I think I do. Have you or anyone made any progress? I don't think so.

Indeed!

I think I do. Have you or anyone made any progress? I don't think so. — Noble Dust

i have i swear. believe me

Show me.

But all that means is that now you are saying that instead of accepting claims, we should only look at things as if more likely or less likely to be true. But if you are gonna say that x is more likely, you are accepting the claim that x is more likely and therefore by definition still holding beliefs. There is no way to get around it unless you don't accept any claims. And that's actually impractical. — SonJnana

1. Why ignore the remainder of my quote, to support your false preconceived notions?
2. My full quote:
   • "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"."
3. As you can see, non-beliefism underlines that one ought to prioritize evidence, in contrast to belief which mostly permits ignorance of evidence.
   
   • Pertinently, one need not omniscience to avoid belief and model the world while prioritizing evidence.
   • Both non-beliefism and belief permit models, with the crucial difference that one prioritizes evidence, while the other does not.

Have you or anyone made any progress? I don't think so. — Noble Dust

Progress towards what? Some, including myself, have asked PJ what his goal is, what the purpose of the thread is, to no avail.

It is quite odd.

How to tell one from the other...
Crackpot bad.
Eccentric good. — Banno

Oh? So, if it's "bad", it's a crackpot, but if it's "good", it's an eccentric?

Have you noticed the odd grammar? What's that about?

Progress towards what? Some, including myself, have asked PJ what his goal is, what the purpose of the thread is, to no avail. — Banno

I've asked him that too.

Progress towards an actual discussion where PJ doesn't just copy and paste verbatim responses which don't constitute an actual discussion. Seriously.

I'm a genius; You are eccentric. He is a crackpot.

Yes to 2 and 3.

Progress towards an actual discussion where PJ doesn't just copy and paste verbatim responses that don't constitute an actual discussion. Seriously. — Noble Dust

It would be quite fun to discover that PJ is a bot.

I think I would cry a little. But then feel ok.

Now, can you at least agree to the entertainment value of such threads?

I was the first responder (lol) to this thread, so the entertainment value has long since vanished for me. Around page 8 or so.

Progress towards what? Some, including myself, have asked PJ what his goal is, what the purpose of the thread is, to no avail.

It is quite odd. — Banno

Contrary to your false response, I had already mentioned my goals (See my response on page 10):

1. Unravel errors of my own, where applicable. (i.e. learn)

2. Unravel errors in others. (i.e. teach)

Okay I will demonstrate to you why you are still holding beliefs.

A belief is accepting a claim. A belief is accepting a claim, and not exclusively that based off of nonscientific thinking. Therefore accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still by definition having a belief. You have already acknowledged this.

So... if you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me?

first responder — Noble Dust

The humour is still there - just a bit black.

Show me. — Noble Dust

Just watch lol

Okay I will demonstrate to you why you are still holding beliefs.

A belief is accepting a claim. — SonJnana

Your response is demonstrably incomplete:

• Belief is a model that generally permits the ignorance of evidence.

You are right - I apologise.

1. Unravel errors of my own, where applicable. (i.e. learn) — ProgrammingGodJordan

Ah - so you believe that there is at least the possibility of your being wrong...

Ah - so you believe that there is at least the possibility of your being wrong... — Banno

One needs not belief to observe probabilities.

I've been watching, bub...

It's beyond black now.

Albeit, I am yet to detect novel information from the responders on this thread so far.

Belief is a model that generally permits the ignorance of evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

As you even admitted yourself, there is a difference between especially and necessarily. Therefore by definition accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still a belief. A belief doesn't require accepting a claim off of nonscientific thinking, it could still be either. If you won't acknowledge this point then I'm gonna realize you're trolling.

You are perhaps reaching towards some sort of pragmatic theory of truth - @apokrisis might be able to make sense of your comments.

I rephrased

Okay I will demonstrate to you why you are still holding beliefs.

A belief is accepting a claim that generally permits ignorance of evidence. No where in that definition does it say necessarily permits ignorance of evidence. Therefore accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still by definition having a belief.

So... if you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me?

I'm really close now.

You're doing just grand, but I remain pessimistic.