It is an old definition, but I was under the impression that it was the accepted definition throughout epistemology and philosophy through consensus. Perhaps I’m wrong? — Pinprick

An appeal to tradition? Simple observations of the world will tell you that this is no longer true. Though I am sure that this is still the accepted definition among scholars. Doesn't make it true. I'll rely on my arguments to determine the truth of the mater, given that my opposition is more arguments.

and paradigm cases of how epistemologists and ordinary speakers use the word "belief" and its cognates. — Cabbage Farmer

Forgot to comment on "ordinary speakers". This is an argument from popularity. Just because it is popular to use the word belief in the way that the masses do does not make it correct. The vast majority of people are also not intellectually equipped to wrestle with the problem.

agnosticism is the epistemic state describable with respect to a proposition p as "not true that p and not false that p, but still possible that p". Possibility can be phrased in terms of "may/may not" right? — TheMadFool

Yah, this is not how I see it. It would be the position that proposition p has no current relevant value. Either "mays", the affirmative and the negative currently lack value. This is because none of them are actually knowledge of any kind. They are just baseless suppositions, including "may/may not." Produce some facts regarding the mater, then we can take a practical approach to the subject. But that is just the problem, there are currently no facts regarding the mater.

I KNOW WHO I AM. — Frank Apisa

But do you believe you are Frank?

A good deal is known through science, and more is being discovered all the time. Given an effectively infinite amount of time to study these subjects, do you think that they will remain a mystery forever? — SonOfAGun

No, not at all. I’m not trying to discredit science as a pathway to knowledge. I was just pointing out that science isn’t the only pathway that achieves valuable results.

An appeal to tradition? Simple observations of the world will tell you that this is no longer true. Though I am sure that this is still the accepted definition among scholars. Doesn't make it true. I'll rely on my arguments to determine the truth of the mater, given that my opposition is more arguments. — SonOfAGun

Well, I consider this to be a scholarly discussion, so I think the consensus of scholars would be appropriate. It may not be true, and I’m aware of the Gettier problems and other criticisms of it. At the very least it is flawed, but still the best we have at this point according to experts.

When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ."

The use of "I blindly guess..." seems to bother some people, so they use, "I believe..." instead. — Frank Apisa

For me guessing is, first and foremost, a method of acquiring knowledge. That said, it isn't the preferred, ergo best, method for knowledge acquisition; the distinction of the best method to gain knowledge goes to rationality/critical thinking. Only when it's impossible to use critical thinking are we justified to guess the truth.

Such a situation may arise not because rationality is inapplicable to an issue but because of a lack of information for rationality to work on. Guessing games children and adults play are primarily based on witholding critical data for rationality to process as a means of getting to the truth, whatever that maybe.

Yet there maybe problems to which rationality is completely useless, for example quantum mechanics: If I'm correct no amount of rationality will help us determine the location of an electron since quantum systems are probabilistic in nature. At such moments then, paradoxically, the only rational thing to do is guess.

Which type of guessing "game", missing information or intrinsically probabilistic nature, does the god issue fall? In my humble opinion, it's the former - we lack information to logically determine the truth of the matter. However, in a situation where the critical defect is a lack of adequate information, the best, i.e. the rational, decision is to suspend judgment and refrain from making any sort of claims, including those arrived at by guessing.

However, are atheists and theists actually making guesses re their beliefs? Not really; after all they have arguments that purportedly back up their claims whatever those maybe. In other words, both sides are being rational. However, a case could be made that their reasoning is faulty and that the rationality they profess is not up to the mark or even illusory. In that case then it's double jeopardy for both atheists and theists: not only are they using poor reasoning, their beliefs also can't be distinguished from mere guesses.

Pinprick
60
I KNOW WHO I AM.
— Frank Apisa

But do you believe you are Frank? — Pinprick

No...I do not "believe" I am Frank. I KNOW I AM FRANK.

You truly are having trouble understanding that concept, aren't you.

First of all, let me mention that "guessing" is an absolute necessity to almost every scholarly or scientific endeavor. I am NOT bad-mouthing guessing in any way. (Sometimes that gets lost in the rhetoric. Just wanted to be sure I put it out there solidly.)

My problem is not with guessing...but with disguising the guesses using the words "believe" or "belief." Scientists often use "hypotheses" or "theories" for guesses...and then go on to test those hypotheses or theories to come as close to verification as possible. (They seldom "prove" things...they just get as close as possible.)

A person saying/asserting "I 'believe' (in) God" is disguising that a guess is being made...and is not interested in testing or challenging that guess in any way. In fact, most religions teach that questioning the guess (belief) is sinful and dangerous. (Figures!)

A person saying/asserting "I 'believe' no gods exist" is also making a guess and disguising that it is a guess. Any testing of that guess...is so distant from "scientific/logic/reason" that assertions to that effect are laughable.

Yeah, I agree. Guessing is a means of acquiring knowledge. BUT NOT IN THIS AREA.

Because... that’s what a belief is? A thought to the effect that the world is such-and-such way. I have no idea what you’re on about here.

No...I do not "believe" I am Frank. I KNOW I AM FRANK. — Frank Apisa

Knowledge is a subset of belief. Everything you know, you believe.

That might fit on a tee shirt, but I would not try it on a hat or bumper sticker.

How would you differentiate, if it's a reasonable question to you at all, between the following three scenarios:

With reference to Francis Galton's Wisdom of the crowd,

1. Imagine someone accosts you in a fair, presents a jar full of marbles and asks you, "how many marbles does this jar contain?"

2. Now, imagine someone else, with a similar jar approaches you and says, "the jar alone weighs approximately 200 grams, each marble is roughly 1 gram and the jar with the marbles is about 600 grams. How many marbles does the jar contain?"

3. Then consider a third person, who comes to you and says, "the jar without the marbles weighs exactly 200 grams, each marble weighs exactly 1 gram and the jar together with the marbles weighs exactly 600 grams. How many marbles does the jar contain?"

For me, scenario 1, if we are to answer the question, is what I feel can be handled only by guessing for zero information is available; there's no possible means to logically deduce the actual number of marbles in the jar.

As for scenario 2, we have what can be termed, fuzzy data and although logical deduction of the number of marbles is possible, it wouldn't be accurate. There's no guarantee that the calculations will lead to the exact figure.

In secnario 3, we have all the information we need to deduce the exact number of marbles in the jar.

Which of the 3 scenarios would be a guess for you? The essence of guessing appears to be randomness i.e. when every possible answer in the scenarios I described is equiprobable. The moment the probability for any one answer is higher than the rest or the answer can be logically deduced then it's not guessing.

Both scenario 2 and 3 can't be guessing; after all in scenario 2, a particular answer's probability is higher than others and in scenario 3 we can actually determine the correct answer.

God beliefs, atheism or theism, correspond to scenario 2 - deductions based on insufficient data and so, in my humble opinion, doesn't amount to guessing for the least that can be said is that the relative probability of god's existence either increases/decreases with the strength of their arguments.

However, if an agnostic ever decides to choose between god existing or not, fae, because fae presumes the data is insufficient, would be guessing.

TheMadFool
5.1k
↪Frank Apisa How would you differentiate, if it's a reasonable question to you at all, between the following three scenarios:

With reference to Francis Galton's Wisdom of the crowd,

1. Imagine someone accosts you in a fair, presents a jar full of marbles and asks you, "how many marbles does this jar contain?"

2. Now, imagine someone else, with a similar jar approaches you and says, "the jar alone weighs approximately 200 grams, each marble is roughly 1 gram and the jar with the marbles is about 600 grams. How many marbles does the jar contain?"

3. Then consider a third person, who comes to you and says, "the jar without the marbles weighs exactly 200 grams, each marble weighs exactly 1 gram and the jar together with the marbles weighs exactly 600 grams. How many marbles does the jar contain?"

For me, scenario 1, if we are to answer the question, is what I feel can be handled only by guessing for zero information is available; there's no possible means to logically deduce the actual number of marbles in the jar.

As for scenario 2, we have what can be termed, fuzzy data and although logical deduction of the number of marbles is possible, it wouldn't be accurate. There's no guarantee that the calculations will lead to the exact figure. — TheMadFool

We are 5 by 5 at this point. I agree completely.

In secnario 3, we have all the information we need to deduce the exact number of marbles in the jar. — MadFool

Correct.

Which of the 3 scenarios would be a guess for you? The essence of guessing appears to be randomness i.e. when every possible answer in the scenarios I described is equiprobable. The moment the probability for any one answer is higher than the rest or the answer can be logically deduced then it's not guessing. — MadFool

1 can only be obtained by guessing. 2 has a bit more information, but a guess still is in order. I grant that I would not use "blind guess" for either...because enough information IS available to make a (sorta) informed guess. (I've made guesses at charity events...with marbles and with jelly beans.)

3 can be determined exactly...if the information is exact. One could argue that a guess would have to be made about the reliability of the information...but I am guessing that is not what you were getting at.

Both scenario 2 and 3 can't be guessing; after all in scenario 2, a particular answer's probability is higher than others and in scenario 3 we can actually determine the correct answer. — MadFool

Now we diverge a bit.

2 is a guess. because of the type of information given. I suspect a decent guess could be made...but it would still involve some guessing. But in the interest of moving along...allow me to (with minor reservations) agree that it is NOT a guess.

God beliefs, atheism or theism, correspond to scenario 2 - deductions based on insufficient data and so, in my humble opinion, doesn't amount to guessing for the least that can be said is that the relative probability of god's existence either increases/decreases with the strength of their arguments. — MadFool

Here we diverge so completely that I am not sure we can reconcile.

For the last four decades I have assiduously attempted to find any reasonable way to do a probability estimate for "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods"...and the best I could come up with was a coin toss.

Honestly. People who identify as atheists use the same "evidence" as theists to come up with probability estimates in favor of "there are no gods"...that theists use to come up with "there is at least one god."

Cannot be done any better than a coin toss, TMF. Please, if you can show me differently, do it. I wouldl love to put this problem behind me. I've gone over this with at least one Bishop...and with some of the smartest atheists I've ever known.

However, if an agnostic ever decides to choose between god existing or not, fae, because fae presumes the data is insufficient, would be guessing. — MadFool

Sorry, TMF...I just do not know what fae means...and was not able to find out from Google.

Sorry, TMF...I just do not know what fae means...and was not able to find out from Google. — Frank Apisa

Fae is a term for mystical creatures like fairies (also spelled "faerie"), gnomes, sirens, succubi, etc

Sorry, TMF...I just do not know what fae means...and was not able to find out from Google. — Frank Apisa

Try typing into google "the fae" rather than just fae.

Edit>>> Well it actually pulls it up both ways. I thought you said you already tried.

However, if an agnostic ever decides to choose between god existing or not... — MadFool

I cannot speak for all agnostics, but if it were I making that decision, I would do it by flipping a coin. I am not being flip (pun intended) here...I cannot think of a better basis for a guess. I have done this several times while discussing the topic with others. It does nothing for the conversation.

...fae, because fae presumes the data is insufficient, would be guessing. — MadFool

Ahhh...for "at least one god exists" or "there are no gods"...the coin flip gu ess makes sense.

For fairies, gnomes, sirens, succubi, etc...not so much. There is enough information to make one of those "informed guesses" I mentioned. My guess on things like these (AND I WOULD CALL IT A GUESS) would be that they do not exist here on this planet.

I did not say that. I said that facts do not require belief: they can be practically applied. — SonOfAGun

What do facts "require"?

Who "applies facts" in practice without "believing" the facts they apply?

It seems likely that what you're calling "practical application of a fact" is the same or nearly the same thing I am calling "belief".

I don't think that the epistemological field is as unified as you claim. What about epistemologists who are scientific realists? Perhaps they are not the majority, but exist non-the-less. — SonOfAGun

I haven't claimed that epistemologists all give the same account of belief. But I have claimed that the way I am using the term is consistent with ordinary use among them, and that the way you are using the term is unprecedented in my experience.

Do you have an example of a "scientific realist" using the term "belief" in the way you have been using it here?

Again facts can be practically applied with invariable results. They do not require belief. — SonOfAGun

Forget about the results:

What are the conditions of "application"? How do you "apply facts" without belief?

I knowingly and intentionally reach out for a glass of water. What are the facts that I have applied? Whatever they are: Isn't it ordinarily correct to say, and incorrect to deny, that beliefs like these factor among my beliefs at the time I reach for the glass: I believe that there is a glass before me, I believe there is water in the glass, I believe water is hydrating and thirst-quenching, I believe getting a hold of the glass and raising it to my lips is a way to put water into my mouth...

Perhaps you're conflating beliefs with thoughts in which beliefs are expressed and affirmed? When I say "belief" I don't necessarily or ordinarily mean anything like an explicit "thought" in which a belief is expressed and affirmed. I just mean belief.

Since you know the route belief is not required. — SonOfAGun

Do I also know that I know the route? Do I believe that I know the route? Am I aware that I know the route? Am I aware that I am heading to the grocery store? Do I expect that the route I am taking will lead to the grocery? Do I have a clear notion of why I am heading this way....

These are all conditions in which it's customary to say I "believe" this is a route to the grocery store.

It's not clear to me that you have provided any reason that we should refrain from this custom. It's not clear to me that you have made sense of an alternative to this custom.

The color of the sky is explainable via basic physics facts. — SonOfAGun

What do explanations have to do with it? A belief is not an explanation. Perhaps you're conflating beliefs with explanations?

When I say "This is a glass of water", I believe this is a glass of water. That's not an explanation of what a glass of water is. It's just a belief that this is a glass of water.

Again it seems to me you're objecting to an ordinary use -- the most ordinary use -- of the term "belief" because you have some unusual -- and perhaps severely confused -- conception of what a "belief" is supposed to be or supposed to do. Perhaps we should change tack, and try to clear this up directly:

What is it that a belief is supposed to be or do, on your account?

What do you mean when you say "This is a glass of water"? What do you mean when you deny that you believe there is a glass of water in front of you when you say "This is a glass of water"? Do you also deny that you know there is a glass of water? Do you also deny that you perceive and see a glass of water?

How do you characterize your "cognitive state", how do you characterize what you know or believe or perceive, how do you characterize your cognitive relation to the facts, when you say "This is a glass of water" on the basis of perception and mean it?

SonOfAGun
96
Sorry, TMF...I just do not know what fae means...and was not able to find out from Google.
— Frank Apisa

Try typing into google "the fae" rather than just fae.

Edit>>> Well it actually pulls it up both ways. I thought you said you already tried. — SonOfAGun

I did.

But what I entered was "Definition of Internet FAE."

I thought it was one of those Internet acronyms.

I realize now that fae...is a term for fairies. Seems to me that it came up often in True Blood.

What do facts "require"? — Cabbage Farmer

Only application. If you know the facts, you can apply them with invariable results. Have you ever studied chemistry? If not, you could think of it like instruction for putting together a desk. You don't need to "believe" that the instructions are true you only need to follow them. This is because they have already been proven to be actual facts/knowledge. So belief is not required.

Who "applies facts" in practice without "believing" the facts they apply? — Cabbage Farmer

Have you ever studied chemistry. You do a lot of application of facts to learn that they are facts.

It seems likely that what you're calling "practical application of a fact" is the same or nearly the same thing I am calling "belief". — Cabbage Farmer

It is not.

Do I also know that I know the route? Do I believe that I know the route? Am I aware that I know the route? Am I aware that I am heading to the grocery store? Do I expect that the route I am taking will lead to the grocery? Do I have a clear notion of why I am heading this way.... — Cabbage Farmer

Christ man, you have got to be kidding me. This is not how the human brain works.

Soundseasonable to me, CF. In fact, I might even borrow that quote after checking it out independently. — Frank Apisa

It's a breezy read on an important topic.

But this all refers back to something you said earlier: "Some people provide extensive arguments for their theistic or atheistic claims and beliefs. I'm not inclined to call that "guessing".

Okay...I appreciate that you are not inclined to call that "guessing."

I, however, DO...in spades and in capital letters.

And I am inclined, at times, to calling it bullshit.

(After reading your post, I acknowledge I may have to revise that last part.) — Frank Apisa

It seems likely you and I agree about the speculative character of many theistic and atheistic arguments, but differ in the attitude with which we engage some of our interlocutors, as well as in our evaluations of the reasonableness of some of their arguments.

I wonder, do you count yourself an agnostic or a skeptic?

Do you agree there are some conceptions of deity that are tautologically true and indifferent to many customary disputes between atheists and theists?

For instance, consider the Great Fact, the whole of existence, the eternal sum of whatever is in fact the case, across all time and all space or across whatever "dimensions" we should name alongside or instead of time and space, across whatever iterations of generation and decay of universes or multiverses there may be.... Isn't it a truism to say the World thus conceived as Totality is the "source" or "ground" and "home" of all things and all beings?

So far as I can tell, a conception along these lines is compatible with many varieties of theism, atheism, agnosticism, idealism, materialism, skepticism, and so on.

Moreover, it offers a rational basis for a sort of conceptual closure, and for regulative principles of harmony and unity that may inform the rational imagination in practices of meditation, prayer, and worship -- for instance in keeping with Dewey's talk of "natural piety" in the first section of A Common Faith.

I knowingly and intentionally reach out for a glass of water. What are the facts that I have applied? Whatever they are: Isn't it ordinarily correct to say, and incorrect to deny, that beliefs like these factor among my beliefs at the time I reach for the glass: I believe that there is a glass before me, I believe there is water in the glass, I believe water is hydrating and thirst-quenching, I believe getting a hold of the glass and raising it to my lips is a way to put water into my mouth... — Cabbage Farmer

No. You observe that there is a glass before you, you observe that there is water in the glass, you have tested - for however many years you have been alive now - that water is hydrating and thirst-quenching, you have tested holding the glass and raising it to your lips and KNOW that this is an efficient way to put water in your moth.

It's not clear to me that you have provided any reason that we should refrain from this custom. It's not clear to me that you have made sense of an alternative to this custom. — Cabbage Farmer

It is not a custom. Your 'knowledge" of the route is based on a lifetime of lived experimental data.

Yes. But I want to make the distinction that believing a proposition is false is different than believing something doesn’t exist. — Pinprick

How would you account for this distinction and make it explicit, in the case at hand?

So far as I can tell, denial of the proposition "x exists" entails:

i) a belief that the proposition "x exists" is false,

ii) a belief that the proposition "x does not exist" is true, and

iii) a belief that there is no such thing as "x".

For ordinary purposes we don't need to fuss over the logical form of (iii). It's customary for people to say things like "x does not exist". That should only seem strange to logicians.

For some purposes we might want to unpack (iii) to show that it is not correctly analyzed as belief in an x that does not exist, but rather is belief in a conception of a thing that has no real thing corresponding to it in the way that real things normally correspond to our conceptions of them.

For instance, the way my dog corresponds to my conception of my dog.

— SonOfAGun
What do explanations have to do with it? A belief is not an explanation. Perhaps you're conflating beliefs with explanations? — Cabbage Farmer

What the h*** are you talking about. If you have a true/factual/tested physical explanation for a phenomenon YOU NO LONGER NEED TO BELIEVE what ever it was that you believed about the phenomenon. YOU NOW KNOW FOR A FACT. belief is no longer required.

When I say "This is a glass of water", I believe this is a glass of water. That's not an explanation of what a glass of water is. It's just a belief that this is a glass of water. — Cabbage Farmer

No man people have run many test to identify the physical characteristics of glass and water, including yourself, over the course of your life time. If you don't trust your own experience you can always fall back on science it is rock solid concerning this mater.

For instance, consider the Great Fact, the whole of existence, the eternal sum of whatever is in fact the case, across all time and all space or across whatever "dimensions" we should name alongside or instead of time and space, across whatever iterations of generation and decay of universes or multiverses there may be.... Isn't it a truism to say the World thus conceived as Totality is the "source" or "ground" and "home" of all things and all beings? — Cabbage Farmer

This is just babbling to me. I have no Idea what this is supposed to mean.