Doubt and Belief...

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

1 - Nor Doubt nor Belief can refer to anything other than a form of experiencing!
2 - The reasons invoked to doubt ANY proposition, eg say via an intuition, an induction in a frame of languaging are subject to the same problem beliefs are uttered, they ALL require a frame of reference which must be intelligeble. Sufficient or not some form of REASONING must be uttered to HAVE a "language game"...
...after all how can you utter any form of doubting if you remove the explanation on which you base your doubting, that is to say, its COMMON, UNIVERSAL intelligibility? Surely one can see the contradiction...a doubt that is not intelligible utters nothing at all!
3 - So what does distinguish Doubt from Belief one might well wonder?
Could it be a distinction in methodology that can't be ULTIMATELY clarified? That is to mean the recognition of "a priori" differentiation in languaging that HAPPENS but cannot be rationally ultimately justified either way? Or on the other hand the very uttering of claiming a distinction on the form of languaging is already proof enough of a "mechanical entanglement" by which any form of Belief or Doubt about any proposition must be connected such that they can CLAIM to oppose each other in relation to X "existence", "validity", etc, etc?...

...bottom line I am proposing a debate on what really distinguishes belief from doubt!
In what fundamental way can they differ if both must refer or claim something?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,570 • Replies: 28

No top replies

I urge "thumbers" to engage...show up with an argument, i'll be glad to "smash it" just for fun! Very Happy

0 Replies

Succinctly, in what way X, or not X, do really Ontologically differ? Ultimately both claim some sort of a priori knowledge, this of course if they are not referring to a mere, vulgar, self consistency on the form they are presented.
If the problem is not an error in deductive methodology, where is the bottom line distinction?

0 Replies

Another way of framing the problem can be reduced to the following form:
In what way Belief or Doubt don't both constitute a claim in adding Information instead of subtracting it?

1 Reply

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Another way of framing the problem can be reduced to the following form:
In what way Belief or Doubt don't both constitute a claim in adding Information instead of subtracting it?

...its all very well and dandy in assuming belief portrays some potential if not actual reality and obviously in that sense the adding of information is evident.
What is not so evident is that the negation of any X is itself informatively significant as to claim a state of affairs. No any X clearly implies any such Y that is not with any X...again the doubt, or further the negation itself, adds information and makes claims about the world whatever is the substrata you chose to frame yourself in. In minutia the very act of doubt before negation of any such X is already implying a change on the state of affairs of any given world. Then again how come doubt adds instead of subtracting any phenomena?

...in this sense Doubt encourages the persistence of the archés of that which is denied by committing to pronounce itself, comment on it.

0 Replies

Perhaps the simplest way of topping the topic is to equate the increasing of entropy with the increasing of information.
Doubting or denying any such X results in an increase of information when framed in purely abstract terms. The subtracting function does not result in a smaller frame of information. Quite the opposite it results in a further complex frame of information in which not X first requires the recognition of X...
In Physics ppl talk on an increase of entropy but one has to wonder how this could be brought to mathematics by framing the problem in Information coinage.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Isn't the answer 'degree'?

Not sure why there should be a debate. They are both subjective words, with the objective being 'know'. To believe, there must be some doubt along with the belief) otherwise you know, to doubt there must be some belief (along with the doubt), otherwise you know.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I know what you mean but that isn't what I was looking for...
At a fundamental level both words distinction kind of breaks down and disassembles itself.
Both words make hypothetical claims about the world, and more while they seam opposites is not that clear to me they can be.
I also think these words are perfectly objective I would agree their meaning is obscure or not sufficiently clear.
Notice for instance that doubt on any X has firstly to acquire any meaningful sense of X to make a statement on lack of confidence on it. In the least a concept of X is already admitted by doubting.
In this sense X is not totally negated from reality but only moved from one place to another, say from a first order of experiencing into a second or third order on which the claim is said not "real"...better put, not "real enough".

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

At a fundamental level both words distinction kind of breaks down and disassembles itself.

Hmmm...alright, but this and your next sentence - wouldn't you say they are just a function of degree against the fact that some belief has to exist for doubt to exist and visa versa.

Quote:

I also think these words are perfectly objective I would agree their meaning is obscure or not sufficiently clear.

I'm not sure whether or not you meant subjective, as I don't see how belief or doubt can be objective...they usually have objective 'facts' entwined (not always), but those 'facts' are then subjectively interpreted, and also subject to the missing information (there has to be missing information, otherwise either doubt or belief becomes 'know').

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Doubting or denying any such X results in an increase of information when framed in purely abstract terms. The subtracting function does not result in a smaller frame of information.

I'd like some more information on this perspective; can you give a link or keywords for it?

Doubt and belief are terms that describe a categorical ranking or characterization of certainty. That certainty could be measured as the population of remembered relevant events which were or were not true.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Objective both in the sense exactly that they entail lack of certainty on state of affairs. Muddled and obscure in the sense that what they mean beyond that is not clear. Doubting X only moves X from one frame of reference "actual" to "conceptual" or at best "potential"...but of course conceptual and potential both fit conceivable and in that sense "real enough"...and therein lies the paradox. As far as I can see doubting cannot rule anything out of Reality. Curiously belief means almost the same but with an opposite direction, you move X from conceptual or potential to an "actual maybe" but cannot secure it there. So both words bottom line rather point to lack of knowledge without foundation to properly oppose each other.

I think what you meant to say is that they refer to subjective states of confidence in incomplete beings such as human minds, and I agree that much.

1 Reply

@AngleWyrm-paused,

I am sorry but I do my own thing and unless you are asking for an MRI into my neural network mess I cannot help you there...thanks for the interest anyway.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Statements of belief or doubt only point to confusion or in the better sense humbleness...truism worth reminding they don't clarify anything about the subject at hand but seam to fit a purpose on tribal disputes. Perhaps Tribal is the keyword on their factual functionality in language.

0 Replies

To make it mathematically clear, bottom line, a low degree of confidence is bigger then zero and a high degree of confidence is less then 100%. Both values are nonetheless positive!

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...bottom line I am proposing a debate on what really distinguishes belief from doubt!
In what fundamental way can they differ if both must refer or claim something?

A 'belief' is a pathologically symptomatic infection of 'thought/ego'.
Being of viral/parasitic/malware nature, 'beliefs' are caught and spread.

'Doubt' is the only intellectually rationally honest Perspective. Most of real philosophy is the original critical examination of ALL assumptions, bar none!

So, the only relationship between 'doubt', a healthy cognitive function, and the madness of a 'belief' infection, is that they are both 'thought/ego'.
The Wise never 'believe' anything (period) that they think or feel (feelings are thoughts).

The greater the ability for critical thought, the greater the immunity from catching 'beliefs'.
And vice versa.

1 Reply

@nameless,

Its false...you cannot have doubt ad nausea without trading it for some new belief system. You don't build castles in the air. Belief systems scientific or otherwise govern every action you do. The point being made I agree is that every new belief system we arrive at should be examined and questioned. But the point being made is also that radical scheticism alone is destructive and per se constitutes no form of progress. Anyway this is a down to Earth digression on the topic intended depth which aimed a level of analisys at an ontological level where the concept comes close to be deconstructed. Beliefs dont depart from nothingness. For every potential world there is already a good enough measure of reality such that a given belief is good enough to serve a social shared function.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Its false...you cannot have doubt ad nausea without trading it for some new belief system. You don't build castles in the air.

Nonsense. Have you even made any effort to understand what I offered before launching on your own egoic attack/defense?
I defined 'belief' and you conveniently seem to ignore that, sallying forth to battle.

If you cannot understand my definitions, I can make them simpler for you, if you don't want to understand, then we have nothing to discuss.
Automatic gainsaying is not philosophy or science, it is religion and sad ego defense.
That is just boring.

Quote:

Belief systems scientific or otherwise govern every action you do.

More ignoring what I wrote. More self-justifying nonsense.

Quote:

The point being made I agree is that every new belief system we arrive at should be examined and questioned.

The Reality is that the greater the 'belief infection', the less available it is to critical examination!
But you really don't know anything of 'belief', and seem unwilling to learn; another symptom of an infection; 'beliefs' inhibit intellectual and cognitive function... unto insanity!

1 Reply

@nameless,

Quote:

I defined 'belief' and you conveniently seem to ignore that, sallying forth to battle.

While not aimed at me - I read this as ‘how dare you ignore my definition of belief while I ignore your definition of belief’ (stating character traits is defining). The interesting thing where two people provide differing definitions is that the definitions attempt to confine the conversation to different aspects (ie the different definitions), which inevitably limits critical thinking.

Quote:

'Doubt' is the only intellectually rationally honest Perspective.

Don’t you mean ‘the acknowledgement of doubt is the only intellectually honest perspective”?

Or with more context, one can honestly state ‘I believe #### to be true, even while I harbour some doubts relating to that belief’

Is there anything you find intellectually dishonest about a belief or perspective held in such a way?

Quote:

The greater the ability for critical thought, the greater the immunity from catching 'beliefs'.
And vice versa.

While there is plenty of merit in such a viewpoint, it is also a flawed viewpoint (as you hold doubt to be the only intellectually honest perspective, I doubt my calling your quote flawed poses any issue. I dare say you agree that it's flawed):

- Our mind literally makes neural connects, whether we want it to or not. At the lowest level of what constitutes a belief, these neural connections are no different from beliefs. We can of course, choose to engage in training our mind to form healthy neural connections.

- A person can see beliefs as necessary to moving through life, even while they maintain an open mind to the flaws. From this perspective, a person who engages in superb criticial thought, can still engage beliefs to improve their life…even while acknowledging those beliefs are flawed, and even while exploring the permutations of those flaws..

1 Reply

Doubt and Belief...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know