Which definition? The first one? That says especially, not necessarily. So if you are accepting something to be true off of science thinking, it still is a belief by that definition. — SonJnana
On the contrary, belief is defined such that people tend to generally ignore evidence, which contrasts nonbeliefism. — ProgrammingGodJordan
As I mentioned before, belief is a model that mostly permits the ignorance evidence.
It's quite trivial to see that science does not work this way, science does not mostly permit the ignorannce of evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan
People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. Can you provide evidence that people generally ignore evidence or is that a belief that ignores evidence? :s — Janus
This is nonsensical; whether people tend to generally ignore evidence or not is not based on how belief is defined.
People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. Can you provide evidence that people generally ignore evidence or is that a belief that ignores evidence? — Janus
As I've mentioned many times it doesn't necessarily mean it's based off of nonscientific thinking. Especially is not the same thing as necessarily. Those are two different words. Therefore if you are accepting a claim, it is still a belief by definition. So if you accept something based off of scientific thinking that is still by definition a belief. — SonJnana
The Oxford Dictionary lists three definitions. None mention evidence, the first says "especially without proof" which would seem to indicate a notion that the term belief is more applicable to opinions held where proof is lacking. Proof is not evidence; if you believe it is then you are ignoring evidence. — Janus
The thing is, even if he shows that people generally ignore evidence it doesn't matter. A belief is still a belief regardless of whether it is one based of scientific or nonscientific thinking. — SonJnana
However, belief is a model that mostly permits ignorance of evidence, and we can avoid that model altogether, by generally not ignoring evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan
So you believe...X-) — Banno
I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying using the word nonbeliefism is misleading because the term makes it sound like you don't accept anything to be true. Yet you still are accepting claims (and still holding beliefs), it's just that the beliefs that are held are based off of scientific thinking. If you insist on calling it nonbeliefism that's fine, just be aware that most people will probably realize it's just a subset of beliefs that is based off of scientific thinking and won't use the term nonbeliefism. — SonJnana
That's why I'm saying...just stop responding.. — Noble Dust
Woah buddy! — Noble Dust
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". — ProgrammingGodJordan
In some special cases evidence may constitute proof; but it certainly does not follow that all evidence is proof. — Janus
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.