Do you think that if the premise is changed to: "Holding on to unsupported belief always leads to uninformed acts" is more clear then? — Christoffer

better, but just extending the time doesn't help much. holding on - after proved false or unreasonable is still better. The point being that unsupported does not mean true or not true, fact or not fact, reasonable or unreasonable - it just means unsupported. And some unsupported ideas will lead to good things an some to bad and some to neutral.

I don't see the link you are trying to make - sorry.

but just extending the time doesn't help much. — Rank Amateur

That's a dismissive simplification of everything.

after proved false or unreasonable is still better. — Rank Amateur

No, your belief is still unsupported before any kind of support backs it up. If you prove it false, it's not unsupported, it's purely delusional.

The point being that unsupported does not mean true or not true, fact or not fact, reasonable or unreasonable - it just means unsupported. — Rank Amateur

And my premises support that there's a higher risk of distorting knowledge and of unreasonable acts because of it. That is just a fact of probability on how unsupported belief works, agreed? In what way would supported belief have a higher probability of doing the same things?

And some unsupported ideas will lead to good things an some to bad and some to neutral. — Rank Amateur

Not if the unsupported belief is turned into believed truths, which is often the case when people believe something long enough. Distorted knowledge is always bad since it's in the way of truth. Compare unsupported belief to supported, which has the highest probability of reaching good things more than the other. There's no question that unsupported belief is worse than supported. I don't really need to make the argument for that probability to be true, right? With how history has been shaped by unsupported belief, the suffering and terror because of it, I don't think anyone can really argue for the value of unsupported belief. What I'm arguing for is that it's morally wrong to even have this as a personal belief, since it eventually leads to projecting that personal belief into the world and distorting knowledge.

I don't see the link you are trying to make - sorry. — Rank Amateur

I think you think you found a big hole and because of it, you dismiss everything. I think that there's a clear definition of what "holding on to unsupported belief" really is and I've made examples of this in my argument. Now you are sort of straw-manning things and stretching it to say that "unsupported belief" doesn't have a timeframe and therefore false. It clearly has a timeframe, as I described in numerous examples.

I've answered the previous concerns you had and now it just feels like you are trying a little too hard with this point, even though its pretty defined. But I can actually redefine this more clearly:

Belief is something you have for a longer period of time. An idea is something you have in an instance. Unsupported belief is therefore not a precursor to supported belief, it is its own thing. Supported belief and unsupported belief starts with an idea, but unsupported belief is settling on that idea without any support for it, while supported belief is doing a rational induction on it to come to a conclusion that is at least reasonable and probable.

That would at least make it much more defined if that's what you felt was lacking.

What do all beliefs have in common such that that is what makes them belief? — creativesoul

Have you read previous posts in this dialectic? Maybe you find answers there. I've written in detail about this numerous times in this thread.

In essence belief (outside of unsupported belief which is just emotional ideas conceptualized out of chaotic memory) is a posteriori out of facts. — Christoffer

The parenthetical content above highlights a flaw.

That is, you've given two kinds of belief. You've explained which kind qualifies as which. Unsupported belief... and all belief that is not unsupported.

Two kinds of belief.

I am asking what makes them all belief. What do all belief have in common that make them what they are, such that whenever anything has this commonality... it too... is a kind of belief. You've enumerated and explained a plethora of ways that they are different beliefs. You've yet to have delivered a clear cut easy to understand criterion for what counts as being a belief.

You might need to explain your question better if you want another answer.

Better?

Belief is prior to language.

Well grounded belief is as well.

True belief is as well.

What are your thoughts regarding these claims?

First, please edit your posts instead of spamming them, just a tip. Gets a bit fragmented otherwise.

That is, you've given two kinds of belief. You've explained which kind qualifies as which. Unsupported belief... and all belief that is not unsupported.

Two kinds of belief.

I am asking what makes them all belief. What do all belief have in common that make them what they are, such that whenever anything has this commonality... it too... is a kind of belief. You've enumerated and explained a plethora of ways that they are different beliefs. You've yet to have delivered a clear cut easy to understand criterion for what counts as being a belief. — creativesoul

I get your point, but I think you are fragmenting belief into the concept's smallest parts. Some of them can be categorized as unsupported, some as supported. If you look at their definitions you'll know where they belong. How I define it is based on a scale of support in which your examples can be fitted. My argument doesn't change if you have a specific belief, since by defining it specifically you know where its at.

Type A-C is the scale that the argument is built upon. Type A being unsupported, i.e all types of belief which have nothing but what you subjectively think about something or information that has as less support as your own thoughts. Meaning if someone communicated their unsupported belief to you and you just take it for granted without backing it up, you adapt that unsupported belief. You can fit whatever type of belief you define as being unsupported by external data, into Type A. This type also handles belief like truth.
Type B is everything that has some external support. You have data, at least some data that makes your belief probable, but you know that it is belief and are careful to not treat it as truth. You can act on it with caution, because you know there's a probability you are wrong. You know it is a belief.
Type C is a scientific belief, i.e hypothesis. Meaning it has enough support in facts to have a high probability of being true in some sense but is just a hypothesis to be tested. Going beyond this you have truth and not a belief anymore.

I'm not sure how this isn't clear cut?
Type A = backed up by nothing, considered true.
Type B = backed up some data/facts, considered belief, not truth.
Type C = backed up by a lot of data and facts, considered a hypothesis, probably true, but not yet proven. (requires a lot of research).

Belief is prior to language. — creativesoul

Not sure what you are referring to here, but if you are talking about having no language and a belief before learning a language, you are talking about a moral landscape that doesn't exist in society or as a society. Essentially you try to counter my moral theory of belief with an example of a society that does not exist. Without language, you have no society, without language, you cannot advance knowledge, meaning, if we are to define it by the belief-types, such a belief is definitely Type A and it will stay there until a language is formed, society is formed and knowledge is gathered and increased. But such a society does not exist and it's irrelevant to the moral theory since ethics are closely linked to society and culture. You cannot have morality if you don't have language since you have nothing to define actions with. Without society, culture and communication you don't have ethics.

Well grounded belief is as well. — creativesoul

Type B, supported belief, if this is a belief that's backed up with some evidence. Might even be Type C depending on the level of evidence. But still within the realm of supported belief and not Type A.

True belief is as well. — creativesoul

Are you referring to justified true belief? That's debunked through Gettier problems. A true belief that is accidentally true is Type A. Doesn't matter if it's true if there's no link to actual knowledge. Accepting that some beliefs might be true, without anything to support it, is groundwork for disaster and that's why I pointed out the probability of such belief to have negative outcomes. What's even worse is that "true belief" is used as some kind of defense for those who try to argue for their unsupported beliefs, by fallaciously argue that their belief might be true and therefore be true belief. So, definitely Type A.

What are your thoughts regarding these claims? — creativesoul

I think you aren't really looking into what I actually present in my argument. Why is the Type-scale not working for you? What is unclear about its definition?

My God told me that there was no such thing as a supernatural God.

My God is always right.

Regards
DL

I think you aren't really looking into what I actually present in my argument. Why is the Type-scale not working for you? What is unclear about its definition? — Christoffer

What do all belief have in common that makes them belief?

I've explained the issue clearly. You have no criterion for what counts as belief. You are talking about the ground for belief, not the belief itself.

The question above needs answered.

What do all belief have in common that makes them belief?

I've explained the issue clearly. You have no criterion for what counts as belief. You are talking about the ground for belief, not the belief itself.

The question above needs answered. — creativesoul

The question doesn't make sense really. Belief is the ideas in your head about the world around you. They are either supported by something or they are fantasies and delusions.

You are not asking a question, you want your own answer and your question does in no way affect my argument.

The parenthetical content above highlights a flaw.

That is, you've given two kinds of belief. You've explained which kind qualifies as which. Unsupported belief... and all belief that is not unsupported.

Two kinds of belief.

I am asking what makes them all belief. — creativesoul

If that is your problem with the argument, then you simply don't understand the definitions I've given. There's no problem with having them split like that, why would that be a problem?

The question doesn't make sense really. Belief is the ideas in your head about the world around you. — Christoffer

The question makes perfect sense if one has an adequate criterion for belief. Here you've basically said that belief is the ideas in your head about the world around you(us).

So, all belief consists of ideas in the head about the world around us.

Is that acceptable to you? It's not to me.

Statements of belief are not in the head. They are belief. Therefore, not all belief is in the head.

Some belief is about ourselves. They are belief. Therefore, not all belief is about the world around us.

Surely, you see the point here? Your notion of belief is unacceptable when viewed under this kind of scrutiny.

I get your point, but I think you are fragmenting belief into the concept's smallest parts. — Christoffer

Belief is not a concept. Concepts are existentially dependent upon language. Belief is not. Our talk of "belief", our ideas about "belief", our notions of "belief"...

These are concepts.

Belief is prior to language. That which is prior to language cannot be existentially dependent upon it. Belief is not a concept. My charge here is that your conception of "belief" is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of belief.

So, all belief consists of ideas in the head about the world around us. — creativesoul

You demand a simple answer and I gave it. Belief does not exist without human thinking about something and starting to believe something, out of that comes to different types of belief. You cannot detach the belief from humans, even if a belief was written down and people forgot the one expressing the belief, it is still an expressed belief from that forgotten person. You are taking different concepts of belief and counter-argue the basic definition with that there's "too many versions of belief and therefore you can't define it".

Statements of belief are not in the head. They are belief. Therefore, not all belief is in the head. — creativesoul

They start in the head, expressed, they still come from the mind. A belief can exist, written down outside of the mind, but the belief is still from an initial mind. Belief is that which defines the type of statement it is, i.e something from the mind that is acted upon like it was fact. I defined a spectrum of truth we apply to belief, which ranges from acted upon like pure truth, to an understanding that it is a belief that is acted upon.

Some belief is about ourselves. They are belief. Therefore, not all belief is about the world around us. — creativesoul

This is what I mean with you breaking down everything into their smallest parts. You demand a simple definition of belief and then you dissect it to conclude that it isn't complex enough to incorporate everything.

However, all human use of belief as it exists for us humans relates to the argument I have made. If you stretch the definition of belief to not work with my argument, you essentially just invent another interpretation of belief, which isn't in use by people.

Belief is lingering thoughts about the world around us, ourselves, the universe, everything we can imagine and every thought we conjured into constant and variable memories. Belief starts with an idea, that through time turns into a concept of truth which may or may not be considered real truth. Belief can be expressed, influence other people's ideas that form into their own belief and it shapes how they, we and all humans act, behave and form the world-view and concept of all people's selves...

...I can go on and write an entire essay on belief without really breaking the argument I made.

Belief is prior to language. That which is prior to language cannot be existentially dependent upon it. Belief is not a concept. My charge here is that your conception of "belief" is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of belief. — creativesoul

How do you define belief yourself? Would you say that "belief" as it is used in language, and because of that, how it is used in my argument, does not work with my argument? Or is a semantic deconstruction of the term "belief" just a linguistical pragmatic failure to understand the argument through an ambiguity fallacy, intentional or unintentional?

:smile:

You demand a simple answer and I gave it. — Christoffer

There's been a misunderstanding.

I demanded a proper definition of "belief". It happens to be a simple answer. Not all simple answers suffice.

Belief does not exist without human thinking about something and starting to believe something, out of that comes to different types of belief.

Not all belief is well-considered... human belief notwithstanding.

You cannot detach the belief from humans, even if a belief was written down and people forgot the one expressing the belief, it is still an expressed belief from that forgotten person.

I agree with the sentiment. The account though... it could use some help.


All belief is existentially dependent upon the believing creature. That is, all belief emerges onto the world stage by virtue of a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things.

You are taking different concepts of belief and counter-argue the basic definition with that there's "too many versions of belief and therefore you can't define it".

To quite the contrary. I'm demanding that it be properly defined. If our notions of thought and belief are mistaken, then we've gotten something or other wrong within every report about and/or account of anything ever thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered.

So no... I'm not saying that we cannot properly define our notions of "belief". I'm demanding that we make sure that we do.

When we look carefully at notions of belief, we find that some of them are inherently incapable of taking account of pre-linguistic thought/belief.

...I can go on and write an entire essay on belief without really breaking the argument I made. — Christoffer

This is what it amounts to...

So, we have two kinds of belief. This kind and that kind. We know what it takes to deserve being called 'this' or 'that' kind of belief. That's the nutshell version. You're presenting what seems to me to be a carefully considered position on a particular subject matter.

What you've presented is much more about what you personally find to be satisfactory justification/reason/warrant for holding a belief, particularly after one self-reflects; after it's careful consideration.

What we need is an answer to the following question...

What makes them both belief?

What is the bare minimum criterion, which when satisfied, results in having a clear cut case of thought/belief?

What does all belief consist in/of?

What do all belief have in common such that having it makes them what they are?

What do they all possess and/or include that is both necessary and sufficient for forming, remembering, considering, questioning, and/or otherwise 'having/using' belief?

I work from the bare assumption that at the moment of a creature's initial conception, there is no thought/belief to be had. The necessary elemental constituents aren't there yet. Not all of the necessary ingredients inherently within all thought/belief formation are present at the moment of conception.

What we do have is basic rudimentary level survival mechanisms. Physiological sensory perception being one. We need not turn it on.

Somewhere on the timeline between conception and birth we begin to form the first beliefs of our lives. Exactly when doesn't matter. What they could possibly consist in/of does.

All belief is existentially dependent upon the believing creature. That is, all belief emerges onto the world stage by virtue of a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. — creativesoul

What sorts of things?

Well, what's actually available of course.

'Objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the creature's own state of emotion, and/or mindstate. Think Pavlov's dog. The bell:The hunger:The experience of being fed after hearing the bell: The expectation that resulted from drawing these correlations/connections/associations between the hunger, the bell, and the satisfaction of hunger pangs time and time again. The evidence supporting my claiming the dog's expectation is the involuntary salivation itself.

The dog believed it was about eat.

No. It's not simple. At least...

Understanding human belief is not a simple task. That is particularly the case when so many for so long have been working from clearly inadequate terminological frameworks.

I would approach The Gettier Problem from an angle I doubt you've considered. I do not argue for the 19th or 20th century versions of JTB. Rather, I would argue how the conventional notion of JTB works from an inadequate notion of belief. By doing so I grant Gettier showed an otherwise neglected issue with that particular academic convention. At the same time, the new understanding shows that Gettier did not accurately represent Smith's belief in either Case I or Case II.

Gettier's cases show that i.)not all well-argued for true propositions are knowledge, ii.)not all 'logical' rules preserve the truth of their premises when followed, and are thus complete and utter misnomers(the rules of 'logical' entailment), and last but not least, iii.)the terms Gettier used as a means to take an account of Smith's belief in Case II were utterly inadequate for properly representing a belief that a disjunction is true.

Gettier cases were considered well argued because they followed conventional understanding at the time. Convention can take a while to catch up.

That's another matter altogether.

All belief is existentially dependent upon the believing creature. That is, all belief emerges onto the world stage by virtue of a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. — creativesoul

Simple, basic, rudimentary level thought/belief is prior to our account thereof. That which is prior to our account is not existentially dependent - in any way, shape, or form - upon it's being taken into account. Simple, basic, rudimentary level thought/belief is one such thing.

What does it consist of?

What is it existentially dependent upon such that all thought/belief consists of the same basic necessary elemental constituents? The same basic core, so to speak. Where ought we look to find answers to such difficult questions? Statements of thought/belief, of course... where else?

Let's look...

Whenever dealing with a sincere speaker...

All statements express, by common means, the speaker's own thought/belief. Statements represent one's thought/belief. All statements of belief presuppose truth. All statements of belief are meaningful. All statements of belief are predication. All statements of belief are existentially dependent upon language.

But...

Rudimentary thought/belief is prior to language. That which is prior to language cannot consist of language. That which is prior to language cannot consist of any ingredient that is itself existentially dependent upon language. This presents a problem...

Some of these elemental constituents for statements of belief are existentially dependent upon language. That which is existentially dependent upon language cannot exist prior to language. Rudimentary thought/belief cannot consist of statements, or propositions, or anything else that is existentially dependent upon language. One may wonder what exactly is left of a statement of belief if all that is existentially dependent upon language is removed. It seems nothing at first blush...

All belief is meaningful to the thinking/believing creature. All belief presupposes it's own truth. All belief is existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. The drawing of the correlation is the attribution of meaning:It is rudimentary thought/belief formation itself. Meaning initially emerges within such basic, rudimentary thought/belief formation. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content(regardless of subsequent further qualification/quantification). The presupposition of truth(correspondence to fact) emerges within basic rudimentary thought/belief formation.

Think Pavlov's dog.

It thinks/believes it is about to eat. It has no ability to doubt the veracity of it's own thought/belief. It has no ability to doubt that it heard the bell, smells the food, or feels hungry. It has no ability to sit back and consider it's own thought/belief. It has no ability to suspend it's own judgment. To carefully consider whether or not it's own expectation is well grounded or not; mistaken or not. It has no ability to think about it's own thought/belief.

Nonetheless, it's belief can become true, or become false. That would coincide with it's expectations being met or not. The dog wouldn't - cannot possibly - know any of that. We can and do.

How do you define belief yourself? — Christoffer

Like that...

In general...

I argue in favor of direct physiological sensory perception. I argue in favor of thought/belief beginning in it's simplest form and growing in complexity according to the capabilities and/or dumb luck of the creature. I argue that the complexity of any particular thought/belief is determined by it's content(the content of the correlations).

I argue strongly against any and all conventional notions of "perception" which are informed by language, but do not draw and maintain the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Such notions of "perception" are inherently inadequate for taking account of thought/belief which exists in it's entirety prior to language acquisition.

I argue strongly against the notion that all belief has propositional content.

If we are to call the mental ongoings(mind if you must) of a non linguistic and/or prelinguistic creature "thought/belief" while also calling statements of thought/belief by the same name, they must consist of the same basic necessary elemental constituents mentioned heretofore. Otherwise, the entire project falls prey to Witt's argument against essentialism... what do all "games" have in common? The namesake alone.

All thought, belief, attribution of meaning, presupposition of correspondence, correspondence, assertion, statement, proposition, imagining, truth/falsehood, sensibility, intelligibility, understanding, worldviews, etc.; all of these things are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things. All of these things arise within and/or as a result of basic rudimentary thought/belief formation.

Now...

I agree with the need to distinguish between well grounded belief and not so well grounded belief. It's just that I find that your explanations seem lacking in clarity and/or explanatory/justificatory power/strength. And there are several claims that are quite simply false... on their face. More than anything however, it seems that it could be a good start... something to further hone.

So...

Is God real?

I find no difference between God and a belief in God, no matter which supernatural entity is under consideration. That which is real has an effect/affect. Thought/belief has efficacy. Therefore, God(or belief therein) is most certainly real.

The effects are quantifiable.

Not all belief in God is taken upon and/or based upon pure faith alone.

Rather, the need for humans to recognize, attribute, and misattribute causality is at the very foundation of thought/belief. The God of the gaps is a powerfully verifiable argument. It was the best explanation of the time, given their knowledge...

That seems pretty well grounded to me. Not true. But, truth isn't necessary for being well grounded. Gettier shows that much as well. His arguments contain falsehood that follows convention, and is thus well grounded(if following convention counts), despite the fact that his claims about Smith's belief are false.

My position is that if there is some supernatural entity or entities which are responsible for the creation of the universe, the intentional creation of the universe, then it/they must exist outside of spacetime. All knowledge is about that which appears within spacetime, or is otherwise inferred from such.

So, if there is some such entity, it is and will forever be unknown unless and until it/they show itself or themselves in some undeniable way.

It is not an outright denial of the possibility. Such is unwarranted, on my view. However, there's little to find appealing about historical/conventional religious 'debates'. I deny the God of Abraham on the grounds that if everything in the Bible that is attributed to Him is true, He would be one sick malicious son of a bitch, and render the notion of love virtually meaningless.

Studying the history of human development in various countries does give us insight into the evolution of traditions and practices, and yes a lot of so-called mythologies arise out of folklore from these traditions. However, I caution anyone to assume that traditions spiritual in nature are just merely an idea of the mind and are subsequently false, and that the safe bet would be to stand neutral. Regardless of your stance, if you were to look at these traditions all the way to the beginning "something" had to occur in order to give rise to these practices in the human mind.