Underlines that science prioritizes evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You are still a believer, hiding your true heart with the words "prioritise".

You are still a believer, hiding your true hear in the words "prioritise". — Banno

Once more, that you believe, does not suddenly warrant that everybody believes.

Once more, that you believe, does not suddenly warrant that everybody believes. — ProgrammingGodJordan

That's not even a response to Banno.

However, that one may believe for example in science, does not suddenly remove that belief is a model that does not prioritize evidence, but instead permits general ignorance of evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

A particularly appropriate place to invoke the crucial distinction between belief in something or other and belief that something or other. The former is about existence. The latter is about truth. Belief in God includes a belief that the statement "God exists" is true.

There is no such thing as a 'belief in science' like there is a belief in God or a belief in astrology or a belief in souls or spirits or re-incarnation, etc.

I personally believe that science works from a method meant to reduce the possibility for error.

Methodological Naturalism.

A particularly appropriate place to invoke the crucial distinction between belief in something or other and belief that something or other. The former is about existence. The latter is about truth. Belief in God includes a belief that the statement "God exists" is true.

There is no such thing as a 'belief in science' like there is a belief in God or a belief in astrology or a belief in souls or spirits or re-incarnation, etc.

I personally believe that science works from a method meant to reduce the possibility for error.

Methodological Naturalism. — creativesoul

I don't detect the relevance of your comment above.

• Recall that belief is described in relation to typical definition, and scientific research.

A simplification:

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. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You denied claiming that all belief are false. I asked then if you would agree that some belief is true. The above is not an appropriate response. I'm running out of reasons to continue.

I don't detect the relevance of your comment above — ProgrammingGodJordan

Alright Data...

Once more, that you believe, does not suddenly warrant that everybody believes. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You are repeating yourself without answering the question.

Is it that you cannot see the question?

Is it that seeing the question would break the cage?

You denied claiming that all belief are false. I asked then if you would agree that some belief is true. The above is not an appropriate response. I'm running out of reasons to continue. — creativesoul

Where did I supposedly claim that all beliefs are false?

• Please provide evidence for your claims.
• Advice: Refer to the Op, to see data that contrasts your claim.

You are repeating yourself without answering the question.

Is it that you cannot see the question?

Is it that seeing the question would break the cage? — Banno

How does the reality that science prioritizes evidence supposedly disregard non-beliefism?

Where did I supposedly claim that all beliefs are false?
Please provide evidence for your claims. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Where did I ever claim you had? I'm granting that you did not.

If you agree that not all beliefs are false, then you also agree that some beliefs are true or you do not know what the fuck you're talking about. I'd like to think that you do know what you're talking about to some degree or other. I'm trying to provoke answers which bear witness to that. Your answers are evidence. It has not been forthcoming.

Do you agree that not all belief is false?

If you agree that not all beliefs are false, then you also agree that some beliefs are true or you do not know what the fuck you're talking about. I'd like to think that you do know what you're talking about to some degree or other. I'm trying to provoke answers which bear witness to that. Your answers are evidence. It has not been forthcoming.

Do you agree that not all belief is false? — creativesoul

Refer to the sequence below:

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.

the crucial distinction between belief in something or other and belief that something or other. The former is about existence. — creativesoul

This isn't accurate. I believe in freedom of speech. That doesn't mean I believe it exists, it means I support the concept. Also, contrary to your claim that...

There is no such thing as a 'belief in science' like there is a belief in God or a belief in astrology or a belief in souls or spirits or re-incarnation, etc. — creativesoul

...you can also believe in science. A belief in science signifies a confidence in it's methods.

This may all be semantics, but I just wanted to point these things out. Your underlying message still stands.

Scientists do not deny that they believe; they are just willing to change their belief.

You, on the other hand, must claim not to believe, despite the evidence of your fervency.

What, except strong belief, would drive one to suffer the slings and arrows of a site such as this?

Fair enough assessment. Not worth quibbling over what's wrong with it. Something was wrong with my own writing as well...

:P

And thank Satan that when two words are synonyms in the thesaurus, they are therefore interchangeable and mean the exact same thing, rather than being words that express fine shades of meaning!

He is indeed a believer.

Hey, you have to give him more than that! I remember him substituting "believe" with at least two more words besides "prioritize". "Garner", "observe" etc; he's built a whole arsenal of synonyms! :) — Πετροκότσυφας

Where did I supposedly substitute belief and prioritize?

• Please provide evidence for your claims, and try to avoid the symptoms of the concept of belief. (including failure to provide evidence for claims.)

What, except strong belief, would drive one to suffer the slings and arrows of a site such as this? — Banno

If you follow some of his links you can see that he is actually trying to sell a short book he self-published on Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072TXZ18M

That's not to say selling the book is his soul intention, but you have to wonder why else he would have joined this site just to post this discussion when he clearly has no desire to actually learn, he simply wants to spread his "wisdom"

Provided that he's not trolling, he certainly believes he's not using them as synonyms! — Πετροκότσυφας

Haven't you been paying attention? He doesn't believe anything....

Belief (by definition and research) is a model, that permits both science, and non-science. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Rather, a belief is an attitude towards some statement. If one believes A, one is willing to assent to A, to act on A, to assert that A.

1. Thus far, throughout the discussion, I have not detected any novel information.
   
   • Please recall that I am busy working on:
     
     • My book: "Artificial Neural Network for kids".
     • My model: The "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".
2. Thus, I shall underline a summary below, until I return in roughly 12 hours.

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.

Hey, you have to give him more than that too. Provided that he's not trolling, he certainly believes he's not using them as synonyms! — Πετροκότσυφας

Ah yes; I need to make room for his beliefs! Far be it from me to suggest to him that beliefs themselves should be abolished, when he so clearly holds beliefs of his own.

Are you defining Belief as Religious Belief? Or in other words, belief that extends beyond it's boundaries of certainty.

What, except strong belief, would drive one to suffer the slings and arrows of a site such as this? — Banno

Perhaps the inability to suffer those slings and arrows?

;)

The sales quota is looking grim.

In a way selling a book makes a better sense of his passion; it is such an extraordinary thing that he cannot see the irony of his writing; one is tempted to suspect a lack of sincerity.

Thus far, throughout the discussion, I have not detected any novel information. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Indeed.

But that is about you, isn't it?

I could grant lack of sincerity, at least potentially. The book sales thing combined with the verbatim repetition of unexplained talking points does suggest insincerity. But there does seem to be an almost-but-not-quite-conscious denial that's working in conjunction with it.