They may not be distinguished in sloppy common usage, but isn't that the point of sharpening usage: to clarify the underlying logic? — Janus

Of course one can suggest a specific usage for a term that people can then agree to use. That's fine, but your posts read as if the people who disagreed with you are wrong. They didn't understand what the word meant. Those two discussions have quite different tones. Here the common usage tends much more against your sense of how the word should be used, and people were likely responding from that knowledge. I would guess they would react differently if you presented it as a proposal for a unified definition and the one you want. I certainly would have.

Yes. I think that process of erosion is more in one's control than is immediately apparent perhaps. One can lose faith st every setback, or one can retain it despite failures.
---
No, I'm not talking about one's first thoughts, I'm talking about mental states that cannot be brought about deliberately.
— baker

Yeah, I'm disputing the existence of those states. I'm saying that such states only appear to be impossible to bring about because we erroneously assume that the state they are intended to replace (our first thoughts) is arrived by some more 'natural' process. It isn't. — Isaac

I'm not disagreeing with either point. In fact, I agree. However, I have found that by being more deliberate, innocence and passion are gone. Many people aren't deliberate like this, so being this way has a psycho-socially alienating effect, which isn't to be underestimated. By being more deliberate, much folk wisdom becomes unintelligible, "Have faith", "Believe in yourself", "Just listen to your heart" mean nothing anymore. Add to this active derision and even ostracism (I've been accused of being a "cold bitch", a "troll", that I "never put my heart into anything".)

Like any narrative, there are limits, it has to work (predictions made using it have to turn out), but there are multiple narratives which work no better or worse than each other. We're free to choose between them.

But choose between such equally in/effective narratives on the grounds of what? Which one pleases one's ego more?

Since doubt has been invoked...

Doubting 'X' is doubting the truth of X. When one doubts 'X', one holds some belief or other(s) that ground(s) the doubt. Otherwise, the skepticism is groundless and/or unwarranted. Groundless skepticism is unacceptable. Radical skepticism is traditionally based upon doubting that we can be certain of and/or know anything at all, which is in and of itself - untenable - for if it is consistently applied it would undermine itself when so applied. On my view, radical skepticism is akin to overcorrecting one's front steering wheel when the rear of the vehicle breaks loose and begins to come around towards the front. It does not follow from the fact that we cannot know some things, that we cannot know anything.


The basic takeaway...

All doubt is belief-based. The pre-existing belief(s) held as relevant to X by the individual 'stands in the way' of the individual's certainty. A fine example of this is shown by the overwhelming majority of Americans not trusting that the country is heading in the right direction, by virtue of not trusting the truthfulness of elected officials, and most recently, not trusting the very institutions of American government.

but your posts read as if the people who disagreed with you are wrong. — Bylaw

I haven't suggested they were wrong, but that they were responding in ways that showed they were not taking in what I was saying, which was advocating for more precise usage of terms.

So, what I've been saying, in a nutshell, is that, to me, the logic of the idea of believing anything consists in feeling certain, with doubt consisting in feeling uncertain. And the distinction between merely feeling certain and being certain shows the difference between subjectively held beliefs and inter-subjectively justified beliefs respectively. Basically that's all I've been saying; how the underlying logic of those ideas seems to me. And then people respond with "but this is not in accordance with common usage"; well, yes of course, that was actually the point.

A fine example of this is shown by the overwhelming majority of Americans not trusting that the country is heading in the right direction, by virtue of not trusting the truthfulness of elected officials, and most recently, not trusting the very institutions of American government. — creativesoul

Unfortunately, one political party--the GOP--is deliberately fomenting doubt.

Be nice for you to unpack that. Doubt of what, based upon what? That's the philosophically interesting approach, keeping in line with the OP's topic.

Be nice for you to unpack that. Doubt of what, based upon what? That's the philosophically interesting approach, keeping in line with the OP's topic. — creativesoul

Doubt in the legitimacy of the government. Not coming from Democrats.

Doubt in the legitimacy of the government, based upon what?

Doubt in the legitimacy of the government, based upon what? — creativesoul

Based on they want power and want to delegitimize all existing norms.

I'm looking for an explanation consisting of more philosophically interesting substance. Not political speech.

I'm looking for an explanation consisting of more philosophically interesting substance. Not political speech. — creativesoul

Not sure what you are asking for.

Since the time of Plato, belief just meant weak knowledge. Not seeing much of philosophical interest beyond that. Or in religion, which is deliberately self deceptive.

Specific beliefs that are commonly held by Trump supporters that have been fomented by Trump and his allies that have resulted in an increase in doubting the legitimacy of the election results. Then we can look at what beliefs that doubt is founded upon.

Then we can look at what beliefs that doubt is founded upon. — creativesoul

Sorry, I do not understand that sentence.

Then we can examine the specific beliefs that ground the doubt regarding the legitimacy of the election.

Then we can examine the specific beliefs that ground the doubt regarding the legitimacy of the election. — creativesoul

That Trump won, not Biden. I said that. I must not be understanding you at all.

Yes. Trump and his allies have and are continuing to foment doubt in the legitimacy of the election results. Their supporters believe that Trump won.

What grounds the belief that Trump won?

What grounds the belief that Trump won? — creativesoul

What do you mean by "grounds?" I answered the question and you keep posing it again.

What evidence supports that belief?

Since the time of Plato, belief just meant weak knowledge. — Jackson

Knowledge and belief are clearly differentiated in 187b–201c of the Theaetetus. Knowledge is not judging something to be true.

I know the difference. You failed to refute what I said.

You failed to refute what I said. — Jackson

I wasn't attempting to refute anything.

I'm looking for an explanation consisting of more philosophically interesting substance. — creativesoul

Me, too.

Then don't read my posts. All you do is make personal attacks. Goodbye.

Then don't read my posts. — Jackson

Sage advise, it seems.

Doubt in the legitimacy of the government, based upon what?
— creativesoul

Based on they want power and want to delegitimize all existing norms. — Jackson

Trump supporters' doubt about the legitimacy of the 2020 American presidential election are not based upon the motives you've proposed.

Trump supporters' doubt about the legitimacy of the 202 American presidential election is/was not based upon the motives you've proposed are the officials'. — creativesoul

Same. The right wing thinks our government is not legitimate and thinks Trump needs to be a dictator.

Trump supporters' doubt about the legitimacy of the 202 American presidential election is/was not based upon the motives you've proposed are the officials'.
— creativesoul

Same... — Jackson

Do you agree?

Do you agree? — creativesoul

One motive: Delegitimize the election. There is not a single bit of evidence the election was improper.

There is not a single bit of evidence the election was improper. — Jackson

Agreed.

So, Trump supporters' belief that the election was stolen is not based upon evidence. What grounds their belief? What is such belief based upon?

I submit to you that such belief was based purely upon the deliberate perpetuation of the falsehood. They took Trump at his word.

If then, these people are presented with all the relevant facts, and they remain convinced that Trump won and the election was stolen, then we've got a very serious problem on our hands. Such belief is on par with the kind of religious faith that was discussed earlier in the thread.

Many people aren't deliberate like this, so being this way has a psycho-socially alienating effect, which isn't to be underestimated. — baker

Yes, I can see how it might. Current social norms do love putting people in impossible catch-22s. "If you try, you're faking it, if you don't try, you're a loser"... There's simply no escaping the issues. As my wife i fond of saying - if there was a solution, there wouldn't be a problem.

But choose between such equally in/effective narratives on the grounds of what? Which one pleases one's ego more? — baker

Yeah, possibly. I prefer more aesthetic grounds, but I don't know that there's much to choose between decision-making methods. Ones I like are - coherence (with other narratives), aesthetic value (usually inspired by childhood stories, to be honest), a preference for simplicity, a favouring of what I think are more 'natural' approaches... But those are just ways that seem to suit me, I couldn't raise an argument in favour of any of them, except I suppose coherence does make one's life easier to navigate, but then again many people seem to live with extremely clashing beliefs and come to no harm by it so...

I submit to you that such belief was based purely upon the deliberate perpetuation of the falsehood. They took Trump at his word. — creativesoul

Let us grant that the deliberate perpetuation of the falsehood was Trump's; still the belief of others cannot be based simply on that. The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word?