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" 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? — sime
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
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
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
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
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
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
2. By extension, research shows that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25741291 — ProgrammingGodJordan
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.
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
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
There is no proof of anything scientific. Only evidence. This means that every scientific truth is a belief. — BlueBanana
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I don't detect the relevance of your response above wrt the OP.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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.