In terms of tendency to overemphasize the material/empirical you mean?

I mean more like the need to take proper account of that which consists of both, and is thus... neither.

The majority can be wrong, and have false belief. Truth cannot be false. — creativesoul

I'll quote myself in this case:

If for you, the concept that "truth" in reality doesn't exist, but is just a case of mass belief, is "rubbish", that's ok, for indeed, this is your individual "truth".

Indeed, you are an "Absolute Truth" follower. More of the same, as always...

This is not quite an answer to your question, but I would say in practical terms that I choose to have a flexible idea of truth, flexible epistemological choices and flexible choice between heuristics. I think this likely indicates that I think all models are limited, but I think that's less important than noticing what we actually do (rather than the why of it).

Absolutely concur.

What's the difference between truth and belief? — creativesoul

The words are trying to describe two categories that, given our fallible in situ, in time, nature we will never be able to fully dimabiguate in practice. We can certainly come up with different definitions for them.

Well, I don't know what to do with that. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Or does every philosophical work stand on its own merits as something true, or possessing elements of truth? — Pantagruel

Very perceptive on your part. In my opinion, each domain as it were, possesses elements of truth. Ever since I learned (from cognitive science) that dichotomizing is a virtual sin, the sky opened up. Meaning, I try to cherish each tenant of knowledge, and then create my own sense of truth out it. Kind of like writing music; influence's in your compositions.

The frustration rears it head when one chooses to exclusively paint oneself in a box. The person feels they must support an all-or-nothing campaign of sorts. They feel that incorporating and integrating both sides, is somehow a sell-out for whatever reason. The resulting frustration is usually an indicator that something is wrong and they might be dichotomizing too much. In ethics, it really manifests itself. Pragmatism, stoicism, etc.., you can find nuggets of truth in all of them... .

It pretty much happens in all of life. Life is not like engineering. You must apply the right formula to size the structural beam correctly; thus it's A or B, there is no middle ground. Yet, cognitive science teaches us that living life/the human condition is more like A AND B. That's why some folks are not cut-out to do, say, personnel management, coaching, etc.. There are many gray area's within the human condition that we find ourselves trapped in. And I submit, more gray's than not...each person must learn to navigate through them. It almost has an Existential theme... .

It's all good LOL

I would say I am a dedicated Pragmatist. Ever since encountering Pragmatism, I have discovered it to be the most useful methodology that works in any field or situation. And it is one that is conducive to adopting as a "state of mind", I would say.

Given any "disagreement" between objective reality and my experience of it, I can always try to change objective reality, but odds are most of the time it is going to be more productive to alter my own opinions. I guess, bottom line, I am always hoping to discover or encounter an idea that will fundamentally change my perspective. Which is why I think communities of thought are so important. Books can only give you so much. At the end of the day, it is all too easy to discover what you are already looking for in a book. People can hold you to a higher standard.

What's the difference between truth and belief? — creativesoul

Truth is falsifiable, belief is not.

At the end of the day, it is all too easy to discover what you are already looking for in a book. People can hold you to a higher standard. — Pantagruel

Another case in point. Ever hear the slang phrase: 'that person has a lot of book smarts, but no common sense'. In a way there's another example of dichotomizing. Ideally, the person who is educated both in principle and practice, arguably makes for a better end result/well rounded individual... .

Should one believe the ethical philosopher who used to be a practicing psychologist, over the one who does not have the practical experience? Should one choose the music teacher who just knows music theory, but sucks at musical performance and cannot improvise? Should one choose the priest who never had a wife to relate to? Should one choose the coach who never played?

The lists are endless. Now, are there exceptions within, sure. In theory or practice, there can still be nuggets of truth regardless. And I have seen players who make lousy coaches. Or great musician's who can't teach or explain things. The art of living suggests which of parts need to be balanced in order to achieve whatever end-goal. Integrating opposing forces is an intriguing subject...

Indeed, you are an "Absolute Truth" follower. More of the same, as always.. — Gus Lamarch

Nah, you're just wrong about my position...

I agree. In the end it is about practising what you preach. If you believe in solipsism, why are you talking to people? If you believe in the categorical imperative, show the world how its done. Proof is enacted.

The words are trying to describe two categories that, given our fallible in situ, in time, nature we will never be able to fully dimabiguate in practice. We can certainly come up with different definitions for them. — Coben

I have no trouble telling the difference between belief and truth... even in practice, sometimes...

We can check often enough to know that sometimes we cannot.

Truth is falsifiable, belief is not. — ovdtogt

This makes no sense to me. Truth cannot be false. Belief can. Thus, belief can be falsifiable. Truth cannot.

Yep, a few simple tools can go a long way. One take away from this, is that there is a sense of creativity in all walks of life. That, arguably, is what separates excellence from the average.

This makes no sense to me. Truth cannot be false. Belief can. Thus, belief can be falsifiable. Truth cannot. — creativesoul

I am sorry. I should not have stated belief. I meant religion. Theory and hypotheses are also beliefs. But falsifiable beliefs.
And what has not proven to be false can for the time being be considered true.

And what has not proven to be false can for the time being be considered true. — ovdtogt

Nah. There are some pretty outrageous claims, ones none of us believe, that cannot be falsified.

That said, being unable to be falsified does not always warrant casting such beliefs aside. Context matters here. We can have knowledge that is unfalsifiable. Our certainty ought be tempered.

All knowledge of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our reports on and/or of it is unfalsifiable.

I said 'fully' separate or someother verb. And we may find that when we decide this was merely a belief, it comes back later as a truth. And what we are now sure is a truth turns out later to not be or seem not to be. Which is generally why knowledge in philosophy is considered some kind of rigorously justified belief. A subset of beliefs.

And what has not proven to be false can for the time being be considered true.
— ovdtogt

Nah. There are some pretty outrageous claims, ones none of us believe, that cannot be falsified. — creativesoul

A claim that no-one believes does not exist. A claim has to be believed by someone to exist. And belief in that claim will persist until that person accepts falsifying evidence.

A claim has to be believed by someone to exist. — ovdtogt

The universe was created by my imaginary friend, the invisible pink and black unicorn.

The universe was created by my imaginary friend, the invisible pink and black unicorn. — creativesoul

And do you genuinely believe that? I think that ad hoc falsification or verification is the bane of true philosophy. People genuinely believe things for genuine reasons relevant to a real engagement in life and the universe. I am prepared to seriously evaluate any belief that someone is prepared to adopt from a committed and meaningful standpoint - I call this "ontological commitment". Otherwise, it's just playing games.

The universe was created by my imaginary friend, the invisible pink and black unicorn.
— creativesoul
And do you genuinely believe that? — Pantagruel

Of course not, but that is the very point. A claim need not be believed in order to exist.

It's important to consider the simple difference's between objective and subjective truth(s). Some truth's are more subjective than objective, and vise versa. Both are good, depending on the context.

Otherwise, as creativesoul suggested, I could assert I saw an invisible pink unicorn, an alien from another world, and so on. And I can also say I was sleep walking last night and don't remember a thing I said and did. Those instances would suggest another kind of truth.

In other words, how would one know that they are sleep walking in the first place(?).

Of course not, but that is the very point. A claim need not be believed in order to be exist. — creativesoul

But this was my point. There is a world of difference between a belief upon which you would stake your life, and one that you just cook up. The one you cook up really doesn't qualify as a belief at all, it is just an arbitrary statement.

I think that beliefs must meet some minimum standard of actual commitment to qualify as beliefs. People stand up for their beliefs. Or they act upon their beliefs. They are judged upon their beliefs. They live by their beliefs.

So a belief has a different kind of ontological status than a statement simpliciter.

[

That was not a claim. That was a joke.

Of course not, but that is the very point. A claim need not be believed in order to be exist.
— creativesoul
But this was my point. There is a world of difference between a belief upon which you would stake your life, and one that you just cook up. The one you cook up really doesn't qualify as a belief at all, it is just an arbitrary statement. — Pantagruel

Well you just just admitted it was not a claim but a joke.

A joke does not have to be believed to exist.

It's important to consider the simple difference's between objective and subjective truth(s). Some truth's are more subjective than objective, and vise versa. Both are good, depending on the context. — 3017amen

As we will never arrive at absolute truths, we will have to suffice with subjective truths of which some are more subjective than others.

So a belief has a different kind of ontological status than a statement simpliciter. — Pantagruel

Only empiricism is able to make a distinction between belief and knowledge.

I could assert I saw an invisible pink unicorn, an alien from another world, — 3017amen

You could 'claim' you had seen these things only if you had indeed really (imagined) to have seen these things. Otherwise you are just lying.

A claim need not be believed in order to be exist — creativesoul

is just pure nonsense.

And I can also say I was sleep walking last night and don't remember a thing I said and did. Those instances would suggest another kind of truth. — 3017amen

You can say anything you like. That does not mean you believe it.