From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Classical Foundationalism holds that there are two kinds of belief: basic beliefs and non-basic beliefs. The basic beliefs are rational even when not held on the basis of other beliefs, whereas non-basic beliefs are only rational when supported by basic beliefs."
"According to the classical foundationalist, the only beliefs that are properly basic fall into one of the three following categories:
- evident to the senses,
- incorrigible, or
- self evident."
Each individual may perceive sensory input differently, but for the most part there is less disagreement and/or more understanding within this ('evident to the senses') classification of basic beliefs.
From dictionary.com:
"Incorrigible: firmly fixed; not easily changed, swayed, or influenced."
"Self Evident: Evident in itself without proof or demonstration."
For some beliefs there is widespread agreement as to its self evident nature and incorrigibility; but for other beliefs there is widespread disagreement on its identification as basic or non-basic. Widespread disagreement comes about when each individual formulates a personal concept of self-evident based on their framework of reference, and each individual chooses his or her evidence in order to build and strengthen a personal foundation of basic beliefs, from which rationality is then constructed. (A common example of this 'widespread disagreement' process is our varying beliefs surrounding God and religion.) As this construct is built and varyingly reinforced, in many cases it becomes very difficult to argue that it is not built on a foundation of basic beliefs. I believe one's personal foundation should be impressionable, but not submissive or compliant. I believe a majority of personal foundations are unyielding and incorrigible, and a large majority are unyielding and incorrigible and/or submissive and compliant. When faced with another's rigid foundation, if my personal foundation is in opposition, argument, (no matter how logically constructed from my foundation), will likely prove futile. So I must begin by understanding 1) the unassailability of their position, and 2) that rational arguments from their position will likely be perceived as irrational when seen from my foundation (and vice versa). I must then assess their irrational / rational arguments and search for more agreeable creative alternatives. Some may call this compromise. In a disagreement, I have frequently encouraged seeking common ground. I suppose common ground may be interpreted as a form of compromise, but I do not believe that compromise will always lead to a common ground. If I follow the process above and find an agreeable alternative that they interpret as rationally consistent with their foundation, before compromising my principles, I must determine if it is also rationally consistent with my foundation. To do this I must poke around and between the edges of both foundations to possibly unearth some common ground. By poking around the edges of his or her foundation, I may also draw them out, and may even enlist their aid.
If, on the first pass, the disagreement appears to be unresolvable, and the other individual remains ensconced and girded smack dab in the middle of their incorrigible position, I keep digging and poking until I come to a backbreaking point where the disagreement remains unresolvable...
Which brings me back to, "How does one argue against incorrigible basic belief?"
Given propitious recourse, one could use force or power; i.e. wage battle. If successful though, the resolution could possibly be short term; only until one's opponent is able to amass their own resources and continue the cycle. Additionally, a battle may persuade (or force) actions, but an argument is meant to persuade thoughts and views, leaving one to then determine their own actions. The argument is preferable.
Perhaps some misdirection? If I pick a different argument where there is a greater likelihood of common ground, perhaps the distraction would at the least maintain status quo. Though if I am the one working to initiate a change, this plan may likely defeat that purpose. And again, misdirection is likely a short term solution.
It was Max Planck who said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I believe this to extend beyond the scientific and also be applicable to (too) many new truths of varying credentials. So I suppose that waiting for the other individual's descendants to evolve and come around to see the wisdom of common ground... No. That will not help in the current circumstance.
((BRIEF INTERLUDE: There will be a day, (though I likely will not live to see it), when coffee shop etiquette evolves to exclude LOUD, monopolistic laughter and conversation. My typical experience is that a fairly large majority understand the necessity of quiet conversation, and it is seldom a problem. But today, it is a problem. ...Despite the fact that these two ladies are several tables away, on the other side of the room. Perhaps I should care about David's prostate surgery, but in this setting I find that very difficult.))
So far I have not come close to answering the question, How does one argue against incorrigible basic belief?
Approximately 12 years ago I began questioning many of my basic beliefs that I had held, (up to that point), for a Lifetime. I have always been a skeptic and I have always very much enjoyed thinking outside the box and playing the role of devil's advocate; but I had always done so (mainly) with the beliefs of others. It was between 10 and 12 years ago, and then again 7 years ago and 2 years ago, that some major Life changes, (coupled with my inherent skepticism), increased the impressionability of my personal foundation, creating internal opportunities for more extensive skepticism, more pointed questioning, a deeper self-evaluation, and the upheaval of constructing new foundations. My common ground with others expanded considerably and I began reading / self-educating in many areas I would not have touched upon previously. We cannot, (nor would I want to see us), intentionally bring about disability and/or health issues to duplicate these circumstances in anyone, but perhaps we could at least, (as adults pass into the second half of their Life), encourage a serious contemplation of one's (very, very) short Life compared to all past, present and future Lives, which should lead to thoughts of one's mortality, and then provide further encouragement to consider the widely varying beliefs surrounding an afterlife. I believe the resulting humility may perhaps soften some unyielding, incorrigible foundations.
I have never been one to advocate for more laws---(AaaaaAaaaaaa!!!)---so I am uncertain as to how to implement this educational initiative. Perhaps a required introduction, (incorporated into existing requirements), for 16 to 20-year-olds with a Web site encouraging staged self-study into one's 30's and 40's and 50's and 60's.
Again, this does not help us today.
Today, it feels like our options are limited. Today, it feels like change---(progress)---(learning)---must be initiated by the initiate. Today, it feels like progress is slow. I actively hope it is not too slow.
Today, it feels like my "active" is not sufficiently active.
So again, "How does one introduce a new truth to an incorrigible basic belief?"
Today, it feels like we must concur with Max Planck and wait for old truths to die; or, lose an election.