Ok Banno. So, in order to do this proper(and I'm certain we can), we'll need to get approval from the mods and/or administrators, set the parameters of the debate(the actual debate topic, who opens, length of posts, timeframe between replies, and whether or not there is a hard fast end). In addition, the administrators will need to create a place for us to proceed without interruption from those following the debate. The other site had two threads, one for participants following and discussing the debate, and one specifically reserved for the exclusive use of the participants.

The title of the debate proposal has a few folk hereabouts worried about the ambiguity of key terms. Given the 'nature' of language use, I think some ambiguity is inevitable, and that that ambiguity is part of what makes debates interesting. I'd be surprised if you didn't want to retain a certain amount of ambiguity, and that's ok by me.

However, has since suggested a change in the topic sentence, and given his own reasons for doing so. From where I sit, it doesn't seem to negatively effect/affect my approach to a debate about belief content.

The only real sticking point that I see regards your earlier suggestion that you would basically copy and paste your profile here as an opening argument, or that that's what I ought respond to in my opening argument. The problem is that there's nothing in your profile about the content of belief. So, there's really nothing for me to respond to regarding the debate topic.

So, perhaps it's best if we take the advice/suggestion of fdrake and debate "Beliefs are always about statements"?

What do you think?

If you want me to critique the profile, that would end up being an entirely different debate.

I would be willing to argue in the affirmative for "Not all beliefs are about statements", "Beliefs are not always about statements", "Not all belief has propositional content", "Not all belief is an attitude towards a proposition", "Not all belief is an attitude towards a statement", "Not all belief consists of propositional attitude", "Not all belief consists of statements", "Not all belief consists of propositions"...

Or you could argue in the affirmative of any of these by removing the "not".

the problem is that there's nothing in your profile about the content of belief. — creativesoul

Statements are combinations of nouns and verbs and such like; Some statements are either true or false, and we can call these propositions. So, "The present king of France is bald" is a statement, but not a proposition.

Beliefs range over propositions. (arguably, they might be made to range over statements: Fred believes the present king of France is bald.)

Beliefs set out a relation of a particular sort between an agent and a proposition.

This relation is such that if the agent acts in some way then there is a belief and a desire that together are sufficient to explain the agent's action. Banno wants water; he believes he can pour a glass from the tap; so he goes to the tap to pour a glass of water.

Hu?

Look, if you like, set up a site and I will re-write what I've said above with a bit more context and something to keep the peanut gallery interested and put it up as the OP. Then you can explain how cats have beliefs and yet don't understand propositions and we can go on from there - again.

@fdrake seems to be in the way here. Bring it.

IF I were to open, my bit would be a copy-and-paste from my profile. So I'll ceed the opening post to creativesoul, who can address that profile.

As for definitions, the point of a philosophical debate can be, and I suspect in this case will be, setting out a definition.

SO I suggest we start with creative pointing to my errors in the profile. — Banno

My esteemed and revered interlocutor, for whom I hold much respect, you are talking about what using the term "belief" requires. You are talking about all of the different ways that you are using the term.

I could critique that terminological usage in terms of it's coherency and/or lack of self-contradiction. If it is consistent, it lacks self-contradiction, and as a result I ought be able to swap any particular use of the term with the definition offered(whether that be by name or description) and not suffer a loss in meaningful content or arrive at mutually exclusive definitions/senses of the term "belief"(self-contradiction).

That would be a very short debate.

Thanks for the video. I've been looking for more info about this chap for a couple of years.

Yawn.

We doing' this, or what?

We need to agree on the debate topic/statement, then set the parameters, right? I'm attempting to get the ball rolling here...

I've offered a list of candidates. Perhaps you missed it?

I would be willing to argue in the affirmative for "Not all beliefs are about statements", "Beliefs are not always about statements", "Not all belief has propositional content", "Not all belief is an attitude towards a proposition", "Not all belief is an attitude towards a statement", "Not all belief consists of propositional attitude", "Not all belief consists of statements", "Not all belief consists of propositions"...

Or you could argue in the affirmative of any of these by removing the "not". — creativesoul

We also need some type of administrative intervention so as to set up the place. So, I suspect when you and I agree on the debate topic and the parameters of the debate, that the appropriate actions will be taken by the administrators to help facilitate it.

Let's do it.

We also need some type of administrative intervention so as to set up the place. — creativesoul

Title is:

Is Belief Content Propositional?


I write the OP. Three posts each. No more than a week between posts.

All that sounds good. Minimum/maximum word count per post?

Three or five posts each?

You changed that... or I misread???

Three is not enough.

I'm not going to write a dissertation - you? 1500 words.

I realised five could mean we were still going in March...

Three is not enough. 1500 sounds good. We could shorten the response time to 72 hrs.

I do wonder about the topic being a question, but I'm willing to critique your OP, provided it answers the debate question in the affirmative. If the debate focuses upon your answer and my critique thereof, we may only need three posts each. We could still reduce the response time to 72 hours.

Is this acceptable?