Setting up a dummy account. That's a paddling.

It’s pretty clear he’s not gonna answer my question because I think he and everyone else knows what will follow when he responds. At this point he is clearly just trolling. Though he probably was from the start and I got baited. But its okay i had fun

We all had fun, and we all experienced pain. I don't think he was properly trolling; see @exit above. He went through the trouble to make a second account (for what reason?) in order to sign off...? I don't know. Hopefully this is the end of it.

I will say to the moderators, even though the thread was far too popular for you to delete or close, I appreciate that nonsense like this was able to be addressed. Free speech means that all ideas, no matter how close-minded, need to be brought to the table, if only to be shot down. Edit: indeed, if close-minded ideas aren't even given the chance to be shot down, how can ideas be debated in the first place?

Belief is defined to be without proof. Your twist of belief being with or without evidence is in itself valid.

However, the question of whether science is a belief has risen in this discussion. To answer that, we must use the correct definition. Your "definition" is not a definition, only a partial description.

Science* isn't proven. It has scientific evidence and evidence. It has no proof.

*with the aforementioned exclusion

No growth; nothing was learned.

for what reason? — Noble Dust

He was banned, so he created a new account.

I will say to the moderators, even though the thread was far too popular for you to delete or close, I appreciate that nonsense like this was able to be addressed. Free speech means that all ideas, no matter how close-minded, need to be brought to the table, if only to be shot down. — Noble Dust

I agree, but in the long run such people are not good for the forum. He was banned for evangelism. As it says in the guidelines:

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines/

I agree, but in the long run such people are not good for the forum. He was banned for evangelism. As it says in the guidelines: — jamalrob

I think, in general, how the thread ran it's course was fair; the ideas were fairly debated (by the community anyway), and he was clearly an evangelist. Rather than ban him at post #1, the ideas were allowed to flesh out, which I think is right. Then, once it was obvious that he was contributing nothing and simply evangelizing, he was banned.

I seem to remember there were quite a lot of this kind of thread on the old PF, and speaking personally, I learned a lot from seeing the likes of Banno reveal the basic mistakes they were making. So yeah, I'm happy with how this went, although I admit I'd have been inclined to delete the discussion if I'd seen it before it gained any responses.

Well, you seem to be stating two different opinions; I agree with the opinion about Banno revealing basic mistakes. If you delete crackpot threads at ground zero, then no one else will have an opportunity to witness a crackpot getting the beatdown. Seriously.

Yes, I agree. I'm implying that what would have been my initial reaction to the discussion, i.e., to delete it, would have been too hasty.

Ok, I appreciate that; we're on the same page, then.

Ha, I bet it was you that ate my popcorn as well!

If I PM my needed information, will you post me popcorn?

While I was definitely popping my own corn during that thread, what I meant in response to @jamalrob is that, generally, all philosophical ideas, no matter how ridiculous, should have their chance at the table, if only to be shot down in the public square for all to see, and to learn from.

I try to live by these axioms, and by and large it seems to work, though attracts criticism.
I don't think you can ban or outlaw belief, because you can't outlaw stupidity.
For my part I consider Faith to be the death of reason and enquiry.
Knowledge is the better part of belief, though the two terms can be interchangeable. I think the type of belief that Tyson was talking about is the idea that it is acceptable to allow the idea that people are free to believe what they want. That is a dangerous and damaging idea, that has been the ruin of human society for thousands of years.
Belief of that sort is a response to hopelessness and intellectual laziness.
But we can only discourage it.
I believe nothing. I seek to know.

I believe nothing. I seek to know. — charleton

When you know, you believe.

And when you take it to be the case that "the idea that people are free to believe what they want ... is a dangerous and damaging idea", then that is what you believe. You believe it's a dangerous and damaging idea. To take something to be true, or the case, is to believe it.

It's not belief that's the problem, but certain kinds of belief, for example, belief contrary to evidence.

ProgrammingGodJordan was unable to see this. I hope you're not.

There are subtleties, of course. One says, "I don't believe it, I know it", which is an attempt to give a guarantee of the claim's truth, or, more charitably, to show that the belief is well-founded. It's to say, "I don't merely believe it, I know it". But it doesn't escape the fact that belief is involved whether or not it's knowledge.

When you know, you believe.

And when you take it to be the case that "the idea that people are free to believe what they want ... is a dangerous and damaging idea", then that is what you believe. — jamalrob

No. I know that. It is not a belief at all. I can demonstrate and argue the case.
What I am seeking here is a distinction between belief as a choice and belief as knowledge.
They are simply NOT the same thing at all.

When you know; you can back it up. When you can't back it up , you have to choose to believe - that is where the danger lies.

Ah, I see what you mean. Actually though, I think one can believe--without choosing to--without being able to justify it. In fact, I think there are basic beliefs that cannot be justified. Rather, they are implied in the way we go about things.

It's not belief that's the problem, but certain kinds of belief, for example, belief contrary to evidence.

ProgrammingGodJordan was unable to see this. I hope you're not. — jamalrob

You are making the confusion, by using a definition of belief which is basically meaningless, as it encompasses 1+1=2 as a belief, and I believe in fairies.
I just think it makes more sense to use the word knowledge against belief.

ProgrammingGodJordan I think is making a similar point. You are privileging the status of the word above the meanings the thread is teasing out.

You are making the confusion, by using a definition of belief which is basically meaningless, as it encompasses 1+1=2 as a belief, and I believe in fairies. — charleton

I don't see how it follows from the fact that some beliefs are true and some are false that this concept of belief--a very ordinary one, and also the philosophical one--is meaningless.

I don't see how it follows from the fact that some beliefs are true and some are false that this concept of belief--a very ordinary one, and also the philosophical one--is meaningless. — jamalrob

Could Neil Tyson be onto something? Does science stop being valid if we don't believe in science?

↪charleton Ah, I see what you mean. Actually though, I think one can believe without being able to justify it. In fact, I think there are basic beliefs that cannot be justified. Rather, they are implied in the way we go about things. — jamalrob

Yes. But it is those that I think we need to do without.
If we know things and have a rigorous method whereby that knowledge remains contingent upon the evidence and reasons that inform it then this would be a more practical way to live your life.

If I think that Jews are money grabbing, and do not challenge that idea, then I am simply going to see all acts of money grabbing as potentially jewish and find evidence of jews grabbing money to justify my belief. People like Wolfowitz, Greenspan, Bernancke, Soros, Rothschild, are going to re-inforce that prejudice. That will persist with the idea that it is okay to believe what you want.
And whilst you can know that these individuals control much of the financial systems, knowledge demands that you would have to compare this with Jews not involved in finance and non-jews involved that are also involved in finance. Or jews such as Bernie Saunders, and Stiglitz who constantly point of the failings of the current financial system.
A person that allows belief to persist over knowledge leads the jews to the gas chamber.

Belief as commonly used. Means accepting things as true you know to be lies; at one extreme. and matters of irrefutable fact on the other.
In a philosophical discussion I think we can do better than that.

Could Neil Tyson be onto something? Does science stop being valid if we don't believe in science? — ThoughtCurvature

He's not saying that at all. And you know it.

He's not saying that at all. And you know it. — charleton

What do you believe Neil is saying?

I think he may be saying that climate change deniers who believe no climate problems exist, actually don't affect the fact that climate change does exist?

I know what he is saying. What I believe is not relevant; never relevant.

I was referring to you drinking Banno's beer.

Edit: that came out wrong. I have respect for Meta because of his capacity to engage in discussion. That is entirely absent here. So is that the difference between a crackpot and a philosopher?) — Banno

Remember Kwalish Kid at philosophyforums.com ? When I fist engaged with him I really frustrated him. He said I can't quite place you, you're not like a normal crackpot (as if there's any sort of normalcy to "crackpot").

My question is more about the difference between the crackpot and the serious eccentric. — Banno

The problem is that some crackpots are really quite serious.

Belief is a model that generally permits the ignorance of evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I'll give you a similar reply to what I gave Banno in the other thread; in the inverted form, because what I argue there is the importance of doubt.

That the ignorance of evidence is possible, does not necessitate that we ignore the evidence. So what belief does is allow us to ignore evidence it does not necessitate it. This is a good thing because it lets us get on with what we are doing, in an efficient way, without having to assess all the evidence as to whether we are or are not proceeding in the most appropriate way each time we go to do something.

But if your claim is that belief forces, compels, or necessitates, us to ignore evidence (as it appears to be), then you have misrepresented belief by ignoring the reality of free will, choosing a determinist perspective.

You know, it occurs to me that I would be proud of a thread such as this, with no content and a few hundred replies. — Banno

Crackpot, eccentric, or plain old genius?

He was banned... — jamalrob

What? You discontinued my source of entertainment.

edit: I take that back jamalrob, it's more like a waste of time than a source of entertainment, as bad attempts at entertainment are.

Belief as commonly used. Means accepting things as true you know to be lies; at one extreme. and matters of irrefutable fact on the other. — charleton

That's not at all what belief means or how it is commonly used. The concept of belief is very simple: it means having the notion that something is the case, without absolute proof. Whether absolute proof is truly possible is another topic that has no effect on the concept of belief. When you believe something, there can be very little evidence for it or there can be a plethora of evidence for it, but you cannot "believe" something that is "irrefutable fact"--that would be knowledge.
I think the confusion here comes from our inability to actually prove anything at all. And because of this, some people have this strong desire to hold into the notion of knowledge because they cannot accept the idea that they don't know certain things, so they redefine what knowledge is in order to allow them to keep it. This is definitely what the OP was doing, and it seems to be what you're doing, as well. As others have pointed out already, all of the confusion with this topic seems to stem from a semantic issue. We're all essentially saying the same thing with different words, but we think we disagree because we're using key terms in different ways.

Yes, even scientists have been known to ignore evidence in order to protect their pet beliefs.

What does "OP" stand for? I am new to this forum and want to understand what I'm reading. Please explain.