That doesn’t answer my question. In case you forgot, here: If you see a chair in front of you and I asked you "Is there a chair in front of you?" what would you say? — SonJnana
Weak responses of your type above, have already been approached on prior pages. — Banno
That doesn’t answer my question. In case you forgot, here: If you see a chair in front of you and I asked you "Is there a chair in front of you?" what would you say? — SonJnana
No you don't; I and everyone else await your response to the question that was asked fucking pages and pages ago. — Noble Dust
The OP won’t answer my question :( — SonJnana
The very same dictionary definitions you've posted contradict the ones you're using. — BlueBanana
I have only just been prompted to this thread and as I attempted to read it in order to ascertain what the concern may be, unfortunately I stumbled upon this and I am afraid that this is complete nonsense. Is that link to a page you have created?
There is an opportunity to correctly discuss fallibilism or even when beliefs can qualify as knowledge, but you need to exhibit a degree of coherency in your position. Plato famously remarked "justified true belief" so perhaps you can focal an argument toward the Gettier problem. Otherwise, the last several pages of nonsense only qualifies the thread' closure. — TimeLine
The OP has a false definition of belief, because he refuses to accept that the words evidence and proof are not interchangeable. Instead, all while questioning the relevance of absolutely anything and flooding the forums with dictionaries, they constantly deny the dictionary definition of the word synonym, leading to an unrelevat discussion of its meaning. — BlueBanana
Worst than that, there could be a life after death! — bahman
Think of how irritating it would be if you were forced to declare what you were living for each morning. — praxis
Just for an example, I would quite happily say that there is a chair in front of me.
I would also say that I believe there is a chair in front of me.
I might even be so bold as to say that I am certain that there is a chair in front of me.
Intelectual courage, or just plain recklessness? — Banno
If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me? — SonJnana
This is not a response to what you quoted. As has been long mentioned. — Noble Dust
1.Right. I detect no contact between you and this reality.
1a) i.e. you are unaware of your scientistic beliefs.
2. This had long been pointed out to you in this thread.
2a) your continued refusal to acknowledge this contacts a garnering of knowledge that you are in denial. — Noble Dust
Oh, go on. Answer the question. You might learn something. We might learn something. — Banno
Just answer the question and I will show you why it's relevant when you answer it. — SonJnana
If it's so very irrelevant then the point a make after you answer the question will be easy to refute right? Or are you afraid I will prove that you hold beliefs?
If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me? — SonJnana
Also, isn't scientism a special brand of pseudo-science? — Noble Dust
If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me? — SonJnana
Okay so you acknowledge that if you accept a claim on evidence it is by definition a belief.
Now hang on, before I read any of that, answer my question that I've asked multiple times already. This is part of my demonstration that you hold beliefs.
If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me? — SonJnana
As you even admitted yourself, there is a difference between especially and necessarily. Therefore by definition accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still a belief. A belief doesn't require accepting a claim off of nonscientific thinking, it could still be either. If you won't acknowledge this point then I'm gonna realize you're trolling. — SonJnana
Okay I will demonstrate to you why you are still holding beliefs.
A belief is accepting a claim that generally permits ignorance of evidence. No where in that definition does it say necessarily permits ignorance of evidence. Therefore accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still by definition having a belief. — SonJnana
Ah - so you believe that there is at least the possibility of your being wrong... — Banno
Okay I will demonstrate to you why you are still holding beliefs.
A belief is accepting a claim. — SonJnana
Progress towards what? Some, including myself, have asked PJ what his goal is, what the purpose of the thread is, to no avail.
It is quite odd. — Banno
But all that means is that now you are saying that instead of accepting claims, we should only look at things as if more likely or less likely to be true. But if you are gonna say that x is more likely, you are accepting the claim that x is more likely and therefore by definition still holding beliefs. There is no way to get around it unless you don't accept any claims. And that's actually impractical. — SonJnana
In some special cases evidence may constitute proof; but it certainly does not follow that all evidence is proof. — Janus
I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying using the word nonbeliefism is misleading because the term makes it sound like you don't accept anything to be true. Yet you still are accepting claims (and still holding beliefs), it's just that the beliefs that are held are based off of scientific thinking. If you insist on calling it nonbeliefism that's fine, just be aware that most people will probably realize it's just a subset of beliefs that is based off of scientific thinking and won't use the term nonbeliefism. — SonJnana
So you believe...X-) — Banno
The thing is, even if he shows that people generally ignore evidence it doesn't matter. A belief is still a belief regardless of whether it is one based of scientific or nonscientific thinking. — SonJnana
The Oxford Dictionary lists three definitions. None mention evidence, the first says "especially without proof" which would seem to indicate a notion that the term belief is more applicable to opinions held where proof is lacking. Proof is not evidence; if you believe it is then you are ignoring evidence. — Janus
As I've mentioned many times it doesn't necessarily mean it's based off of nonscientific thinking. Especially is not the same thing as necessarily. Those are two different words. Therefore if you are accepting a claim, it is still a belief by definition. So if you accept something based off of scientific thinking that is still by definition a belief. — SonJnana
This is nonsensical; whether people tend to generally ignore evidence or not is not based on how belief is defined.
People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. Can you provide evidence that people generally ignore evidence or is that a belief that ignores evidence? — Janus
Which definition? The first one? That says especially, not necessarily. So if you are accepting something to be true off of science thinking, it still is a belief by that definition. — SonJnana
Why don't you call. Science beliefism or something which implies that it is a type of belief that is only based off scientific thinking. Sort of like a subset of type of belief or something. — SonJnana