I don't have a full-blown theory to offer, but I think this is the right stuff to look at.

When you walk down the sidewalk in a big city, you're behaving as if the buildings you walk by won't fall on you, as if the cars you walk by won't explode, and so on. We could you say you behave as if you hold such beliefs. Do you? If asked, you might assent. Would we say such beliefs cause you to walk down the sidewalk, or even that they are reasons for doing so? Doesn't sound quite right. And yet attributing such beliefs to you makes sense. And if you did not hold beliefs such as these, would you behave the way you do? — Srap Tasmaner

I think that this is the something about it that is right within behaviourism. The only problem is the exceptions. My belief that Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun, or that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, do not generally have any effect on my behaviour.

The chickens in the yard believe that they're about to get fed when hearing the sound of the food container lid being opened. They do not believe that "they're about to get fed" is true. — creativesoul

A problem with this discussion, in my opinion, is that people have been saying stuff like this, not explicitly directed at anyone in particular, without making it clear whether or not the motivation behind bringing it up is the belief that someone here is disputing it.

If it's not being disputed, or is not likely to be disputed, then I question the relevance. Let's not get too carried away here.

There is a certain rooster which I throw rocks towards. I do not aim to hit him, and haven't yet. I intend to keep him from bullying another younger rooster whom I'm more fond of. That younger one eats out of my hand. The older rooster remembers having rocks thrown at him. In fact, most times anymore, I need not even actually throw one. The movement itself is enough. — creativesoul

That's nice. Please, tell me more about your roosters.

So answer this: John was an atheist, but there never was any behavior that followed from that. Would you say it's unreasonable to say that John actually was an atheist due to the lack of behavioral consequence? — frank

And that's another problem with behaviourism.

One who doesn't know(believe) that cars can explode cannot believe that they won't. — creativesoul

Yes they can. What makes you think that? It just wouldn't be reasonable, at least if you mean the belief that they won't under any circumstance. Beliefs don't have to be reasonable. There's a shitload of unreasonable beliefs out there.

One who doesn't know that buildings can fall down, cannot believe that they won't. — creativesoul

False, for the same reason.

What's wrong with behaviourism? There's certainly something about it that strikes me as correct, even if I don't believe that it's entirely correct. — Sapientia

I agree. "How do you do?" is a good example. It's not even taken as the question it appears to be. As a result, in some places it became slurred to "Howdy!" I don't entirely understand the motive behind trying to use that example to explain all speech. Nor do I understand how any presentation of behaviorism is supposed to be taken. How am I supposed to act in case it's true?

How do we further discriminate between our reports of Jack's belief? — creativesoul

With a good understanding of animal behaviour and cognition. Not saying I have that, but the better the knowledge, the better the discrimination. To some extent, matters such as this should be left to the experts.

What is the notion of "object of belief" doing here aside from unnecessarily overcomplicating the discourse?
— creativesoul

The word "slap" is a verb that has to have an object. If I say, "John slapped.", it's just assumed that he slapped something or somebody.

Belief is just such a verb. It just has to have an object. If we abandon this scenario, I think it would be necessary to stop using the word belief and make up a new word. Sneag. Let's discuss sneag.
— frank

Belief is not a verb. Belief is a noun.
— creativesoul

If John had belief, he believed something.
— frank

If John had fleas, he flead something.
If John had bad hair, he bad haired something.
If John had apple pie, he apple pied something.
If John had smarts, he smarted something.
— creativesoul

Sorry creative, but frank won that debate. You're trivially correct that "belief" is a noun, not a verb. But frank is correct that if John had belief, then he believed something - your mimicry does nothing to change that - and he's right that a discussion about the object of belief is of relevance to a general discussion about belief, which is what this seems to be, or to have become. If you don't want to talk about that here, you don't have to. — Sapientia

What you call trivial is crucial to understanding what you later called "mimicry". His argument is about grammar/syntax. I've shown that it doesn't always make sense to add "ed" as a suffix to a noun.

Now, it is commonplace to say that one believed this or that. However, saying that John believed something is nothing more than saying that John had belief. The mimicry continues...

If John had fleas, he had fleas.

It's not so much mimicry as it is a refutation. Saying that if John had belief, he believed something is nothing more than saying the same thing differently.

John has belief.

No need to apologize. If you find yourself more in agreement with frank than I, then it's notta problem for me. It's a problem for you.

True, but pedantic. I gave it a more charitable reading. I doubt he meant to exclude belief-that. — Sapientia

Because it's true, what frank wrote is not. Truth matters.

One who doesn't know(believe) that cars can explode cannot believe that they won't.
— creativesoul

Yes they can. What makes you think that? It just wouldn't be reasonable, at least if you mean the belief that they won't under any circumstance. Beliefs don't have to be reasonable. There's a shitload of unreasonable beliefs out there.

One who doesn't know that buildings can fall down, cannot believe that they won't.
— creativesoul

False, for the same reason. — Sapientia

Reasons do not make things true/false. It's not a point about unreasonable beliefs. It's a point about what it takes in order to even be able to believe that some event or other will not happen. It's impossible to believe that X will not happen if the agent does not already believe that X can happen.

Belief is accrued.

It would be better put that a cat walking down the street acts as if it does not believe that the buildings will fall as compared/contrasted with it believes that the building will not fall. If you cannot see the difference, there's not much more I can do to help you understand what I'm saying. If you do, then we can further parse it out...

What you call trivial is crucial to understanding what you later called "mimicry". His argument is about grammar/syntax. I've shown that it doesn't always make sense to add "ed" as a suffix to a noun. — creativesoul

Can you show me where he claimed or implied that it always makes sense to add "-ed" as a suffix to a noun? Looks like a strawman to me.

Now, it is commonplace to say that one believed this or that. However, saying that John believed something is nothing more than saying that John had belief. The mimicry continues...

If John had fleas, he had fleas.

It's not so much mimicry as it is a refutation. Saying that if John had belief, he believed something is nothing more than saying the same thing differently.

John has belief. — creativesoul

You're overconfident, my friend. What it is is an attempt at refutation, and a failed one at that. Can you actually give a reason as to why I should accept that it's nothing more than saying the same thing differently, and that even if it is, there's something wrong with that?

A triangle is a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles, yes? Contrast that with: a triangle is a triangle.

What more is there to this purported 'something' aside from John's belief?

Can you show me where he claimed or implied that it always makes sense to add "-ed" as a suffix to a noun? Looks like a strawman to me. — Sapientia

He added "ed" to belief. He need not claim anything at all. He did it.

Reasons do not make things true/false. — creativesoul

Irrelevant point.

It's not a point about unreasonable beliefs. — creativesoul

Yes, I know that you didn't mean for it to be about that. But my point is about your point, and my point makes mention of unreasonable beliefs.

It's a point about what it takes in order to even be able to believe that some event or other will not happen. It's impossible to believe that X will not happen if the agent does not already believe that X can happen. — creativesoul

You don't need to repeat or explain your point. You need to deal with my criticism of it.

Belief is accrued. — creativesoul

Irrelevant point.

It would be better put that a cat walking down the street acts as if it does not believe that the buildings will fall as compared/contrasted with it believes that the building will not fall. — creativesoul

That's not better put, that's saying something different.

If you cannot see the difference, there's not much more I can do to help you understand what I'm saying. If you do, then we can further parse it out... — creativesoul

What I would like is for you to address my criticism and answer my question: yes, they can believe what you assert that that they cannot. What makes you think otherwise? It just wouldn't be reasonable to believe.

He added "ed" to belief. He need not claim anything at all. He did it. — creativesoul

That's a fail. You said "always". One instance is not always.

You don't need to repeat or explain your point. You need to deal with my criticism of it. — Sapientia

Your criticism shows a lack of understanding and is nothing more than gratuitous assertion. A hand-waving gesture. You may as well just say that you do not agree and leave it at that, because claiming that certain things I've written are "irrelevant" shows that you do not understand the relevance of what I've been arguing here.

The thread is about belief. I suspect that you're working from an utterly inadequate notion thereof.

Statements like "John believed something" are what Witt called the "bewitchment" of language...

There's nothing more to the purported 'something' than John's belief.

Your criticism shows a lack of understanding and is nothing more than gratuitous assertion. A hand-waving gesture. You may as well just say that you do not agree and leave it at that, because claiming that certain things I've written are "irrelevant" shows that you do not understand the relevance of what I've been arguing here.

The thread is about belief. I suspect that you're working from an utterly inadequate notion thereof. — creativesoul

Oh the irony. My criticism was in response to your bare assertion. Why can't I meet your assertion with a counter-assertion? And you're the one doing the handwaving with your repeated arrogant dismissals of, "You don't understand". Well, I do understand, and I understand why you're wrong.

All I want is for you to properly address my criticism. What lengths will you go to in order to excuse yourself or avoid doing so?

What assertion of mine are you objecting to? Nevermind that it's an invalid objection.

Don't slip into ad hom Sapientia. Make this count.

What more is there to this purported 'something' that John believed aside from John's belief?

What assertion of mine are you objecting to? Nevermind that it's an invalid objection. — creativesoul

I don't know why you're having trouble following the exchange. I was referring to your assertion that one who doesn't know or believe that cars can explode, cannot believe that they won't. Or, alternatively, (although it makes no real difference), your assertion that one who doesn't know that buildings can fall down, cannot believe that they won't.

Don't slip into ad hom Sapientia. Make this count. — creativesoul

You're a funny guy, creative.

What more is there to this purported 'something' that John believed aside from John's belief? — creativesoul

I don't understand the question. Are you talking about the object of belief? If so, we don't believe beliefs. That makes no sense. So there must be something more.

Or, if this relates to your assertion that, "John believed something", is no different to, "John had a belief", then I refer you back to my example of a triangle, which you might not have seen, since I added it in a subsequent edit, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

There are two separate issues here. I'll take them one at a time...

What assertion of mine are you objecting to? Nevermind that it's an invalid objection.
— creativesoul

I don't know why you're having trouble following the exchange. I was referring to your assertion that one who doesn't know or believe that cars can explode, cannot believe that they won't. Or, alternatively, (although it makes no real difference), your assertion that one who doesn't know that buildings can fall down, cannot believe that they won't. — Sapientia

Believing an event will not happen is belief about the event.

Do you agree?

Believing an event will not happen is belief about the event.

Do you agree? — creativesoul

Let's assume that I do so you can get to the point.

That is the point.

Do you agree?

That is the point. — creativesoul

Then what's the relevance of it? How does it relate to your assertion?

Belief that an event will not happen is belief about the event. The event is what happens. The belief is that what happens(the event) will not. If the agent does not first know what can happen(the event), then there is no way possible for it to believe that it will not... for there is nothing in the agent's thought/belief system for them to believe will not happen.

The second issue is about saying that John believed something...

What does "John believed something" say that "John has belief" does not? What more is there to this 'something' aside from John's belief?

Of course it doesn't make sense to say that John believed his belief. I mean, that's just not how we talk. That's not a flaw of my argument here. It is a flaw of common speech patterns that conflate reports of belief with belief. Being sensible doesn't always align with saying what's true.

So...

What do you propose to substitute for 'something' if not John's belief?

John believed X. X replaces 'something'. Is X not John's belief?

Belief that an event will not happen is belief about the event. The event is what happens. The belief is that what happens (the event) will not. If the agent does not first know what can happen (the event), then there is no way possible for it to believe that it will not... for there is nothing in the agent's thought/belief system for them to believe will not happen. — creativesoul

Once again, that's different from your original claim. Tell me whether or not this is what you're getting at. I suspect that there might be a misunderstanding because of how you originally worded it, which would mean that it's more your fault than mine if I've not understood you from the outset.

If I could not conceive or attain even a hypothetical understanding in my mind about cars exploding, then I could not believe that a car will explode. That I agree with.

But what you said was different. You said that if I don't know that cars can explode, then I can't believe that they will do. That leaves open an understanding - albeit not a full one - about cars, and explosions, and possibility. Even if I don't know that cars can explode, I might still know that it's possible that it's possible, which is enough to enable belief, even if it would be unreasonable.

Perhaps what you really meant is: if I can't know or believe that cars can explode, then I can't know or believe that they will do? But that's still not right, for the reason I gave above. I can know or believe that it's possible that it's possible, and, based on that, and some other belief - which could be virtually anything, and which doesn't have to be reasonable - I could believe that it will explode. So, we could have: I believe that it's possible that it's possible that cars are capable of exploding. I don't know one way or the other. But today feels really unlucky, so I believe that my car will explode.

You're not making any sense to me Sapientia.

I don't care who's fault a misunderstanding is.

Of course what I said recently was put differently than before. It was misunderstood the first time.

Belief that an event will not happen is belief about the event. The event is what happens. The belief is that what happens(the event) will not. If the agent does not first know what can happen(the event), then there is no way possible for it to believe that it will not... for there is nothing in the agent's thought/belief system for them to believe will not happen. — creativesoul

One who doesn't know(believe) that cars can explode cannot believe that they won't. — creativesoul

There is no conflict here, so I'm not sure what you're going on about.

I meant what I wrote.