Science prioritizes evidence, but not proof (excluding mathematics) — BlueBanana

I know this was a distinction PGJ insisted on you making, but it isn't necessary because mathematics is not a science; it is a tool that science utilizes.

Thanks *virtual hug*

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. — Hanover

Whether or not anybody believes science is to be relied upon, is irrelevant; for science is demonstrably thus far mankind's best tool, regardless of what anybody believes.

False. Belief does not prioritize proof. — BlueBanana

The OP, along with many many responses of mine here, underline that belief does not prioritize evidence.

• Whether or not you admit it, such is the case.

That's technically correct but the word proof expresses that definition in a more exact way.

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. — BlueBanana

I had advised you many times, and provided definition urls, which you ignored.

• So here's a clear screenshot showing clearly that proof and evidence are synonyms. contrary to your strange claim above:

The OP, along with many many responses of mine here, underline that belief does not prioritize evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

We are all aware of the things you have said, the claims you have made.

The point is that you are wrong

The flaws in your reasoning have been demonstrated many times by many people. Your refusal to acknowledge them is irrelevant.

I welcome your virtual embrace.

I have seen, read and acknowledged your URLs, and I refuse to recognize the authority of them. And even if I didn't, the words might be similar in colloquial use, which wouldn't have any weight in this topic. And even if it did, it would only mean they'd be similar, not the same.

We are all aware of the things you have said, the claims you have made.

The point is that you are wrong

The flaws in your reasoning have been demonstrated many times by many people. Your refusal to acknowledge them is irrelevant. — JustSomeGuy

I have seen, read and acknowledged your URLs, and I refuse to recognize the authority of them. And even if I didn't, the words might be similar in colloquial use, which wouldn't have any weight in this topic. And even if it did, it would only mean they'd be similar, not the same. — BlueBanana

Your refusals to acknowledge evidence that contrasts your false pre-conceived notions reminds me of Ken Ham; he tends to express that nothing can change his mind regarding his faith, even if contrasting evidence occurs.

• Advice: Don't be like Ken Ham.

You just avoided the whole "and even if I didn't" thing. Even if the words were synonyms, they would have drastically different meanings for this discussion.

But fine, let's forget the synonym topic and all that mess, and see the question from another angle. Do you admit the difference between the concepts of evidence and proof?

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. — JustSomeGuy

Can you present where I supposedly presented 'proof' and 'synonym' to be exactly the same?

• Advice: You won't find any such quote of mine.
• It's better to admit you were wrong by falsely stating that "proof" and "evidence" were not synonymous. (Although your errors are visible, whether or not you admit it)

Can you present where I supposedly presented 'proof' and 'synonym' to be exactly the same? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Dear lord...I feel like I'm talking to a malfunctioning A.I.

You just avoided the whole "and even if I didn't" thing. Even if the words were synonyms, they would have drastically different meanings for this discussion.

But fine, let's forget the synonym topic and all that mess, and see the question from another angle. Do you admit the difference between the concepts of evidence and proof? — BlueBanana

I don't detect the relevance of that question, wrt to the OP.

Dear lord...I feel like I'm talking to a malfunctioning A.I. — JustSomeGuy

In others, you are unable to present evidence for your claim.

• Embarrassingly, you failed to detect that proof and evidence were synonyms, even when shown valid data.
• Or perhaps English isn't your first language?

1. Thus far, throughout the discussion, I have not detected any novel information from the responders here (no sensible input from a majority of responders here).
2. Thus, I shall underline a summary below, until I return in roughly 10 hours, after sleeping.

1. 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".
   
2. 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.
   
3. In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

1. Model i - belief:
   
   • Permits belief in science or evidence.
   • Also permits ignorance of evidence, but not only that, it generally permits ignorance of evidence. (i.e. frequent ignorance of evidence)
2. Model ii - Non-beliefism:
   
   • Underlines that science prioritizes evidence.
   • Does not permit general ignorance of evidence.

Really? That's ok, just answer it and I'll draw the conclusion afterwards to make it easier for you.

Really? That's ok, just answer it and I'll draw the conclusion afterwards to make it easier for you. — BlueBanana

Are you theistic?

• Your answer will help me to define how many steps I should use in my responses to you in particular. (After I awake from slumber)

Whether or not anybody believes science is to be relied upon, is irrelevant; for science is demonstrably thus far mankind's best tool, regardless of what anybody believes. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Define "knowledge." How can you know what you say is true without believing it?

Define "knowledge." How can you know what you say is true without believing it? — Hanover

I don't detect the relevance of that question.

• That query does not alter the reality, that science obtains, whether or not anybody chooses to believe in science.

Your relevance objection is noted, now please answer the question.

Guess what? I don't see the relevance to the OP. And regarding the relevance of my previous comments, wrt my previous comments.

Yep.

"Belief, by definition and research, is such that generally permits ignorance of evidence.
Something that generally permits ignorance of evidence, contrasts science.
So, whether or not I exist, belief remains a concept today, that generally permits ignorance of evidence!"

But-
1. All men are ignorant of something even in their fields of expertise.
2. There is no science that has exhausted knowledge of its subject.
3. Therefore there is no science that can be more than belief. It is simply a matter of degree. Firm belief vs. weak belief.

But-
1. All men are ignorant of something even in their fields of expertise.
2. There is no science that has exhausted knowledge of its subject.
3. Therefore there is no science that can be more than belief. It is simply a matter of degree. Firm belief vs. weak belief. — Daniel Smith

1. That a scientist may be ignorant of something in his/her field, does not suddenly warrant that said scientist generally contacts a model that permits typical ignorance of evidence. (i.e. belief)
   
   • In fact, for example, one fails to do computer science, if one generally fails to follow or prioritize evidence.
     
     • i.e. Computer science generally consists of evidence (rather than not).
2. Belief permits the very opposite of scientific endeavour; instead of rigorous evidence prioritization, belief generally permits that evidence is typically ignored, which clearly contrasts the scientific method.
   
   • "Non-beliefism" underlines that:
     
     • "One need not be genius nor omniscient to do scientific thinking, as belief typically enables large evidence ignorance, in contrast to scientific theory or scientific hypotheses, for which genius is not required, and crucially, for which evidence is defined to be prioritized".

14 pages of discussion and no one has defined belief or knowledge. How can anyone even continue this discussion in any meaningful way when neither has been clearly defined? The reason why it has continued without any clear argument being made is because neither term has been clearly defined. As usual, philosophical discussions fail to get at anything useful because the terms haven't been defined in any useful way.

14 pages of discussion and no one has defined belief or knowledge. How can anyone even continue this discussion in any meaningful way when neither has been clearly defined? The reason why it has continued without any clear argument being made is because neither term has been clearly defined. As usual, philosophical discussions fail to get at anything useful because the terms haven't been defined in any useful way. — Harry Hindu

• Dictionary definitions (and research) had long been provided in the OP.
  
• And contrary to your claim, apart from the sources provided in the OP, definitions (and research) were underlined several times throughout the duration of this debate.
  
• Advice: You need to actually observe the OP and the 14 pages you claimed to have read, before "confidently" posting invalid responses.

14 pages of discussion and no one has defined belief or knowledge. How can anyone even continue this discussion in any meaningful way when neither has been clearly defined? The reason why it has continued without any clear argument being made is because neither term has been clearly defined. As usual, philosophical discussions fail to get at anything useful because the terms haven't been defined in any useful way. — Harry Hindu

Is that really the problem here? I think all kinds of conversations are productive without terms being defined. In my view it's the social dynamic that's fouled up here. PGJ is being silly.

Defining terms has its limits too, does it not? Because we define terms with still other terms and so on and so on. On some level people just have to (1) speak the same language and (2) actually like or respect one another enough to work through ambiguity.

Or so I see it.

Dear lord...I feel like I'm talking to a malfunctioning A.I. — JustSomeGuy

I think that's the idea. The guy's supposedly written some fancy A.I software and now he's answering all the questions as if he was a computer program. He's obviously getting his kicks out of imagining we're all slowly beginning to wonder if we're really talking to a human or not.

I suggest we don't humour him.

Simply, science prioritizes evidence, while belief (by definition and research) is a model that does not prioritize evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I don't disagree.

Unless belief is redefined to prioritize evidence, or unless some new research suddenly shows that belief generally permits evidence prioritization, the concept of belief, which is both defined, and researched to generally permit ignorance of evidence, ought to be avoided altogether. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I don't really understand. Are you against the word "belief" because of the baggage it carries? I don't see how your nonscientism is any different than individuals deciding to hold only beliefs based on science. It's essentially the same thing. What difference would there be if I were to be a non-beliefist vs. someone who only believes with only scientific thinking.

Why contact a model that doesn't prioritize evidence (i.e. belief) instead of a model (i.e. science) that prioritizes evidence? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Rather than complicating all of this, we can just encourage rational thinking and not believing things without good reason.

Belief is accepting a claim. When you say that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence, all you're saying is that people tend to accept claims while ignoring evidence. Rather than redefining the word belief, we can just be specific and say scientific beliefs or beliefs that are based on scientific thinking are the only types of beliefs people should have. Your term nonbelief is exactly the same thing.