seems intuitively true or self-evident to one person based on their motivations or experiences may not be so for another. This variability challenges the universality and objectivity typically associated with self-evident truths, which are supposed to be recognized as true by all rational beings.
Cognitive Biases: Relying on internal motivation or intuition as a basis for self-evidence introduces the risk of cognitive biases. Human beings are susceptible to a range of biases that can distort their understanding and judgment, making it problematic to equate intuitive or instinctive feelings with epistemic justification.
Epistemic Justification: From an epistemological standpoint, knowledge claims require justification that can be evaluated and validated by others. Grounding a claim in something as internal and subjective as human motivation complicates this process. It lacks the external verifiability that evidence and reasoned argumentation provide, making it difficult to establish a solid epistemic foundation.
Philosophical Rigor: Philosophical inquiry strives for rigor and clarity in its arguments and justifications. While intuition and internal motivations are important aspects of human experience and can inform philosophical reflection, they alone do not suffice for the rigorous justification of knowledge claims. Philosophy often demands more than intuitive appeal; it seeks arguments that can withstand critical scrutiny and can be communicated, debated, and understood across differing perspectives.
Empirical Evidence and Rational Argumentation: The strength of empirical evidence and rational argumentation lies in their ability to be shared, scrutinized, and validated across different observers and contexts. This external, objective approach to knowledge claims allows for a more reliable and universal foundation for establishing truths, compared to the inherently subjective and variable nature of internal motivations or intuitions.

In conclusion, while intuitive appeal and internal motivations play a significant role in shaping human beliefs and perspectives, relying on them as the sole basis for claims of self-evidence does present epistemically inappropriate challenges. This does not mean, however, that intuition or motivation has no place in epistemology or philosophy; rather, it underscores the need for a careful balance between internal experiences and the rigorous demands of epistemic justification.

Absolutely! Here’s an example and an accompanying argument:

Example of a “Self-Evident” Idea: The inherent wrongness of causing intentional harm to another sentient being.

Argument for the Importance of “Self-Evident”:

Foundation of Morality: While philosophical arguments and evidence can be used to support the wrongness of harm, many would consider this principle to be foundational and intuitively obvious. Framing it as “self-evident” gives it an immediate moral weight. This weight goes beyond simple arguments and makes condemnation of clear instances of harm swift and socially powerful.
Empathy and Shared Grounding: Considering the pain of others as inherently wrong has an emotional resonance that transcends pure logic. Calling this concept “self-evident” emphasizes its root in shared human experience and fosters a sense of empathy that might be less apparent if the principle was debated purely on evidence-based grounds.
Practical Decision-Making: In situations where complex arguments and evidence gathering are a luxury (e.g., an immediate, potentially harmful confrontation), having a “self-evident” principle against causing harm offers a moral compass for quick action. In these cases, labeling it “self-evident” may be more pragmatically helpful than pausing for philosophical analysis.

Important Considerations:

This doesn’t mean there’s no room for nuance. Context matters, and discussions about self-defense or justifiable harm illustrate that the application of the principle isn’t always black-and-white.
“Self-evident” doesn’t eliminate debate. It can be the starting point for discussions about the limits and justifications for causing harm in complex scenarios.
The potential for misuse exists. Claiming something is self-evident can shut down discussions prematurely. There needs to be a balance between acknowledging an intuitive wrongness and a willingness to engage with complexities of real-world situations.

Overall, the argument is that while evidence and logic have their place, sometimes terming an idea “self-evident” grants it immediate moral weight and allows for a shared understanding that underpins ethical discussions and actions.

You said, “Framing [morality] as “self-evident” gives it an immediate moral weight. This weight goes beyond simple arguments and makes condemnation of clear instances of harm swift and socially powerful.“
But this rhetorical framing to achieve moral weight is epistemically improper, right?

You’re absolutely right. Framing something as “self-evident” to give it immediate moral weight can be epistemically improper. It’s crucial to acknowledge the potential drawbacks of using this term, especially in sensitive discussions surrounding morality:

Drawbacks of “Self-Evident” in Moral Arguments:

Oversimplification of Complex Issues: Morality often involves intricate, nuanced situations where labeling something as “self-evident” can shut down crucial conversations about context, intent, and potential justifications for actions deemed harmful. This can lead to overly simplistic and potentially harmful judgments.
Ignoring Counterarguments: Bypassing evidence and argumentation can overlook potential counter perspectives and exceptions. This hinders the development of a well-rounded understanding of the complexities of morality.
Dogmatism and Disagreements: When something is simply declared “self-evident,” it can foster a sense of absolute truth and shut down productive dialogue with those who hold differing views. This impedes respectful exchange of ideas and collaborative attempts to find moral common ground.

Finding Balance:

Instead of solely relying on “self-evident” pronouncements, it’s vital to engage in open and critical discussions:

Acknowledge the Complexity of Morality: Recognize that moral questions often involve shades of gray rather than clear-cut answers.
Value Evidence and Argumentation: Carefully consider evidence, ethical frameworks, and well-structured arguments alongside acknowledging core intuitions.
Promote Respectful Dialogue: Foster open exchange of ideas, even when disagreements exist, to arrive at more nuanced and informed moral judgments.

While the concept of “self-evident” truths can have some uses, it’s important to remain aware of its limitations and potential for misuse, especially in the realm of morality. A balanced approach that integrates intuition, critical thinking, and open dialogue is crucial for navigating complex ethical questions.

What lessons can we learn from the cases in which “self-evidence” was invoked for an idea that was later demonstrated to be false?

The invocation of “self-evidence” for ideas that were later demonstrated to be false provides valuable lessons in epistemology, the philosophy of science, ethics, and the broader realm of critical thinking. Reflecting on these instances can help in understanding the limits of intuition, the importance of empirical evidence, and the dynamic nature of knowledge. Here are some key lessons:

Skepticism Toward Intuition: One of the primary lessons is the need for a healthy skepticism toward intuitive beliefs or those claims considered self-evident without empirical support. Intuition can be misleading and is subject to a wide range of cognitive biases and cultural influences. This realization urges a cautious approach to claims that rely solely on the apparent self-evidence of an idea without subjecting it to rigorous scrutiny.
Empirical Verification: The instances where self-evident claims have been overturned highlight the critical role of empirical evidence and the scientific method in verifying knowledge claims. Science’s progress often comes from challenging and testing what is assumed to be true, demonstrating the importance of empirical verification over reliance on intuition or self-evidence.
Flexibility in Knowledge: These cases teach the importance of being open to revising our beliefs in light of new evidence. Knowledge is not static, and what is considered self-evident at one point in time can be disproven or revised with further investigation and discovery. This flexibility is crucial for the advancement of understanding and the correction of errors.
Critical Thinking and Argumentation: The reliance on self-evidence without proper argumentation underscores the need for developing strong critical thinking and argumentation skills. Being able to critically assess claims, understand the underlying assumptions, and evaluate the strength of arguments is essential in distinguishing between true knowledge and mere belief.
The Value of Dissent and Debate: Instances where self-evident truths were later debunked also illustrate the value of dissent and debate in the pursuit of knowledge. Encouraging a culture where ideas are openly challenged and debated can help identify and correct false beliefs, fostering a more robust and dynamic understanding of the world.
Ethical Implications: There’s an ethical dimension to acknowledging the fallibility of self-evident claims. Recognizing the potential for error and the limits of our understanding can lead to a more humble and ethical approach to knowledge claims, emphasizing the importance of dialogue, respect for differing viewpoints, and the ongoing quest for truth.
Education and Awareness: Finally, these cases underscore the importance of education in critical thinking, logic, and the scientific method. By cultivating an awareness of the potential pitfalls of uncritically accepting self-evident truths, individuals and societies can better navigate the complex landscape of knowledge and belief.

In sum, the critical examination of ideas once held as self-evident but later proven false teaches the importance of skepticism, empirical evidence, flexibility in belief, critical thinking, the value of debate, ethical humility, and the need for education in foundational epistemic skills. These lessons are essential for both the advancement of knowledge and the development of rational, open-minded individuals and societies.

The historical misuse of “self-evident” truths offers valuable lessons for navigating the concept and its limitations:

1. Humility and Openness to Revision:

Accepting the possibility that even widely held beliefs once seen as “self-evident” can be demonstrably wrong fosters intellectual humility. This encourages us to approach all ideas, including our own, with a healthy skepticism and openness to revision in the face of new evidence or counterarguments.

2. Importance of Evidence and Critical Thinking:

Cases where “self-evident” ideas were proven false highlight the crucial role of evidence and critical thinking in forming sound judgments. It emphasizes the need to constantly test our assumptions against rigorous investigation and reasoned analysis, not simply relying on intuitive certainty.

3. Avoiding Dogmatism and Oversimplification:

Recognizing the historical misuse of “self-evident” truths as a tool to shut down discussion serves as a warning against dogmatism. It reminds us to avoid oversimplifying complex issues and encourages us to engage in open and critical dialogue that acknowledges diverse perspectives and the potential for different interpretations.

4. Recognizing the Power of Framing and Language:

Understanding how labeling something as “self-evident” can give it undue weight and discourage critical inquiry highlights the power of framing and language in shaping how we perceive and engage with ideas. This awareness fosters a more nuanced approach to evaluating information and encourages us to look beyond simplistic labels.

5. The Importance of Context:

Examining examples of “self-evident” ideas proven wrong underscores the significance of context. What may appear self-evident under certain circumstances may not hold true across diverse contexts and perspectives. This emphasizes the need for critical consideration of context when evaluating the validity of any idea.

Overall, the misuse of “self-evident” truths serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us to approach information with a critical eye, prioritize evidence-based reasoning, and engage in open dialogue to avoid perpetuating false or misleading claims.

Provide 3 cases in history in which an idea was said to be “self-evident”, then later demonstrated to be false.

Throughout history, numerous ideas once broadly accepted as “self-evident” truths have been overturned through the advancement of scientific knowledge, philosophical inquiry, or social progress. Here are three notable examples:

Geocentric Model of the Universe:
- Self-Evident Idea: For centuries, the geocentric model, which posits that the Earth is the center of the universe and that all celestial bodies revolve around it, was considered self-evident. This view was supported by immediate sensory perception (the apparent motion of the Sun and stars around the Earth) and was deeply embedded in the teachings of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and various religious doctrines.
- Demonstration of Falseness: The heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus, and later supported by Galileo’s observations and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, demonstrated that the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun. This evidence contradicted the geocentric model and fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe’s structure.
Spontaneous Generation:
- Self-Evident Idea: Spontaneous generation, the theory that life could arise spontaneously from non-living matter, was widely accepted from ancient times until the 19th century. It was considered self-evident that certain forms of life, like maggots or mold, could emerge without parental organisms, based on everyday observations of life forms appearing in decaying matter.
- Demonstration of Falseness: Through a series of experiments, most notably those conducted by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century, it was demonstrated that microorganisms arise from other microorganisms and do not spontaneously generate. Pasteur’s experiments with broth and swan-neck flasks provided empirical evidence that contradicted the theory of spontaneous generation, leading to the development of germ theory and modern microbiology.
Racial Superiority Theories:
- Self-Evident Idea: Theories of racial superiority, which posited that certain races were inherently superior to others, were once widely accepted in various societies and used to justify slavery, colonialism, and discriminatory laws. These ideas were often considered self-evident truths based on flawed interpretations of biological differences and cultural achievements.
- Demonstration of Falseness: Advances in genetics, anthropology, and sociology have demonstrated that the concept of race as a biological determinant of ability or value is scientifically unfounded. The Human Genome Project, among other scientific endeavors, has shown that all humans share a vast majority of their genetic makeup, debunking the notion of significant biological differences that would justify claims of inherent racial superiority. These developments have led to a broader understanding of race as a social construct rather than a biological fact, challenging and overturning the once “self-evident” notions of racial superiority.

These cases illustrate how ideas initially considered self-evident can be overturned through the advancement of knowledge, underscoring the importance of skepticism, empirical investigation, and the willingness to revise our understanding of the world.

Geocentrism: For centuries, the belief that the Earth was the stationary center of the universe (geocentrism) was considered “self-evident.” This idea stemmed from everyday observations – the Earth appeared motionless, and the stars seemed to revolve around it daily. However, advancements in astronomy, particularly the work of Copernicus and Galileo, provided evidence supporting a heliocentric model (sun at the center) which eventually replaced the “self-evident” geocentric view.
Unchangeability of Species: In the 18th century, the concept of species being fixed and unchanging was widely accepted as “self-evident.” This belief stemmed from observations of readily apparent differences between species and the lack of evidence for change. However, Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection, supported by extensive evidence from various scientific disciplines, challenged and eventually disproved the notion of species being static.
Hereditary Traits Acquired During Life: Prior to the development of modern genetics, it was common to believe that acquired traits, such as physical characteristics developed during an organism’s lifespan, could be passed on to offspring. This idea seemed “self-evident” based on observations, like the belief that blacksmiths’ strong arms could be inherited by their children. However, the discovery of DNA and the principles of genetics demonstrated that only genetic information, not acquired traits, is passed on to future generations, effectively debunking this previously held “self-evident” belief.

These are just a few examples highlighting how seemingly “self-evident” ideas can be demonstrably wrong as new knowledge emerges and investigative methods evolve. They emphasize the importance of critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and being open to revising our understanding of the world as new information becomes available.

Create a 5-item quiz on the discussion above with answers at the end.

Quiz: Understanding Self-Evidence and Its Reevaluation

Questions:

What philosophical concept refers to propositions known to be true simply by understanding them, without the need for further proof or argumentation?
- A) Empiricism
- B) Rationalism
- C) Self-evidence
- D) Skepticism
Which model of the universe, once considered self-evident, posited that the Earth is the center and all celestial bodies revolve around it?
- A) Heliocentric model
- B) Geocentric model
- C) Galactic model
- D) Big Bang model
Who conducted experiments that disproved the theory of spontaneous generation, showing that life does not spontaneously arise from non-living matter?
- A) Isaac Newton
- B) Charles Darwin
- C) Louis Pasteur
- D) Albert Einstein
Theories of racial superiority, once accepted as self-evident truths, were debunked by advances in which field(s)?
- A) Genetics and sociology
- B) Physics and chemistry
- C) Economics and politics
- D) Astronomy and geology
What important lesson can be learned from the historical overturning of ideas once deemed “self-evident”?
- A) The reliability of sensory perception is infallible.
- B) Self-evident truths are permanent and unchangeable.
- C) Skepticism and empirical investigation are crucial in revising our understanding.
- D) Philosophical inquiry has little impact on scientific discoveries.

Answers:

C) Self-evidence
B) Geocentric model
C) Louis Pasteur
A) Genetics and sociology
C) Skepticism and empirical investigation are crucial in revising our understanding.

Quiz: Self-Evident Truths

Instructions: Answer the following questions based on the discussion about “self-evident” truths.

Which of the following best complements the use of evidence and argumentation in understanding the world? (a) Relying solely on intuition and “self-evident” truths (b) Engaging in critical thinking and questioning assumptions (c) Accepting all widely held beliefs without examination (d) Focusing solely on emotions and personal experiences
In which historical example did advancements in science demonstrate the limitations of “self-evident” ideas? (a) The belief that the Earth is the center of the universe (geocentrism) (b) The concept of a universal language (c) The idea that all humans are created equal (d) The notion that governments should derive their power from the consent of the governed
According to the passage, what potential advantage can come from framing an idea as “self-evident”? (a) Guarantee the absolute truth of the idea (b) Foster a sense of shared understanding and encourage action (c) Provide a strong foundation for complex mathematical proofs (d) Eliminate the need for further investigation and exploration
Which lesson can be learned from examining historical examples of “self-evident” ideas proven wrong? (a) We should completely avoid using the term “self-evident” anymore. (b) All seemingly obvious ideas are eventually proven false. (c) Openness to revising our understanding is crucial in light of new evidence. (d) Intuition is always an unreliable source of knowledge.
What is the main point of the discussion about “self-evident” truths? (a) “Self-evident” truths are entirely useless and should be discarded. (b) While “self-evident” truths may seem obvious, they should be approached cautiously. (c) Only rigorously proven ideas deserve our attention and consideration. (d) All knowledge is ultimately based on intuition and self-evident truths.

Answers:

(b) Engaging in critical thinking and questioning assumptions
(a) The belief that the Earth is the center of the universe (geocentrism)
(b) Foster a sense of shared understanding and encourage action
(c) Openness to revising our understanding is crucial in light of new evidence.
(b) While “self-evident” truths may seem obvious, they should be approached cautiously.

Provide 15 discussion questions on the “self-evident” discussion above.

What defines a proposition as “self-evident,” and how does this definition vary among different philosophers?
Can you give an example of a belief that you personally consider self-evident? Explain why.
How do the criteria for self-evidence differ between empirical sciences and ethical theories?
Discuss the role of intuition in determining what is self-evident. Is intuition a reliable source of knowledge?
How did the shift from the geocentric to the heliocentric model challenge the notion of self-evidence in scientific theories?
Reflect on the historical belief in spontaneous generation. What does its debunking tell us about the dangers of relying on apparent self-evidence?
In what ways have ideas of racial superiority, once deemed self-evident, impacted societies, and how has our understanding evolved?
How does the concept of self-evidence relate to the problem of induction in philosophy?
Discuss the ethical implications of declaring an idea as self-evident. Who gets to decide what is considered self-evident, and what power dynamics are involved?
Consider the role of self-evidence in legal and political documents (e.g., “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”). What is its purpose, and how does it affect the interpretation of these documents?
How does the rejection of previously self-evident ideas contribute to the progress of knowledge and science?
Explore the relationship between self-evident truths and foundationalism in epistemology. How do self-evident truths serve as the foundation for knowledge?
Discuss the potential conflicts between self-evident truths and cultural relativism. Can a truth be self-evident in one culture but not in another?
How do advancements in technology and scientific methodology influence our perception of what is considered self-evident?
Reflect on the role of education and critical thinking in challenging ideas that are traditionally held as self-evident. How can society foster an environment where such ideas are more rigorously examined?

“Self-Evident” Truths: Discussion Questions

Does labeling an idea as “self-evident” contribute anything valuable to its validity or understanding? If so, how?
Can you think of any instances where using the “self-evident” label could be beneficial, outside of the realm of morality?
In what ways can the misuse of “self-evident” truths hinder productive discussions or perpetuate harmful beliefs?
How can we strike a balance between acknowledging the potential intuitive appeal of “self-evident” ideas and ensuring critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning remain the primary tools for understanding the world?
Do you think there are certain fundamental principles or axioms that could be considered genuinely “self-evident” and serve as a foundation for further knowledge? If so, how do we distinguish them from less reliable intuitions?
How do historical examples of “self-evident” truths being proven false inform our understanding of scientific progress and the evolution of knowledge?
When might it be necessary to challenge or re-evaluate previously held beliefs that were once considered “self-evident”?
How can we foster an intellectual environment that encourages healthy skepticism and openness to revising our understanding of the world, even in the face of seemingly self-evident truths?
Does the concept of “self-evident” truths have any cultural or societal implications? If so, how?
In your opinion, is the term “self-evident” useful or harmful in most situations? Why or why not?
Can you think of any personal experiences where you’ve questioned or revised your own previously held “self-evident” beliefs? What was the catalyst for this change?
How can recognizing the limitations of “self-evident” truths help us approach diverse viewpoints with more understanding and respect?
Does the concept of “self-evident” truths play a role in different academic disciplines or fields of study? If so, how does it vary?
How might the concept of “self-evident” truths be relevant in areas like logic, mathematics, or philosophy?
Can you identify any potential ethical considerations associated with using or misusing the term “self-evident”?

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}