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. — SonJnana

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. — SonJnana

A) It is silly to advise me that belief does not necessitate non evidence, because the OP had long underlined that one may believe in both science and non science.

B) Anyway, please read the following summary carefully, especially point 4:

1. One person's belief may occur on evidence. (As long underlined in the OP).
2. However, we can't ignore the entire model of belief, that most of the time, permits ignorance of evidence.
   • This model is not defined or constrained by one person's particular belief in evidence.
3. One can instead rely on a separate model i.e. "non-beliefism" (that does not permit general ignorance of evidence).
4. Crucially, for eg, science obtains whether or not one believes in it.
   
   • This is a clear counterexample to your claim that scientific thinking must be an evidence based belief, because here we see that it is possible that things are observable as valid, regardless of anybody's belief (Things don't require belief to be valid).

It is silly to advise me that belief does not necessitate non evidence, because the OP had long underlined that belief may occur in both science and non science. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Okay so you acknowledge that if you accept a claim on evidence it is by definition a belief.

Now hang on, before I read any of that, answer my question that I've asked multiple times already. This is part of my demonstration that you hold beliefs.

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?

Okay so you acknowledge that if you accept a claim on evidence it is by definition a belief.

Now hang on, before I read any of that, answer my question that I've asked multiple times already. This is part of my demonstration that you hold beliefs.

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? — SonJnana

Please see point 4 above.

Please see point 4 above. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I've seen it. Now answer my question

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?

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? — SonJnana

Especially now that your recent idea has been shown to be invalid, I don't detect the relevance of your question.

Also, isn't scientism a special brand of pseudo-science? Where's our recently christened pseudo-science expert @TimeLine on this topic?

SO close...

Especially now that your prior idea was shown to be invalid, I don't detect the relevance if your question. — ProgrammingGodJordan

If it's so very irrelevant then the point a make after you answer the question will be easy to refute right? Or are you afraid I will prove that you hold beliefs?

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 try my best

Also, isn't scientism a special brand of pseudo-science? — Noble Dust

Scientism permits belief, i.e. it does not underline that beliefs are generally science opposing in nature.

Edit that sentence with proper grammar and I'll respond. And it's "scientism", not "scientistism".

If it's so very irrelevant then the point a make after you answer the question will be easy to refute right? Or are you afraid I will prove that you hold beliefs?

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? — SonJnana

That query is in the same realm of your recent idea, which has been shown to be invalid.

Everyone has, which is why it's time to put it to rest.

That query is in the same realm of your recent idea, which has been shown to be invalid. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Just answer the question and I will show you why it's relevant when you answer it.

I'm doing this so you can clarify your position for me because I still don't fully understand it. And if you refuse to clarify your position then you are being intellectually dishonest in this discussion. So answer the question.

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?

Oh, go on. Answer the question. You might learn something. We might learn something.

Just answer the question and I will show you why it's relevant when you answer it. — SonJnana

Do you mean the same way I showed your recent idea (which was bundled with that query) to be false?

1.Right. I detect no contact between you and this reality.
1a) i.e. you are unaware of your scientistic beliefs.

2. This had long been pointed out to you in this thread.
2a) your continued refusal to acknowledge this contacts a garnering of knowledge suggesting that you are in denial.

Do you mean the same way I showed your recent idea (which was bundled with that query) to be false? — ProgrammingGodJordan

That's irrelevant to the point I'm about to make. You are the king of misdirect. If you keep misdirecting then you'll be seen as someone who is intellectually dishonest. You wouldn't want that would you? So answer the question.

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?

Oh, go on. Answer the question. You might learn something. We might learn something. — Banno

Queries/statements of that nature have already been approached on page 1.

1.Right. I detect no contact between you and this reality.
1a) i.e. you are unaware of your scientistic beliefs.

2. This had long been pointed out to you in this thread.
2a) your continued refusal to acknowledge this contacts a garnering of knowledge that you are in denial. — Noble Dust

Things don't require belief, to be valid. (as long mentioned).

Things don't require belief, to be valid. (as long mentioned). — ProgrammingGodJordan

This is not a response to what you quoted. As has been long mentioned.

You might think so, but we have not understood you.

At present you appear to be avoiding the discussion with @SonJnana rather than helping us understand your position.

Just play along; answer the question. See where it goes.

This is not a response to what you quoted. As has been long mentioned. — Noble Dust

?

This is not a response to what you quoted. As has been long mentioned.

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? — SonJnana

Do you detect that you shall demonstrate your point to be valid, regardless of whatever answer I return?

Do you detect that you shall demonstrate your point to be valid, regardless of whatever answer ANYONE returns?

Do you detect that you shall demonstrate your point to be true, regardless of whatever answer I return? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Oh, come on, have a bit of intellectual courage! If you are right, how could you go wrong?

Do you detect that you shall demonstrate your point to be valid, regardless of whatever answer I return? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Maybe, maybe not. We won't know till you answer right? So answer the question

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?

Or are you gonna be intellectually dishonest and refrain from clarifying your position to someone who's trying to understand?

Can the query be rephrased as follows:

"If a chair is in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of you, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of you?"

?

I'll rephrase it like this to make it more simple

If you see a chair in front of you and I asked you "Is there a chair in front of you?" what would you say?