How is this definition of "belief"?

@Frank Apisa,

Sorry, Frank, but I guess I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that you are conflating believing and guessing. I meant that the people who insist that your guesses are beliefs are doing so. Hope that clarifies things a bit.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Seem like speculations to me. Razz

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

To me my previous post was as you say a method but it can be used as a way of determining a definition of belief. It shows that ideas must be justified and whilst failing to do this one is in an unjustified state which is defined as belief. Therefore belief is inherently unsatisfactory and unreliable . One definition of belief could be 'an unjustified state of mind. It would be better to either have knowledge or uncertainty and when in a state of uncertainty refrain from using the word 'belief' to describe it.

If one doesn't have knowledge remain open-minded.

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Sorry, Frank, but I guess I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that you are conflating believing and guessing. I meant that the people who insist that your guesses are beliefs are doing so. Hope that clarifies things a bit.

I was wondering about what seemed a 180. Thanks for clearing that up.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

If one doesn't have knowledge remain open-minded.

Sometime, that's not possible. How to keep an open mind about logic, for instance? Nobody can prove it works. Yet everybody uses it, including you...

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That's what I get for posting from work. Wink

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

To me my previous post was as you say a method but it can be used as a way of determining a definition of belief. It shows that ideas must be justified and whilst failing to do this one is in an unjustified state which is defined as belief.

I disagree. Ideas must be justified to be moral principles. They must be falsifiable to be scientific principles.
To be beliefs, ideas merely have to be believed in. True or false, or justified or without merit, has no relevance in determining is something is a belief or any other kind of conceptual frame.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
If one doesn't have knowledge remain open-minded.

Sometime, that's not possible. How to keep an open mind about logic, for instance? Nobody can prove it works. Yet everybody uses it, including you...

I'd say it would be foolish 'not' to keep an open-mind about logic as it has limitations:

How does logic help a QM scientist with wave-particle duality?

How does it help with the question of how the universe began?

How does it help with the question of how life began?

How does logic prove if a conclusion is true or false if the premises are not known to be true or false but assumed to be one or the other (as is often the real state of affairs unless it is a tautology)?

Etc.. etc.. etc...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
To me my previous post was as you say a method but it can be used as a way of determining a definition of belief. It shows that ideas must be justified and whilst failing to do this one is in an unjustified state which is defined as belief.

I disagree. Ideas must be justified to be moral principles. They must be falsifiable to be scientific principles.
To be beliefs, ideas merely have to be believed in. True or false, or justified or without merit, has no relevance in determining is something is a belief or any other kind of conceptual frame.

You disagree with me by agreeing with my last few posts? Knowledge is justified belief therefore belief is unjustified... this is what you are saying as am I and have been in my other previous few posts!?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

How does logic prove if a conclusion is true or false if the premises are not known to be true or false but assumed to be one or the other

Logic is computational. It starts from some statements, from which it derives others. Faulting logic for being unable to work without premises is like faulting fire for needing fuel.

Anyway, the point is: you use logic, even though it has limitations and you can’t prove it works. Say, if you were accused of some crime, you would try and see if you have an alibi, and if indeed you were spotted another place at the time of the crime, you’d use that in court, wouldn’t you? Or would you say: Your Honor, I am not entirely certain of anything, including not being ubiquitous?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I would ask the jury to keep an open-mind about the prosecution's case and to only arrive at a verdict based on the facts of the case put before them.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Knowledge is justified belief therefore belief is unjustified

One criteria for an assertion to be called knowledge is that the assertion must have some accuracy and relevance in relation to "empirical reality". There must be a frame of reference that is shared by all, so that any assertion can be proven true or false by experiment.

This criteria does not apply to an assertion we can call a belief. Assertions we would put in this category are in no relation to our shared frame of reference, and so cannot be proven true of false by experiment. Justification doesn't enter into it, same as you don't need justification to dream about winning the lottery. It's just something some people do.

So, the way I see it, there is a big difference between what we might call 'uncertain knowledge' and 'belief'. Uncertain knowledge, theories we suspect are right, but don't know for sure yet, for instance, relate to "empirical reality", and so cannot be defined as beliefs.

And beliefs cannot be defined as 'wrong knowledge', simply because that is not what they are. There's no direct relation with knowledge at all, only creative imagination. That does not make beliefs unjustified. There may be many good reasons to believe in god, even if that belief can never become knowledge. The reasons just aren't scientific.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

What you've said doesn't follow from what I've said!?

Also, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief" but that is not the same as me saying that therefore belief is unjustified i.e. it doesn't follow that I'm saying that it is unjustified knowledge it just means what I said it means, 'belief is unjustified'... period.

1 Reply

If knowledge is justified, true belief, then any belief that can't be qualified with the adjectives "justified" and "true" is not knowledge, no? This implies that some beliefs are not justified and/or true and are therefore not knowledge.

You start with a belief and if you can justify it and show that it is true, then it's knowledge, no longer belief. If you can't justify it and show that it's true, then it's still a belief.

Or at least, that's the way the logic seems to work out. Whether it means anything or not is another question.

2 Replies

@FBM,

I agree.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Saying "I don't believe in the existence of X" is the same as saying "I believe in the non-existence of X."

What if someone asked you if you believe there exists intelligent life in the Orion Nebula, and you felt you didn't have enough evidence to form a belief either way? Are you positive that "I do not believe in its existence, nor do I believe in its non-existence" would be an invalid answer?

Read again what igm wrote:

Quote:

I don't however believe there is a truly existent car... there appears to be but when examined it cannot be found

As I pointed out, that's not a statement of non-belief, that's a statement of belief phrased in a negative fashion. My mistake was neglecting to say that igm's statement of non-belief in the existent car was equivalent to stating a belief in the non-existence of that car in this instance. My apologies for any confusion that might have caused.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

I would ask the jury to keep an open-mind about the prosecution's case and to only arrive at a verdict based on the facts of the case put before them.

And if they brand you guilty in spite of your alibi, you will not try to use simple logic to prove that you couldn't be the criminal. You will just keep an open mind about logic and its many limitations... :-)

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Also, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief"

A meaningless generalization. How can you define knowledge as a kind of belief without excluding any knowledge that didn't take over after some belief?
The rules of baseball is knowledge. But how can we twist the words to say that they are "justified true belief"?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Read again what igm wrote:

Quote:

I don't however believe there is a truly existent car... there appears to be but when examined it cannot be found

So funny.... Igm does not drive a car, he drives a bunch of spare parts.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You guys are missing the point.

Determining true or false for any belief is not the same thing as defining the concept belief!
Forget true or false.
If an assertion can be proven either true or false, it is not belief.
A belief is an assertion to which the distinction true or false is meaningless because it can't be known.

2 Replies

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know