This is just a stupid thread. A belief is simply a propositional attitude. I.e., what you hold the be true or false. The idea that belief is somehow a religious concept or that it ought to be abolished is mind-numbingly ridiculous.

"Beliefs ought to be abolished" do you hold that to be a true statement? If you do, that means to you believe that statement.

This is just a stupid thread. A belief is simply a propositional attitude. I.e., what you hold the be true or false. The idea that belief is somehow a religious concepts or that it ought to be abolished in mind-numbingly ridiculous. — MindForged

It's stupid when:

you ignore that belief tends to facilitate that people generally ignore evidence.

you ignore that scientific progress doesn't care about belief; i.e. unless people follow evidence, no amount of passion or belief matters.

PS: Your words are pristine examples of beliefs found on non-evidence; from data we see belief permitting mostly that people ignore evidence.

"Beliefs ought to be abolished" do you hold that to be a true statement? If you, that means to you believe that statement. — MindForged

Based on evidence, and not my feelings, belief tends to permit that people ignore evidence.

The problem is probably that people feel we must be omniscient to avoid belief, but no, in reality, science has allowed us to make mistakes, and make progress or repair mistakes as evidence is followed.

Beliefs tend to reinforce old mistakes, (because it permits general ignorance of evidence), whereas scientific thinking generally promotes evidence consideration. (so it promotes that mistakes are repaired contrary to belief)

We can trivially avoid belief by generally being keen on evidence.(which is contrary to the concept of belief which generally permits the opposite, evidence ignorance)

@MindForged

Note that this thread looked stupid to me too (for several days in fact), until I actually payed attention to evidence, and not my feelings or pre-conceived notions.

We ought to strive to repair our mistakes based on evidence, and not old feelings.

This is simply absurd. Beliefs *are* part of science, no matter what asinine claim your favorite science communicator tells you. Scientists, within their work, believe and assert things as true. Yet, those claims are rarely taken to be claims of infallibility. Even things that we know to be true are beliefs, that's literally part of the classical definition of knowledge. Things I know to be true are also thing since believe to be true. This holds in mathematics, formal logic, science, you name it.

I cannot believe how jumpy people have let their fear of the influence of religion make them become. Utter foolishness.

We can trivially avoid belief by generally being keen on evidence.(which is contrary to the concept of belief which generally permits the opposite, evidence ignorance) — uncool

Man are you serious? Being "keen on evidence" literally just means believing what the current evidence seems to indicate. This is hilarious. Evidence is a nebulous term, which people can just as easily be fallible or even stubborn about. Not everyone agrees on what some set evidence suggests, nor even on what counts as appropriate evidence for some proposition or view.

This is simply absurd. Beliefs *are* part of science, no matter what asinine claim your favorite science communicator tells you. Scientists, within their work, believe and assert things as true. Yet, those claims are rarely taken to be claims of infallibility. Even things that we know to be true are beliefs, that's literally part of the classical definition of knowledge. Things I know to be true are also thing since believe to be true. This holds in mathematics, formal logic, science, you name it. — MindForged

Yeah, just as belief generally prescribes, you proceed to ignore evidence that:

Science does not generally permit that evidence is ignored.

whereas

Belief generally permits that evidence is ignored.

You ought to recognize by now, that a concept which generally permits evidence ingnorance (i.e. belief) is not compatible with one built on evidence (i.e. scientific thinking)

Man are you serious? Being "keen on evidence" literally just means believing what the current evidence seems to indicate. This is hilarious. Evidence is a nebulous term, which people can just as easily be fallible or even stubborn about. Not everyone agrees on what some set evidence suggests, nor even on what counts as appropriate evidence for some proposition or view. — MindForged

Remember, that evidence doesn't depend on beliefs; scientific equations don't suddenly work because scientists chose to believe in them.

It doesn't work until you follow evidence, and no amount of belief or passion poured into work, affords that said thing works.

Belief no more "permits one to ignore evidence" anymore than your weasel phrase "being keen on evidence" (which is just another way of saying "belief").

Remember, that evidence doesn't depend on beliefs; scientific equations don't suddenly work because scientists chose to believe in them.

It doesn't work until you follow evidence, and no amount of belief or passion poured into work, affords that said thing works. — uncool

That is completely irrelevant. Scientists *believe* (meaning they hold it to be true) that some such equation is veridical. No one is proposing some causal relation between "X believes Y" and "Therefore Y is true" in virtue of being believed. This should be extremely simple.

Belief no more "permits one to ignore evidence" anymore than your weasel phrase "being keen on evidence" (which is just another way of saying "belief").

That is completely irrelevant. Scientists *believe* (meaning they hold it to be true) that some such equation is veridical. No one is proposing some causal relation between "X believes Y" and "Therefore Y is true" in virtue of being believed. This should be extremely simple. — MindForged

Look at cognitive science sources in the OP, like "A cognitive account of belief." or "Memory formation and belief”, or look at dictionaries or Wikipedia.

Regardless of what you personally feel or believe, belief is something that generally permits ignorance of evidence.

Science doesn't work when people generally ignore evidence, as belief generally facilitates.

As I said, you are literally just taking time concept of "belief" (holding some proposition to be true or false) and renaming it "being keen on evidence".

And try reading that research in the OP. It is primarily about delusions (false beliefs, as defined in the research) and belief formation. You are misguided and misrepresenting research because of some silly fear of religion.

As I said, you are literally just taking time concept of "belief" (holding some proposition to be true or false) and renaming it "being keen on evidence" — MindForged

On the contrary, I underline that belief (which generally promotes ignorance of evidence) opposes scientific thinking (which generally promotes consideration of evidence) .

The above line obtains, given evidence, and not my personal feelings or pre-conceived notions.

And try reading that research in the OP. It is primarily about delusions (false beliefs, as defined in the research) and belief formation. You are misguided and misrepresenting research because of some silly fear of religion. — MindForged

How quickly did you "read" one of those papers?

Here is a snippet you should consider:

"Belief evaluation, even in the absence of frank pathology, has several limitations. People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies (Evans, 1989; Gilovich, 1991; Johnson-Laird, 2006; Nickerson, 2008). People, for example, tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief (Nickerson, 1998, 2008). People may also use inefficient strategies that waste effort on non-diagnostic data (Fischoff and Beyth-Marom, 1983; Evans, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 2006) or focus on heuristics (Kahneman et al., 1982; Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011; Kahneman, 2011; see also Gilovich et al., 2002). Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis. In support of this, there is research suggesting that beliefs may persevere even when the initial evidence for the beliefs is discredited (Ross et al., 1975, 1977; Anderson et al., 1980)"

You are reaching. Again, this is neither state in the research and is even contradicted by it.
:

"Belief can be defined as the mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of some idea (Schwitzgebel, 2010). According to many analytic philosophers, a belief is a “propositional attitude”: as a proposition, it has a specific meaning that can be expressed in the form of a sentence; as an attitude, it involves a mental stance on the validity of the proposition (Schwitzgebel, 2010). Beliefs thus involve at least two properties: (i) representational content and (ii) assumed veracity
(...)
Beliefs, or perhaps more realistically belief systems, provide the ‘mental scaffolding’ for appraising the environment, explaining new observations, and constructing a shared meaning of the world (Halligan, 2007)."

I mean if you literally get rid of one of the most basic concepts in human experience I guess being ridiculous isn't a problem for you.

You are reaching. Again, this is neither state in the research and is even contradicted by it.
:

"Belief can be defined as the mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of some idea (Schwitzgebel, 2010). According to many analytic philosophers, a belief is a “propositional attitude”: as a proposition, it has a specific meaning that can be expressed in the form of a sentence; as an attitude, it involves a mental stance on the validity of the proposition (Schwitzgebel, 2010). Beliefs thus involve at least two properties: (i) representational content and (ii) assumed veracity
(...)
Beliefs, or perhaps more realistically belief systems, provide the ‘mental scaffolding’ for appraising the environment, explaining new observations, and constructing a shared meaning of the world (Halligan, 2007)."

I mean if you literally get rid of one of the most basic concepts in human experience I guess being ridiculous isn't a problem for you. — MindForged

Don't forget this line:

"There is, for example, no philosophical consensus on what belief is."

Those are the "philosophical" descriptions referred to in the paper, which you quoted.

Experimental data on the other hand, shows that belief generally occurs such that evidence is ignored.

You are quoting it referring to people who form beliefs in an irrational way. Great argument, I never realized that people could use a tool incorrectly or have biases. Let's try this:

I will now be "keen on evidence". Oh what's that, you have some evidence which contradicts what evidence I am currently "keen on"? Well that can't be correct, I will ignore your evidence and only pay attention to the evidence which supports the evidence I am "keen on".

See what i mean? This is the stupidest semantic deception I've seen in a good while. It's literally just changing the label of what we refer to as a "belief".

Don't forget this line:

"There is, for example, no philosophical consensus on what belief is." — uncool

Your point? Are you serious? Yes people disagree on what exactly a belief is. What does that have to do with anything? There is no philosophical consensus on what "evidence" is either, and even about how evidence "supports" the truth of some proposition. This is more absurd by the minute.

Your point? Are you serious? Yes people disagree on what exactly a belief is. What does that have to do with anything? There is no philosophical consensus on what "evidence" is either, and even about how evidence "supports" the truth of some proposition. This is more absurd by the minute. — MindForged

The point is that beyond the philosophical definitions which you quoted above (on which there is no concensus) there exists experimental data on the other hand, showing that belief generally occurs such that evidence is ignored.

Just as belief generally prescribes, you quickly attempted to seek ways to adhere to your prior preconceived notions, regardless of contrasting experimental data/evidence.

The point is that beyond the philosophical definitions which you quoted above (on which there is no concensus) there exists experimental data on the other hand, showing that belief generally occurs such that evidence is ignored. — uncool

I already answered this and showed the shell game. Let's try again:

You are quoting it referring to people who form beliefs in an irrational way. Great argument, I never realized that people could use a tool incorrectly or have biases. Let's try this:

I will now be "keen on evidence". Oh what's that, you have some evidence which contradicts what evidence I am currently "keen on"? Well that can't be correct, I will ignore your evidence and only pay attention to the evidence which supports the evidence I am "keen on".

See what i mean? This is the stupidest semantic deception I've seen in a good while. It's literally just changing the label of what we refer to as a "belief" — MindForged

People will do exactly the same thing if they are "keen on evidence" (e.g. believe) as suggested by you. This is nothing but a smokescreen and ignores that the research you quoted was about people forming beliefs irrationally (overly driven by bia.

I will now be "keen on evidence". Oh what's that, you have some evidence which contradicts what evidence I am currently "keen on"? Well that can't be correct, I will ignore your evidence and only pay attention to the evidence which supports the evidence I am "keen on"..

People will do exactly the same thing if they are "keen on evidence" (e.g. believe) as suggested by you. This is nothing but a smokescreen and ignores that the research you quoted was about people forming beliefs irrationally (overly driven by bia. — MindForged

If you constantly observe evidence, rather than only looking for data that agrees with your prior stance (as you propose above), you do what is contrary to the concept of belief.

Belief generally facilitates that people ignore evidence, while scientific thinking generally promotes the opposite.

If you constantly observe evidence, rather than only looking for data that agrees with your prior stance, you're already doing what is contrary to the concept of belief. — uncool

How does that change a thing? My point is people's biases will do the exact same thing if they are "constantly observing evidence" instead of believing. The evidence motivates believing some set of conclusions, that's the whole point of bringing up evidence: it provides reason to accept (provisionally) some proposition as being true or false. It is no less immune to the manipulation of personal bias and to try and pass it off as such is so naive as to be scary.

It is no less immune to the manipulation of personal bias and to try and pass it off as such is so naive as to be scary. — MindForged

That statement of yours is demonstrably false, because scientific thinking has been less susceptible to evidence ignorance and evidence distortion, than what belief generally facilitates.(Scientific thinking has brought technological/scientific progress, and promoted that old mistakes were and are repaired rather than being maintained regardless of contrasting evidence)

If you go back to the OP, or my exchanges with you, you may quickly notice what I underlined all along; scientific thinking generally permits evidence consideration, while belief generally permits evidence ignorance.

How does that change a thing? — MindForged

Remember belief generally permits that people adhere to old mistakes, and ignore contrasting evidence; i.e. belief generally facilitates that people look for data that agrees with old mistakes.

Looking at your earlier quote below, that is precisely what belief generally promotes:

I will now be "keen on evidence". Oh what's that, you have some evidence which contradicts what evidence I am currently "keen on"? Well that can't be correct, I will ignore your evidence and only pay attention to the evidence which supports the evidence I am "keen on".. — MindForged

Abandoning beliefs doesn't seem so "stupid" now does it? :)

That statement of yours is demonstrably false, because scientific thinking has been less susceptible to evidence ignorance and evidence distortion, than what belief generally facilitates.(Scientific thinking has brought technological/scientific progress, and promoted that old mistakes were and are repaired rather than being maintained regardless of contrasting evidence) — uncool

What a whopping non sequitur. That science has improved over time doesn't show that it is above exactly the bias you complained about beliefs being susceptible to. See the move from Newtonian dynamics to 20th century developments, especially qusntum mechanics.

No one is saying false beliefs should be kept, yet simultaneously, it is the height of foolishness to always abandon a belief the moment it isn't 100% certain. There a balance here you don't seem to recognize exists. Beliefs ought to be formed rationally. That's why science is rather successful, not because scientists abandoned the concept of belief.

If you go back to the OP, or my exchanges with you, you may quickly notice what I underlined all along; scientific thinking generally permits evidence consideration, while belief generally permits evidence ignorance.

I don't know how many times I can literally just substitute your phrase "keen on evidence" to show its being used exactly the same as belief is until you get it. Beliefs are part of science. Ask a scientist if they believe quantum mechanics is the best theory we have of the quantum world and they will say yes. Do you know why? Because a belief is just what you hold to be true or false. The fact that it can be susceptible to bias (like literally everything else humans do) is the stupidest reason to discharge a concept that is used in every field of science, mathematics, etc.

Looking at your earlier quote below, that is precisely what belief generally promotes: — uncool

You do realize that I was using your proposal and you just agreed (umwittingly) that it was indistinguishable from belief, don't you? Your proposal is paper thin fear of religion or some other silly thing.

What a whopping non sequitur. That science has improved over time doesn't show that it is above exactly the bias you complained about beliefs being susceptible to. See the move from Newtonian dynamics to 20th century developments, especially qusntum mechanics. — MindForged

That scientists believe on non-evidence, does not suddenly remove that science generally facilitates that evidence is considered.

In fact, you've demonstrated that when scientists fail to prioritize evidence, they fail to make progress in a regime where evidence generally facilitates progress.

I don't know how many times I can literally just substitute your phrase "keen on evidence" to show its being used exactly the same as belief is until you get it. Beliefs are part of science. Ask a scientist if they believe quantum mechanics is the best theory we have of the quantum world and they will say yes. Do you know why? Because a belief is just what you hold to be true or false. The fact that it can be susceptible to bias (like literally everything else humans do) is the stupidest reason to discharge a concept that is used in every field of science, mathematics, etc. — MindForged

So you continue to ignore evidence.

The evidence simply states that belief does not largely facilitate that evidence is considered.

How in Bill Gates' name does something that mostly permits evidence ignorance (i.e. belief) become compatible with something that generally facilitates that evidence is generally considered (i.e. Science)?

That scientists believe on non-evidence, does not suddenly remove that science generally facilitates that evidence is considered.

In fact, you've demonstrated that when scientists fail to prioritize evidence, they fail to make progress in a regime where evidence generally facilitates progress. — uncool

You are unreal. It's not that they believed on "non-evidence", it's that only a fool immediately changes everything they believe at the first inkling of doubt. It was reasonable to be skeptical about new developments in physics overturning centuries of beliefs about the world that Newtonian physics gave us. It was precisely new evidence and new models which motivated *believing* that the newer theories were correct (or at least covered more cases correctly) than the old models.

You do realize that I was using your proposal and you just agreed (umwittingly) that it was indistinguishable from belief, don't you? Your proposal is paper thin fear of religion or some other silly thing. — MindForged

I already demonstrated (from my initial exchange with you) that what I underlined contrasted your proposal; rather than seek data that agree with old mistakes, we ought to strive to seek evidence, regardless of belief.

And this was not hidden in my prior words; I clearly underlined that we ought to abandon beliefs, and seek data regardless of the need for belief.