Nevermind...

It's about poor @ProgrammingGodJordan's lack of a capacity to see how damning the criticism presented in this thread - and presumably in others - is.

To quote that master of rhetoric, President Donald Trump: "Sad."

The only issue is this:

Thus, I shall underline a summary below, until I return in roughly 12 hours. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I garner concepts all day, bish

It is not uncommon for folk doing an undergrad philosophy dissertation to think that they have actually discovered something. Realising that they haven't can be quite painful.

Scientific faith is not religiously founded, and that is not up to you, either, you poor, deluded demigod, you.

Really, even just undergrad? I took a few courses, but didn't major in it. This guy doesn't strike me as a fresh undergrad with a fire under his ass. I would hope a fresh undergrad would at least be able to debate concepts.

It is not uncommon for folk doing an undergrad philosophy dissertation to think that they have actually discovered something. Realising that they haven't can be quite painful. — Banno

Yes, indeed. And it's a nice high. It's like the foolishness of young love. 'Holy cow, mom, turns out I'm a genius.' The comedown is rough. The fog of sexy words finally condenses to a platitude or an absurdity that no one would ever act on (take seriously).

That's not to say selling the book is his soul intention, but you have to wonder why else he would have joined this site just to post this discussion when he clearly has no desire to actually learn, he simply wants to spread his "wisdom" — JustSomeGuy

In my opinion, it's about sharing the glory of one's genius in these cases. If this was about money, he'd be charming us. I actually think PGJ is a smart guy. He's probably a good programmer.

A few pages back there was another poster (who got no replies) who laid out a 6 page mystical/rational system that could save us all. It reminds me of Jung. Religion is a spontaneous generation of us humans. Ideas hit us with a kind of magic force. One has the secret that can make everyone happy and free, because one is oneself happy and free while this 'magic' force lasts.

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".
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.
In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way. Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the truth of the belief. Fallibilism applies that assessment even to science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved commonsense views. — link

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallibil/

Also Popper said something about letting our theories do our dying for us.

In short, unbeliefism seems like old news. As I understand it, it has its charms. But what's offensive is the lack of awareness of its lack of novelty. I feel like I'm being told the sky is blue. It is more or less the common sense of secular/negative philosophers, which is why they tear one another's fancy theories to shreds. They self-consciously subject their beliefs to more criticism than non-philosophers. Their criticism-enduring views are more reliable, more trustworthy, weightier. That's their ideal virtue. They are less full of shit than the average bear. Or that's at least one guiding ideal as I understand it. But there is also the Dr. Pangloss archetype. I suppose actual philosophers tend to be both negative and system-building. They slash and burn to clear space for the system that finally gets it right and conquers time and chance.

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

1. Proof and evidence are not exact synonyms.

1.2 Stop writing your arguments in numbered lists, using screenshots of dictionaries and copypasteing your previous arguments. Dictionaries are not exact, often using colloquial meanings of words. And your comments are unpleasant and inpractical af to read.

2. Thinking anything unproven to be true or false is a belief.

3. There're no proofs in science, only evidence.

4. Thus science is belief.

Also Popper said something about letting our theories do our dying for us.

In short, unbeliefism seems like old news. As I understand it, it has its charms. But what's offensive is the lack of awareness of its lack of novelty. I feel like I'm being told the sky is blue. It is more or less the common sense of secular/negative philosophers, which is why they tear one another's fancy theories to shreds. They self-consciously subject their beliefs to more criticism than non-philosophers. Their criticism-enduring views are more reliable, more trustworthy, weightier. That's their ideal virtue. They are less full of shit than the average bear. Or that's at least one guiding ideal as I understand it. But there is also the Dr. Pangloss archetype. I suppose actual philosophers tend to be both negative and system-building. They slash and burn to clear space for the system that finally gets it right and conquers time and chance. — dog

1. Fallibism, like some other theses, does heavily scrutinize belief.
2. However, fallibism permits the concept of belief under particular constraints, contrary to non-beliefism.
3. Here are three degrees of fallibism:
   
   • a) No beliefs can be conclusively justified.
   • b) Knowledge does not require certainty.
   • c) Almost no basic (that is, non-inferred) beliefs are certain or conclusively justified.
4. From item (c) it is observable that fallibism permits the concept of belief, although under particular constraints, similar to scientism.
   

Proof and evidence are not exact synonyms.

1.2 Stop writing your arguments in numbered lists, using screenshots of dictionaries and copypasteing your previous arguments. Dictionaries are not exact, often using colloquial meanings of words. And your comments are unpleasant and inpractical af to read.

2. Thinking anything unproven to be true or false is a belief.

3. There're no proofs in science, only evidence.

4. Thus science is belief. — BlueBanana

1. I don't detect the relevance of your initial point, for I had not said that those meant exactly the same thing.
   
   • Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all?
   • Is comradery with JustSomeGuy causing you to fail to analyse his errors, and instead causing you to focus on "correcting" my demonstrably valid corrections of his errors?
2. Your third point at (2) is invalid; mathematical proofs may be demonstrated to be true.
3. I don't detect the relevance of your point at (3), especially given my reference in my point above.
4. I detect that if you've read up to this point, you'd figure out that your conclusion does not follow from your trivially demonstrably invalid prior points.

In case of quantum mechanic, anomaly in black radiation comes first and then the anomaly was resolved by Plank. You can read about it in here. The same is true for special relativity.

This is already covered in the OP, which provides sources that heavily discuss and present research on evidence.
Is reading the sources so arduous? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Thus far, throughout the discussion, I have not detected any novel information.
Please recall that I am busy working on:
My book: "Artificial Neural Network for kids".
My model: The "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".
Thus, I shall underline a summary below, until I return in roughly 12 hours. — ProgrammingGodJordan

And we mere students were simply waiting by the pond for the master to appear from his work to enlighten us, and help us over the great hurdle of observing your statements steeped in non-belief via your guiding touch.

Summarize this for me. As far as I can tell, "belief" is being used to mean "faith," which is being used to mean "reliance upon something other than empirical evidence." And as a result of conflating belief with faith, 12 pages have been spent trying to explain how you can't have an epistemilogical system without belief.

Did I get it right? Is the OP just a butchered form of scientism, both unaware of its existence and of its limitations? I ask because I didn't find the text of the OP or the explanations of PGJ at all helpful.

Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Because it's more technically correct than what you claim. I oppose calling words with similar but not the same meaning synonyms.

Your third point at (2) is invalid; mathematical proofs may be demonstrated to be true. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Is this a counter to my point 2 or 3? Because it doesn't counter 2, but you still mention the number 2 there for some reason.

If it's supposed to be a counter to 3, I'll answer by fixing my argument into the form: "there're no proofs in science, excluding mathematics, only evidence".

That's not a bad summation at all.

Because it's more technically correct than what you claim. I oppose calling words with similar but not the same meaning synonyms. — BlueBanana

1. Whether or not you like or oppose it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same in meaning.
2. So, no, it was not "more technically correct", and saying they were not synonyms was quite invalid, and thus the question remains:
   
   • Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all?
   • Is comradery with JustSomeGuy causing you to fail to analyse his errors, and instead causing you to focus on "correcting" my demonstrably valid corrections of his errors?

If it's supposed to be a counter to 3, I'll answer by fixing my argument into the form: "there're no proofs in science, excluding mathematics, only evidence". — BlueBanana

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

Summarize this for me. As far as I can tell, "belief" is being used to mean "faith," which is being used to mean "reliance upon something other than empirical evidence." And as a result of conflating belief with faith, 12 pages have been spent trying to explain how you can't have an epistemilogical system without belief.

Did I get it right? Is the OP just a butchered form of scientism, both unaware of its existence and of its limitations? I ask because I didn't find the text of the OP or the explanations of PGJ at all helpful. — Hanover

1. It is somewhat tiring when people bring up scienticism when I describe "non beliefism", because as an atheist, I had long encountered scienticism.
   
2. Anyway, scienticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism".

And what exactly counts as similar? Synonym is a grammatical term, and your OP does not concern grammar. In the context of this discussion proof and evidence have huge differences, so whether they're concidered synonomous by dictionaries is irrelevant.

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

Its relevance is that science is a belief (with the exclusion of mathematics). Therefore you must reject science in the name of non-beliefism.

#1 - that it tires you is unresponsive and irrelevant. #2- is an incoherent comment. It offers nothing and means nothing.

And what exactly counts as similar? Synonym is a grammatical term, and your OP does not concern grammar. In the context of this discussion proof and evidence have huge differences, so whether they're concidered synonomous by dictionaries is irrelevant. — BlueBanana

1. As prior mentioned, whether or not you like or oppose or admit it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same in meaning.
2. Notably, you are demonstrating a common symptom of belief; if it was I that was shown to be wrong, I would have long admitted it; in contrast to your scenario, where you proceed to deny valid data that clearly contrasts your false pre-conceived notion. (As demonstrated in this reference)
   
   • This is what "non beliefism" underscores:
     
     • 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".
       
     • 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.
       
     • In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

#1 - that it tires you is unresponsive and irrelevant. #2- is an incoherent comment. It offers nothing and means nothing. — Hanover

Is English your first language?

Its relevance is that science is a belief (with the exclusion of mathematics). Therefore you must reject science in the name of non-beliefism. — BlueBanana

I detect that it is sub-optimal to further respond to you, given that you garner that belief (something that does not prioritize evidence) equates with science (something that does the very contrast, i.e. prioritize evidence).

Whether or not you like or oppose it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all? — ProgrammingGodJordan

I know I said I was done engaging with you, but you are either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting my position, so I feel the need to respond.

You equated "evidence" with "proof", using the terms interchangeably, with the implication that they are the same thing.

In your OP:

belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

My response to that:

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

Your response to me:

it is indeed valid that belief generally occurs absent evidence/proof. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You were using the terms to mean the exact same thing. I demonstrated multiple times that they do not mean the exact same thing. Now, it seems you have changed your argument, claiming that you only ever said they were "synonyms" (which is not what you did, you demonstrated their meanings through use) and that synonyms can just be words that are similar or the same, and you are apparently using the former definition of the term.

So not only are you being completely intellectually dishonest about your own previous statements, but even this new argument does not disprove anything I have said.

You are claiming that the term "synonym" has multiple meanings, and that you are using one of them, yet based on the definition which you cited for "synonym", the meaning I am using is also correct.

I'd like to point out again (I did so yesterday at some point but don't feel like finding it) that this is not the first time you have changed your tune based on my or others' arguments against your claims.

When you respond to criticism by changing your argument and acting like the new argument was the argument you were making the whole time, you may as well be a child. This is a forum for intelligent and honest discussion. You may be intelligent, but you have demonstrated many times over that you are not honest.

The only thing I'm still not sure of is whether you're aware or not of your own dishonesty. I'm not sure which would be worse.

Is English your first language? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Here's what you said: "Anyway, scienticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism"."

Explain how scientism underlines and how belief takes the possessive. As best I can decipher, you believe science ought be relied upon and not faith. Your view might be different but your writing is poor.

As prior mentioned, whether or not you like or oppose or admit it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same in meaning. — ProgrammingGodJordan

A claim is not a valid response to its own counter. The only thing it implies is that you either didn't read or understand my reply.

Similar words are synonyms. The two words are not similar. Therrefore the two words are not synonyms.

that belief (something that does not prioritize evidence) — ProgrammingGodJordan

False. Belief does not prioritize proof.

equates with science (something that does the very contrast, i.e. prioritize evidence). — ProgrammingGodJordan

Science prioritizes evidence, but not proof (excluding mathematics).