I think you are confusing the idea of practical belief with religious faith in scenarios pertaining to prediction and control. You've jumped the shark from a practically reasonable statement, to what a community would interpret to be a conceptual error.

In statistical decision theory, belief is the assignment of probabilities to possible outcomes, and in every instance it is impossible to assign definite probabilities without a priori assumptions. Science consists of the collection and evaluation of evidence in response to the beliefs states of the science community, which vary extensively for reasons pertaining to scientists having different knowledge, unconscious biases and so forth.

As a programmer, have you ever studied data-science? Tell me how I should decide upon what is 'the definitive' algorithm for winning a Kaggle competition, and how do i decide what it is, in such a way as to avoid any assumptions and hence belief? — sime

1. No, I don't detect that I have confused "practical belief" with "religious faith"; in fact, I had long encountered scientism, which is near to the 'practical belief' you refer to.

• However, scienticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism".

2.a) I tend to ignore the names of scientific things that bear religious connotations, such as the god particle.

• This however does not signify that I ignore the contents of that scientific thing.

2.b) For example: That there are Deep Belief Networks, does not suddenly remove that belief (by definition and research) is model that generally permits the ignorance of evidence.





3.a) You asked if I ever studied data-science, and the answer is yes, I have done things like composing a heart irregularity detection model for kaggle.
3.b). I had also written a basic neural network, without using high level Machine learning libraries that provide abstractions.
3.c) I had also written a book on artificial neural networks for kids.
3.d) I also created something called the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

4) The items in (3) involve numbers. I need not any belief to observe numbers.

1. No, I don't detect that I have confused "practical belief" with "religious faith" those things; in fact, I had long encountered scientism, which is near to the 'practical belief' you refer to.
However, scienticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism". — ProgrammingGodJordan

If beliefs are defined as the assignment of probabilities to outcomes conditioned on one's partial knowledge, and if it is impossible to decide upon any particular probability assignment on the basis of one's partial knowledge, then for the purposes of acting one is forced to choose a set of probabilities, i.e. a model, without justification. Hence my referring to justified belief as practical belief.

You say no beliefs are necessary. Then let's suppose you are presented with an urn containing an unknown number of red and black balls and you have no other information. What is the rational choice of prior probabilities?

If beliefs are defined as the assignment of probabilities to outcomes conditioned on one's partial knowledge, and if it is impossible to decide upon any particular probability assignment on the basis of one's partial knowledge, then for the purposes of acting one is forced to choose a set of probabilities, i.e. a model, without justification. Hence my referring to justified belief as practical belief.

You say no beliefs are necessary. Then let's suppose you are presented with an urn containing an unknown number of red and black balls and you have no other information. What is the rational choice of prior probabilities? — sime

1. Belief, (by definition and research) is contrary to the definition that you manufactured above:

2. Ignoring the definition you manufactured above (which contrasts how belief is generally described) science obtains whether or not one chooses to believe in science...

2. Ignoring the definition you manufactured above (which contrasts how belief is generally described) science obtains whether or not one chooses to believe in science... — ProgrammingGodJordan

The definition you've quoted is more or less the same, as is the psychological conception of belief as a behavioural disposition towards evidence, which of course is modelled as probability distributions over choices, actions and so on.

Furthermore, by the definition above one is said to be in a state of belief whether or not one has infallible proof. So really your statement boils down to the assertion of infallible belief. I think. Or are you saying that one should judge all beliefs as being fallible?

Obviously science does not consist of infallible beliefs and since there is not even a mathematical justification for a correct way to interpret evidence it seems one cannot eliminate the role of subjective decision making in the assessment of evidence.

There are no infallible proofs and to a certain extent they are subjective, except those which are said to be infallible by definition or by assumption.

Unfortunately, you are off to a rocky start. Your entire OP is a belief beginning with #1.

There is no proof of anything scientific. Only evidence. This means that every scientific truth is a belief.

And I see you're going to make me ask a third time: (I'll narrow it down even more to just one simple question) do you believe you are speaking to a human right now? — JustSomeGuy

Isn't it obvious that the only logically self-consistent answer is no?

Proof and evidence are not synonymous.


Of course, but if he said "no" it would be a lie. He knows that, which is why he refuses to answer. I was just trying to make him aware of one of many beliefs he does, in fact, hold.

Direct quote from the link you provided in regards to "scientific proof":
"While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."

Did you even read your own source? I'm legitimately beginning to wonder of you're trolling. You have presented so many blatant contradictions and inconsistencies in your "arguments" that I don't see how you could be serious about any of this.

You're right, but there have been so many responses that probably none of the mods would delete the discussion now. I've only just seen it. — jamalrob

Just to throw in my $0.02 - Observation - not complaint. Might even be an endorsement. This is a great discussion. Look at all the ideas that @ProgrammingGodJordan has elicited. His thread has made people re-examine the reasons for their beliefs, or whatever you want to call them. It certainly has for me.

As I've said before - you guys (moderators) are responsible that this forum stays on track and keeps it's soul, which I have come to love. You do a good job. That being said, a whole lot of latitude is advisable.

A psychological problem for non-beliefism:

is it psychologically plausible that one can pragmatically adopt unwarranted assumptions for sake of competitive advantage, say when gambling, while keeping his state of belief unattached from his risky decision making?

The phenomena of cognitive-dissonance suggests to me that the answer is generally no. Once we have a stake in the game, we can't help but believe what we want to believe.

1. Some empirically observable thing is Gravitational theory.
2. There exists people that believe that the earth is supposedly flat. (Such a belief does not agree with gravitational theory)
3. It is observable above that gravitational theory obtains regardless of flat-earth belief.
4. Likewise, gravitational theory obtains regardless of the belief of any human. — ProgrammingGodJordan

"Gravitational theory," of which there are several, is not a fact, statement, or "observable thing." it is a theory, a model, a generalization. Only statements are true or false. Only matter and energy are observable. I made a similar point back a few pages, Here it is again:

This is an incredibly naïve description of how science works. The models come first, then the evidence. All theories are models. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. He didn't do experiments. He made models. Other guys came along later and gathered evidence. Our current, best scientific understanding of the nature of physical reality is called the "Standard Model." The Higgs Boson and gravity waves were predicted decades ago by theoretical physicists based on theories/models. They weren't confirmed until the last few years using extremely expensive, complicated equipment designed and operated specifically to confirm or deny those models. — T Clark

To which you responded:

1. In contrast, science does not constitute belief.
2. Both scientific theory and scientific hypothesis generally occur, and align on evidence.
3. Instead, belief generally permits the ignorance of evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Which is a very unresponsive response. Now, please, respond to the specific examples and assertions I have made - Models/theories come first, evidence later. Examples - special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, gravity waves, Higg's Boson. Please respond directly to that specific statement. Agree or disagree. Explain why. If you don't think models/theories come first, say why. If you don't think the examples I gave are good ones, explain why.

I actually wanted to give up on this thread a while ago, but I didn't think that was fair to you. I want to give you another chance to act like a new citizen of our small, happy community. There are rules for philosophy and there are rules for reasonable discourse. One of the rules is to be responsive to sincere and civil comments and questions.

2. By extension, research shows that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25741291 — ProgrammingGodJordan

The paper you're citing defines belief pretty early on, and it doesn't really match how you're defining belief, i.e. by reference to a single definition of a particular dictionary. Here's what they say in the first paragraph on their section titled Defining Belief:

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 (Stephens and Graham, 2004). It is important to note, however, that beliefs need not be conscious or linguistically articulated. It is likely that the majority of beliefs remain unconscious or outside of immediate awareness, and are of relatively mundane content: for example, that one’s senses reveal an environment that is physically real, that one has ongoing relationships with other people, and that one’s actions in the present can bring about outcomes in the future. Beliefs thus typically describe enduring, unquestioned ontological representations of the world and comprise primary convictions about events, causes, agency, and objects that subjects use and accept as veridical.

Belief so construed would include things like perception, given their example of "that one's senses reveal an environment that is physically real" -- and hence observation and/or evidence.


That was my first cursory glance to the part of the paper that seemed relevant to your point. I didn't read it all. But I don't think that what you're explicitly stating is supported by your citation, and so I have reason to doubt that you've done the reading you're requiring of us all.



All that being said, it seems to me the most charitable interpretation I can give is that you'd rather people pay attention to evidence and observation rather than hold onto any sort of belief which is contradicted by evidence. But then what I'd wonder is -- what is this "paying attention" and "observation" such that it is not belief? Even given the basic definition above (which is surely more science-friendly than fixating on a single dictionary definition, and given that you like science should be something you'd pay attention to) -- how in the world do you pay attention or observe without representational content and assumed veracity of your observations?

A belief is an acceptance that something is true right? Someone can accept a claim that is based off of scientific thinking, or nonscientific thinking.

When you say non-beliefism, aren't you essentially saying that we should only accept things to be true based off of scientific thinking? Which is like saying even though belief as a concept permits nonscientific thinking, don't allow any nonscientific element in your beliefs. Or are you saying that we shouldn't accept anything as true at all?

Of course, but if he said "no" it would be a lie. He knows that, which is why he refuses to answer. I was just trying to make him aware of one of many beliefs he does, in fact, hold. — JustSomeGuy

Direct quote from the link you provided in regards to "scientific proof":
"While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."

Did you even read your own source? I'm legitimately beginning to wonder of you're trolling. You have presented so many blatant contradictions and inconsistencies in your "arguments" that I don't see how you could be serious about any of this. — JustSomeGuy

1. I didn't say that proof and evidence were not synonymous.
2. I'd carefully read your earlier response, so I advise that you also carefully read once more, my earlier response.

The definition you've quoted is more or less the same, as is the psychological conception of belief as a behavioural disposition towards evidence, which of course is modelled as probability distributions over choices, actions and so on.

Furthermore, by the definition above one is said to be in a state of belief whether or not one has infallible proof. So really your statement boils down to the assertion of infallible belief. I think. Or are you saying that one should judge all beliefs as being fallible?

Obviously science does not consist of infallible beliefs and since there is not even a mathematical justification for a correct way to interpret evidence it seems one cannot eliminate the role of subjective decision making in the assessment of evidence.

There are no infallible proofs and to a certain extent they are subjective, except those which are said to be infallible by definition or by assumption — sime

Simply:

1. Science is a model that prioritizes evidence.

2. Belief (by definition and research) is a model that does not prioritize evidence. (Prioritize meaning it can allow evidence, although it generally permits ignorance of evidence)

3. Therefore, the very concept of belief is non-scientific.

There is no proof of anything scientific. Only evidence. This means that every scientific truth is a belief. — BlueBanana

1. I was not the one who spoke about scientific proof, user "JustSomeGuy" is the one that tried to confluence proof (which differs from scientific proof) with evidence (which the OP referred to). (See source)

2. Belief and science are disparate, belief does not prioritize evidence, while science does.

Just to throw in my $0.02 - Observation - not complaint. Might even be an endorsement. This is a great discussion. Look at all the ideas that ProgrammingGodJordan has elicited. His thread has made people re-examine the reasons for their beliefs, or whatever you want to call them. It certainly has for me.

As I've said before - you guys (moderators) are responsible that this forum stays on track and keeps it's soul, which I have come to love. You do a good job. That being said, a whole lot of latitude is advisable. — T Clark

I thank you.

A psychological problem for non-beliefism:

is it psychologically plausible that one can pragmatically adopt unwarranted assumptions for sake of competitive advantage, say when gambling, while keeping his state of belief unattached from his risky decision making?

The phenomena of cognitive-dissonance suggests to me that the answer is generally no. Once we have a stake in the game, we can't help but believe what we want to believe. — sime

On the contrary, because science prioritizes evidence, while belief does not, we actually can avoid belief, i.e. we can avoid failure to prioritize evidence.

"Gravitational theory," of which there are several, is not a fact, statement, or "observable thing." it is a theory, a model, a generalization. Only statements are true or false. Only matter and energy are observable. I made a similar point back a few pages, Here it is again: — T Clark

Which is a very unresponsive response. Now, please, respond to the specific examples and assertions I have made - Models/theories come first, evidence later. Examples - special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, gravity waves, Higg's Boson. Please respond directly to that specific statement. Agree or disagree. Explain why. If you don't think models/theories come first, say why. If you don't think the examples I gave are good ones, explain why.

I actually wanted to give up on this thread a while ago, but I didn't think that was fair to you. I want to give you another chance to act like a new citizen of our small, happy community. There are rules for philosophy and there are rules for reasonable discourse. One of the rules is to be responsive to sincere and civil comments and questions. — T Clark

In stark contrast, as I mentioned prior, gravitational theory is empirically observable:

1. Reference A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
2. One should not confuse theory, and scientific theory, and it is demonstrable that you have done just that.
3. Scientific theories (like gravitational theory) prioritize evidence, and this contrasts belief, that doesn't prioritize evidence.

The paper you're citing defines belief pretty early on, and it doesn't really match how you're defining belief, i.e. by reference to a single definition of a particular dictionary. Here's what they say in the first paragraph on their section titled Defining Belief:

That was my first cursory glance to the part of the paper that seemed relevant to your point. I didn't read it all. But I don't think that what you're explicitly stating is supported by your citation, and so I have reason to doubt that you've done the reading you're requiring of us all.

All that being said, it seems to me the most charitable interpretation I can give is that you'd rather people pay attention to evidence and observation rather than hold onto any sort of belief which is contradicted by evidence. But then what I'd wonder is -- what is this "paying attention" and "observation" such that it is not belief? Even given the basic definition above (which is surely more science-friendly than fixating on a single dictionary definition, and given that you like science should be something you'd pay attention to) -- how in the world do you pay attention or observe without representational content and assumed veracity of your observations? — Moliere

Yes, it is quite clear you merely glanced the paper; for the paper did not end with the early description you posted (where they admit "there is no philosophical consensus on what belief is (McKay and Dennett, 2009)").

The paper went on with scientific results:

"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). As a result of these biases,people can accept beliefs without sufficient evidence and also retain incorrect beliefs longer than would be case if they sought out diagnostic information. The collective impact of these tendencies is that people (i.e., their cognitive systems) are unlikely to seek information that contradicts their proto-belief, so long as the proto-belief is consistent with pre-existing beliefs or satisfies strong emotional drivers."

A belief is an acceptance that something is true right? Someone can accept a claim that is based off of scientific thinking, or nonscientific thinking.

When you say non-beliefism, aren't you essentially saying that we should only accept things to be true based off of scientific thinking? Which is like saying even though belief as a concept permits nonscientific thinking, don't allow any nonscientific element in your beliefs. Or are you saying that we shouldn't accept anything as true at all? — SonJnana

• Simply, science prioritizes evidence, while belief (by definition and research) is a model that does not prioritize evidence.
• Unless belief is redefined to prioritize evidence, or unless some new research suddenly shows that belief generally permits evidence prioritization, the concept of belief, which is both defined, and researched to generally permit ignorance of evidence, ought to be avoided altogether.
• Why contact a model that doesn't prioritize evidence (i.e. belief) instead of a model (i.e. science) that prioritizes evidence?

1. Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
   
2. In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
   
3. In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

In stark contrast, as I mentioned prior, gravitational theory is empirically observable:
Reference A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
One should not confuse theory, and scientific theory, and it is demonstrable that you have done just that.
Scientific theories (like gravitational theory) prioritize evidence, and this contrasts belief, that doesn't prioritize evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I know you have been on the forum just starting today, so I don't know if you know how a private message (PM) works. When I first started, it took me several weeks to figure it out. You can tell if you got a PM because there will be a number next to the "INBOX" label at the top of the page. You can click on "INBOX" and you'll have access. I sent you a PM.

1. I was not the one who spoke about scientific proof, user "JustSomeGuy" is the one that tried to confluence proof (which differs from scientific proof) with evidence (which the OP referred to). (See source) — ProgrammingGodJordan

1. I didn't say that proof and evidence were not synonymous. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I know you didn't, that's why I did. You implied they were synonymous; I was correcting you. This is the second time in this discussion that you have swapped our positions around after the fact. I don't know if you're really confused or purposefully being dishonest.

Here:

Belief involves a lack of sufficient evidence for knowledge. A lack of proof. — JustSomeGuy

You claimed belief involved ignoring evidence. I corrected you by saying that belief involved a lack of sufficient evidence or proof — JustSomeGuy

You apparently misread or misunderstood. What I said was that "proof" is "sufficient evidence for knowledge". Maybe I should have been more explicit somehow, I don't know.

Proof is a kind of evidence, but they are not synonymous. All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

And I have not once used the phrase "scientific proof" in this discussion, so I have no idea what you're referring to when you claim I was the one who spoke about it.

That doesn't answer my question. I quite agree with the idea that people hold onto beliefs in spite of evidence. I think it is well demonstrated. I agree that people can accept beliefs without sufficient evidence and also retain beliefs longer than would be the case had they sought out diagnostic information, and that people have a tendency to not question proto-beliefs.

But I asked:

what is this "paying attention" and "observation" such that it is not belief? Even given the basic definition above (which is surely more science-friendly than fixating on a single dictionary definition, and given that you like science should be something you'd pay attention to) -- how in the world do you pay attention or observe without representational content and assumed veracity of your observations? — Moliere

Given that these are the bare-bones necessary features of belief in the paper you cited.

Assuming a sincere speaker...

Statements are statements of thought and belief. Positive assertions are statements of belief. "Science prioritizes evidence" is a positive assertion; it is a statement of belief about what science does. If science prioritizes evidence, then the belief statement is true.

The OP wants the reader to accept the dubious presupposition that it is humanly possibly to hold no belief.

Sure... from the moment of conception through the first mental correlation drawn... during that time period - and that time period alone - it makes perfect sense to say that humans do not hold and/or have belief.

Consider this...

The OP has a worldview. A new one - in fact. All world-views consist entirely of thought and belief about the world and/or ourselves. The OP cannot admit that s/he believes what s/he says. The OP cannot admit of having a worldview.

Why continue with such nonsense?

You apparently misread or misunderstood. What I said was that "proof" is "sufficient evidence for knowledge". Maybe I should have been more explicit somehow, I don't know.

Proof is a kind of evidence, but they are not synonymous. All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof. — JustSomeGuy

I don't detect the relevance of your response above wrt the OP.

Proof and evidence are not synonymous. — JustSomeGuy

I know you didn't, that's why I did. You implied they were synonymous; I was correcting you. This is the second time in this discussion that you have swapped our positions around after the fact. I don't know if you're really confused or purposefully being dishonest. — JustSomeGuy

1. On the contrary, your "correction" does not apply, and your words are ironically invalid, for "proof" and "evidence" are quite literally synonymous.

2. Reference A: Definition of "synonymous":



3. Reference B: Proof/evidence relationship:

And I have not once used the phrase "scientific proof" in this discussion, so I have no idea what you're referring to when you claim I was the one who spoke about it. — JustSomeGuy

Consider this past sequence:

1.a) My words: "belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence."

1.b) Notably, my words above are demonstrably correct, as seen in this scientific paper (as listed in the OP).

2.a) Your response: This is false. Belief involves a lack of sufficient evidence for knowledge. A lack of proof. And believe it or not (no pun intended)--even in science--proof is an extremely rare thing.

2.b) As is observed above, despite the this scientific paper (as evidence listed in the OP, in (2.a) you responded with some irrelevant sequence, not even bothering to contact evidence presented.

3) So, as is observed above in (2.a), you made an irrelevant reference of proof wrt to science ..i.e. scientific proof (when I didn't mention describe scientific proof in the OP) Why bother to bring up your quote in (2.a), about scientific proof?