Thus, I shall underline a summary below, until I return in roughly 12 hours. — ProgrammingGodJordan
It is not uncommon for folk doing an undergrad philosophy dissertation to think that they have actually discovered something. Realising that they haven't can be quite painful. — Banno
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" — JustSomeGuy
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".
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.
In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis. — ProgrammingGodJordan
Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way. Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the truth of the belief. Fallibilism applies that assessment even to science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved commonsense views. — link
Belief and science are disparate, belief does not prioritize evidence, while science does. — ProgrammingGodJordan
Also Popper said something about letting our theories do our dying for us.
In short, unbeliefism seems like old news. As I understand it, it has its charms. But what's offensive is the lack of awareness of its lack of novelty. I feel like I'm being told the sky is blue. It is more or less the common sense of secular/negative philosophers, which is why they tear one another's fancy theories to shreds. They self-consciously subject their beliefs to more criticism than non-philosophers. Their criticism-enduring views are more reliable, more trustworthy, weightier. That's their ideal virtue. They are less full of shit than the average bear. Or that's at least one guiding ideal as I understand it. But there is also the Dr. Pangloss archetype. I suppose actual philosophers tend to be both negative and system-building. They slash and burn to clear space for the system that finally gets it right and conquers time and chance. — dog
Proof and evidence are not exact synonyms.
1.2 Stop writing your arguments in numbered lists, using screenshots of dictionaries and copypasteing your previous arguments. Dictionaries are not exact, often using colloquial meanings of words. And your comments are unpleasant and inpractical af to read.
2. Thinking anything unproven to be true or false is a belief.
3. There're no proofs in science, only evidence.
4. Thus science is belief. — BlueBanana
This is already covered in the OP, which provides sources that heavily discuss and present research on evidence.
Is reading the sources so arduous? — ProgrammingGodJordan
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".
Thus, I shall underline a summary below, until I return in roughly 12 hours. — ProgrammingGodJordan
Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all? — ProgrammingGodJordan
Your third point at (2) is invalid; mathematical proofs may be demonstrated to be true. — ProgrammingGodJordan
Because it's more technically correct than what you claim. I oppose calling words with similar but not the same meaning synonyms. — BlueBanana
If it's supposed to be a counter to 3, I'll answer by fixing my argument into the form: "there're no proofs in science, excluding mathematics, only evidence". — BlueBanana
Summarize this for me. As far as I can tell, "belief" is being used to mean "faith," which is being used to mean "reliance upon something other than empirical evidence." And as a result of conflating belief with faith, 12 pages have been spent trying to explain how you can't have an epistemilogical system without belief.
Did I get it right? Is the OP just a butchered form of scientism, both unaware of its existence and of its limitations? I ask because I didn't find the text of the OP or the explanations of PGJ at all helpful. — Hanover
I don't detect the relevance of your response above, wrt the OP. — ProgrammingGodJordan
And what exactly counts as similar? Synonym is a grammatical term, and your OP does not concern grammar. In the context of this discussion proof and evidence have huge differences, so whether they're concidered synonomous by dictionaries is irrelevant. — BlueBanana
#1 - that it tires you is unresponsive and irrelevant. #2- is an incoherent comment. It offers nothing and means nothing. — Hanover
Its relevance is that science is a belief (with the exclusion of mathematics). Therefore you must reject science in the name of non-beliefism. — BlueBanana
Whether or not you like or oppose it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same. — ProgrammingGodJordan
Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all? — ProgrammingGodJordan
belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan
This is false. Belief involves a lack of sufficient evidence for knowledge. A lack of proof. — JustSomeGuy
it is indeed valid that belief generally occurs absent evidence/proof. — ProgrammingGodJordan
Is English your first language? — ProgrammingGodJordan
As prior mentioned, whether or not you like or oppose or admit it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same in meaning. — ProgrammingGodJordan
that belief (something that does not prioritize evidence) — ProgrammingGodJordan
equates with science (something that does the very contrast, i.e. prioritize evidence). — ProgrammingGodJordan
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.