1. Your words: "Again, it underlies all forms of thought; it underlies "scientific thinking" (whatever that is), [belief] in evidence, rational arguments. There's no rational argument to make because belief underlies rationality; apprehending the role belief plays in experience and thinking requires reflection and intuition. If you can't see it, you just can't, which you probably can't."

2. My response:

• I don't detect any cognitive science papers that show that belief is unavoidable.
• Science generally occurs on evidence, while in contrast, belief permits that evidence is typically ignored.
• So, we can contact a model i.e. scientific thinking, that is something that prioritizes evidence, rather than contact belief, which generally permits ignorance of evidence.

My response: The evidence persists regardless of belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan

So you believe that?

And you want us to believe it, too?

1. Your words: "I don't detect any cognitive science papers that show that belief is unavoidable.
Science generally occurs on evidence, belief permits that evidence is typically ignored.
So, we can contact a model i.e. scientific thinking, that is something that prioritizes evidence, rather than contact belief, which generally permits ignorance of evidence."

2. My response: none of that is a response to my comment.

I don't detect any cognitive science papers that show that belief is unavoidable. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Because no cognitive scientist would ever do a study to evaluate that issue. Do you think there is a single cognitive scientist, any scientist, who thinks what you appear to think. Note I didn't say "who believes what you believe." I didn't want to be disrespectful.

Later in your post you say "not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief!" Which is a fine thing to say, although I disagree with it strongly. But saying your goal is to abolish belief is silly. You might as well say we should abolish thought. Humans are story-telling creatures. It's a much a part of us as opposable thumbs. First, before they are anything else, theories and models are stories. Beliefs are stories. Science is a story. — T Clark

Are you theistic by chance?

Science isn't true. What does that even mean? Statements are true or false. It's reasonable to say that science is a useful method or methods for gaining knowledge about the world. It's not the only useful method. Beside that, truth, as defined by scientists, is a scientific concept. It's a circular argument.

All that being said, NDT is part right - whatever science is, it is whether or not people believe it is what it is. — T Clark

1. True definition:"in accordance with fact or reality."

2. So, Neil deGrasse Tyson is demonstrably correct, science is true; science aims to describe reality.

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.

So you believe that?

And you want us to believe it, too? — Banno

No.

So what is you aim, if not to convince us?

2. My response: The evidence persists regardless of belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan

How do we know that you do not believe, against your own recommendation, that the evidence persists regardless of belief?

Are you theistic by chance? — ProgrammingGodJordan

What possible relevance does that have to this discussion? You should be addressing my statements.

1. True definition:"in accordance with fact or reality." — ProgrammingGodJordan

I don't understand your point. Doesn't seem like you understand mine either. So we're even.

Both scientific theory and scientific hypothesis generally occur, and align on evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You did not address my points at all. You just restated your original position. So what do we do now? You say "does not." I say "does too." "Nunh unh." "Unh hunh" "Oh yeah?" "Yeah." and so on.

Also, what does it mean to say that a theory "occurs?"

So what is you aim, if not to convince us? — Banno

How do we know that you do not believe, against your own recommendation, that the evidence persists regardless of belief? — Banno

1. Why do you garner you must believe, in order to observe that science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence?
   
2. In other words, don't you recognize that regardless of whether or not you believe, science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence?

— T Clark

Are you theistic by chance? — ProgrammingGodJordan

What possible relevance does that have to this discussion? You should be addressing my statements.


Whether you are theistic or not, shall probably affect how many steps my responses to you may contain.

Have you ever noticed that sometimes words have nuance?

whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Not always. Just occasionally, folk believe stuff because of the evidence.

Not always. Just occasionally, folk believe stuff because of the evidence. — Banno

1. I already underlined that one may believe in evidence in the OP:

2. By extension, that one may believe in science, does not suddenly erase that the concept of belief does not prioritize evidence, but instead permits that evidence is typically ignored.

• In other words, belief can both occur in science, and unfortunately by extension, belief typically permits ignorance of evidence!

Why do you garner you must believe, in order to observe that science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence?
In other words, don't you recognize that regardless of whether or not you believe, science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence? — ProgrammingGodJordan

You continue to use exact phrases in your arguments. Using single words consistently is a good way to make a clearer argument, but using entire phrases just means that you have an entire premise in your head which is unassailable to you, but nowhere have you actually made the argument for this premise, and the exact reason is because it's an unassailable premise to you. In other words, everyone responding to you in this thread is challenging your pre-concieved notion of what you think belief is, but because you believe your premise is unassailable, you're either blind to what's happening in the debate, or unwilling to accept it.

You continue to use exact phrases in your arguments. Using single words consistently is a good way to make a clearer argument, but using entire phrases just means that you have an entire premise in your head which is unassailable; in other words, everyone responding to you in this thread is challenging your pre-concieved notion of what you think belief is, but because you believe your premise is unassailable, you're either blind to what's happening in the debate, or unwilling to acknowledge it. — Noble Dust

1. In contrast, I refer to standard definitions:

2. By extension, research shows that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence.

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25741291

1. In contrast, I refer to standard definitions: — ProgrammingGodJordan

That's probably the genesis of your issues here, then.

And you still have not responded to my arguments, and you've barely responded to anyone else's arguments.

1. Why would using standard definitions supposedly be "the genesis of my issues"?
2. Also, don't forget the latter part of my earlier response:

By extension, research shows that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25741291 — ProgrammingGodJordan

Whether you are theistic or not, shall probably affect how many steps my responses to you may contain. — ProgrammingGodJordan

My post didn't make any specific reference to theistic belief except in a quote from you. Isn't the whole point of your thread that all beliefs are invalid? Is there a difference between an invalid theistic belief and an invalid non-theistic belief? No need for any special approach.

Also, going by your internet search of "belief", we can easily analyze your own beliefs and compare them against those definitions:

1. "An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

See:

After 4 years of being an atheist, one day I thought about belief, and I recognized that not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief! — ProgrammingGodJordan

2. "Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion."

3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking. — ProgrammingGodJordan

3. "A religious conviction."

As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, science is true whether or not one believes in it!
Pertinently, that one may believe in science, does not suddenly remove that belief is a concept that permits that one may typically ignore evidence, as observed in the analysis below:

Belief (by definition and research) is a model, that permits both science, and non-science.
However, crucially, belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence.
A model that generally permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.
Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, rather than a model (i.e. belief) that facilitates largely, the ignorance of evidence.
Unfortunately, I had been a theist up until my 21'st birthday. Fortunately, at age 22 (I am now 27), I finally identified as an atheist. After 4 years of being an atheist, one day I thought about belief, and I recognized that not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief!

As a precaution for preventing myself from absorbing nonsense, I had come to invent something called "non beliefism".
Beyond atheism, "non beliefism" enables a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan

4. belief inTrust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)

It is probable that somebody/something is utilizing your account to compose messages. I need not belief to observe said probability. — ProgrammingGodJordan

My post didn't make any specific reference to theistic belief except in a quote from you. Isn't the whole point of your thread that all beliefs are invalid? Is there a difference between an invalid theistic belief and an invalid non-theistic belief? No need for any special approach. — T Clark

1. In contrast, as underlined in the OP:

• One may believe in both evidence, and non-evidence. (i.e. there are valid beliefs in science)
• Despite the above, not only may belief occur on evidence, but by unfortunate extension, belief general permits ignorance of evidence, and that contrasts science, which prioritizes evidence.

2. So, what I mentioned before still applies; that is, whether you are theistic or not, shall probably affect how many steps my responses to you may contain.

>:O

Regardless of whether or not ProgrammingGodJordan believes that he "observes" but does not believe things about belief, his belief about (his) belief persists regardless of his belief (or observation) of it. So, he's quite right about that. — Πετροκότσυφας

Why do you garner that belief is unavoidable?

He just showed you why.

Where?

in what you quoted..

Hi. I must confess that I can find only another example of vague abstract evangelism in the opening post. Would you mind boiling this down in practical terms? Isn't this just the idea that everyone should be super-ultra-scientific? Doubt everything, except that what constitutes evidence is ambiguous and that doubt is somehow automatically virtuous?

Sometimes the word 'scientism' is thrown around a little recklessly, but I think it fits here. As I've followed the thread, I see you enact what I'd call a kind of fanaticism that won't budge an inch. I'm new here too, and I'm not trying to make an enemy. My thinking is that being on a forum is pointless if one isn't exposed to criticism, so I'm offering you some criticism. Maybe it'll speed the rule of artificial intelligence somehow.

You're on point.

Hi. I must confess that I can find only another example of vague abstract evangelism here. Would you mind boiling this down in practical terms? Isn't this just the idea that everyone should be super-ultra-scientific? Doubt everything, except that what constitutes evidence is ambiguous and that doubt is somehow automatically virtuous?

Sometimes the word 'scientism' is thrown around a little recklessly, but I think it fits here. As I've followed the thread, I see you enact what I'd call a kind of fanaticism that won't budge an inch. I'm new here too, and I'm not trying to make an enemy. My thinking is that being on a forum is pointless if one isn't exposed to criticism, so I'm offering you some criticism. Maybe it'll speed the rule of artificial intelligence somehow. — dog

1. It is somewhat tiring when people bring up scienticism when I describe "non beliefism", because as an atheist, I had long encountered scienticism.
   
2. Anyway, scienticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism".

Thanks. (And I was just joking with you about those commas, btw.)

Eh? Commas?