How is this definition of "belief"?

@Frank Apisa,

Got you. I'm with you on this, which is why I proposed some simple language to Cyracuz, "not yet known and possibly unknowable".

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

What utter drivel. What constitutes a "justified" belief? Stop playing idiotic word games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Quote:

Belief, knowledge and epistemology

The terms belief and knowledge are used differently in philosophy.
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have true knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief".

The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

1 Reply

@igm,

Foisting off the responsibility for a meaningless word game does nothing to make it meaningful. The more reasonable distinction would be between belief based on experience and blind faith. You needn't try to burnish your credentials by throwing around philosophical terms in a thread which is an attempt (and a reasonable attempt) to arrive independently at a workable definition.

Do you ever think for yourself?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Foisting off the responsibility for a meaningless word game does nothing to make it meaningful. The more reasonable distinction would be between belief based on experience and blind faith. You needn't try to burnish your credentials by throwing around philosophical terms in a thread which is an attempt (and a reasonable attempt) to arrive independently at a workable definition.

Do you ever think for yourself?

This response and you previous post makes you look a complete idiot... IMHO.

1 Reply

@igm,

If anyone would know, from deep and abiding personal experience, what it is to be a complete idiot, it would be you. People who think independently don't rely on academic definitions to describe their own thinking for them. You seem incapable of anything else. The only thing about you more hilarious than this is your idiotic devotion to your Buddhist superstitions, with which you also attempt to make yourself appear wise. News flash--it doesn't work.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

How do you determine if an assertion cannot be said to be true or false...or that it is "impossible" to determine the assertion?

That's an important question. I think it depends on the assertion. It is not hard to see, for instance, that the assertion "the food in my fridge doesn't exist when it's not being observed", cannot be known.

The assertion "there is a god" may be determinable. But the same goes for the assertion "there is a snukfrush". I don't have the slightest idea what a snukfrush is though, so I can not assert that it holds any relevance in reality.

Assertions that are not subject to true and false are things like human rights, moral principles and rules and that exist because we enforce them.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Your contribution to this thread so far is to attack me... for no reason... with idiotic ranting... I was trying to contribute... without name calling... I agree it falls on deaf ears but I tried... I'm off now I prefer a thread that does not include idiotic ranting...

1 Reply

@igm,

Long before you poked your sanctimonious nose into this thread, i was involved in the discussion. You clearly don't get what is going on here. Cyracuz is not discussing standard epistemological terms, he is offering an attempt to define a term outside academic strictures. You also clearly didn't read the thread. I've ignored your idiocy for quite some time, as it happens. As i've already pointed out, i was involved before you showed up. You are not nearly so important as you seem to think you are.

0 Replies

By the way, i have called you no names. I have heaped scorn on your vacuous contributions, but you seem to forget that not only is there no guarantee to people will refrain from scorning what you post, but that that is a part of ordinary debate.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
How do you determine if an assertion cannot be said to be true or false...or that it is "impossible" to determine the assertion?

That's an important question. I think it depends on the assertion. It is not hard to see, for instance, that the assertion "the food in my fridge doesn't exist when it's not being observed", cannot be known.

The assertion "there is a god" may be determinable. But the same goes for the assertion "there is a snukfrush". I don't have the slightest idea what a snukfrush is though, so I can not assert that it holds any relevance in reality.

Assertions that are not subject to true and false are things like human rights, moral principles and rules and that exist because we enforce them.

Okay, Cyracuz...but that simply begs the question: How does one determine which assertions are not subject to true and false?

You seem to be just kicking the subjective determinations further down the road.

Am I wrong on this?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yes, you did propose this, and I wasn't convinced. I still don't like it, but there may be no way around it. But I think that if we managed to avoid it, it would be a clearer distinction.

"Not yet known and possibly unknowable" works, but then we are back to the circle jerk of "knowledge is justified true belief". It seems to me fact and belief are fundamentally different.

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It seems to me fact and belief are fundamentally different.

Hear hear

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I see your point. Knowledge is open and humble, subject to change, but the religious sense of Belief is closed and arrogant. The first reflects a sense of relativism the latter absolutism.
On the other hand, there is a sense in which everything is belief (secular belief to be sure). All knowledge is "solid" belief, justified only for the moment. But given Science's "progressive" orientation, all of its presently solid constructions are open to falsification and deconstruction. Otherwise they look little better than secular/naturalistic religions.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

How does one determine which assertions are not subject to true and false?

"The bible is true." This assertion is not subject to true and false. True how? As in the stories in it are true? False? A false book? It looks like a real book. You can't decide either way without a greater context.

"The stories in the bible are true." This assertion is also so ambiguous that it can't be determined to be true or false. It has to be broken down into other assertions. Some stories are perhaps true, others perhaps aren't.

I might still be kicking though.

0 Replies

While one may not be able to assert with certainty which stories in the bible are true, one can certainly state with a good deal of confidence which ones are false. That whole story about Joseph going to Bethlehem for a census, for example, in completely false. We know when Augustus ordered a lustrum on specific occasions because there is a monumental inscription in what is now Turkey, erected by his successor, Tiberius, and fragments elsewhere. (See Res Gestae Divi Augusti) None of the dates correspond. Furthermore, a census was taken of Roman citizens for political and financial reasons--nobody gave a **** about Palestinian carpenters. Finally, the idea that every Roman citizen in the empire, let alone absolutely everyone, would return to the place of their birth is preposterous. With the resources we have today, we couldn't accomplish a migration like that. It would have paralyzed the empire.

There are other examples ,but my point is that while we may not be able to state with certainty that this or that is true, we can certainly say that this or that is false.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

"Not yet known and possibly unknowable" works, but then we are back to the circle jerk of "knowledge is justified true belief". It seems to me fact and belief are fundamentally different.

Not really... Knowledge as you originally defined it is much more than "justified true belief", in any case. That's because it applies to mental frameworks, which have a structure. Beliefs are closer to structured theories, or at least they typically appear as part of belief SYSTEMS rather than as individual, independent assertions.

Since no scientific theory can be proven true, it seems reasonnable to assume no metaphysical, moral or theological theory can ever be proven true. They can only be proven false, once in a long while, e.g. the Genesis myth, or Nazism have been proven false. And lind you, that does not prevent bible thumpers and neonazis, respectively, to still believe in them. So the debate is never really closed.

In such a foggy 'post-modern' world where absolute certitudes are generally absent, knowledge is not about empirical true or false statements, it is more about epistemological statements: how do we know what we think we know? How much evidence and counter-evidence is there? What is the source of this or that info, and its possible biases? How much bias or inclination do I myself harbor on such and such issue? What are the various degrees of fiability or reliability or doubt one has to navigate when one speaks of anything, really, from the stock market, to politics, to the sexual life of flies, or to gods and their wives? There are many nuances between true and false, and that's what knowledge is about.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

On the other hand, there is a sense in which everything is belief

I think I understand what you mean. There is always an uncertainty, which means there is an element of faith to everything.

In some ways, living without beliefs requires more faith than holding on to them.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

That whole story about Joseph going to Bethlehem for a census, for example, in completely false.

Here we have an assertion we can reference to something definite. This assertion is different from an assertion that can't be referenced to something definite.
Even though there can be a very high degree of uncertainty, this assertion, is still fundamentally different from a belief.

Perhaps the best way to nail the distinction I am trying to make is to say that "degree of uncertainty" also means "degree of certainty". A belief is just "no certainty".

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Something such as the bible stories in a particular case, however. People believe them for what are, essentially, polemical reasons. Because they take their preferred scriptures on faith, no amount of evidence will ever sway them.

3 Replies

Set, Oliver, and Cryacuz. Thanks for some great posts.

0 Replies

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know