In a philosophy forum...one expects greater care with wording. — Frank Apisa
No they are not. They are making a totally blind guess... — Frank Apisa
leo
262
↪Frank Apisa
By your own definition of belief, you are believing. If I see you drink water and you say that you DO NOT DO DRINKING, I will let you say that if that's so important to you, but I will still say that you drink water. — leo
Terrapin Station
9.1k
In a philosophy forum...one expects greater care with wording. — Frank Apisa
It's not a lack of care with wording. You can't parse speech like a robot. You won't understand a huge percentage of what people say if you do that. — Terrapin Station
No they are not. They are making a totally blind guess... — Frank Apisa
If they say, "Flowers are evidence that God exists. Flowers couldn't be as they are without there being a God," then that's not a blind guess. It's based on evidence. If an assertion is based on evidence, it's not a blind guess.
I do not do "believing."
I make guesses...and call them guesses.
I estimate things...and call them estimates.
I suppose things...and call them suppositions. — Frank Apisa
leo
263
I do not do "believing."
I make guesses...and call them guesses.
I estimate things...and call them estimates.
I suppose things...and call them suppositions. — Frank Apisa
You do believing...and you don't call it believing. — leo
Earlier you gave a definition for "guess": "an assertion (of sorts) that lacks sufficient information to be reasonably certain".
You say that you make guesses, because you make assertions that lack sufficient information to be reasonably certain, which fits your definition of "guess".
Then you gave a definition for "belief": "an acceptance of something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true".
You accepted something as true (English not being my first language), without having the evidence to actually establish it as true, which fits your definition of "belief". And yet you will not say that you do believing.
There is zero conceptual difference between the two cases, do you not see that? If something you do is described exactly by the word "believing", as defined by you, why won't you use that word?
Why do you do that for that word and not any other? — Leo
It is blind guess...no matter what. — Frank Apisa
Terrapin Station
9.1k
It is blind guess...no matter what. — Frank Apisa
No, it isn't. "Blind guess" implies that it's not based on any evidence or reasoning. — Terrapin Station
"Blind guess"implies it is not based on any unambiguous evidence or reasoning. — Frank Apisa
Terrapin Station
9.1k
"Blind guess"implies it is not based on any unambiguous evidence or reasoning. — Frank Apisa
"Blind guess" implies it's not based on any evidence or reasoning period.
"Ambiguous"/"unambiguous" is relative/subjective. It depends on the meaning, if any, an individual assigns any evidence or reasoning. — Terrapin Station
I would not use "a word" to describe the things I think I know, PC. I would say, "I think I know...x." — Frank Apisa
Janus
7.3k
I would not use "a word" to describe the things I think I know, PC. I would say, "I think I know...x." — Frank Apisa
Do you think there is any significant conceptual, as opposed to a merely terminological, difference between "i think that I know x" and "I believe that I know x" — Janus
One uses the word "believe"...the other does not. — Frank Apisa
So...if I think that I know X and say, "I think that I know X"...I have described the situation to the max.
If instead I say, "I believe I know X"...I have muddied the waters a bit...FOR NO GOOD REASON. — Frank Apisa
When I make a guess...I call that guess a guess. I see no reason to pretend it is something else; no reason to disguise the fact that I am making a guess. — Frank Apisa
First, allow me to repeat that I do not do "believing"...which, in many contexts, is using the word "believe" to disguise a guess, supposition, estimate...and that stuff. — Frank Apisa
Janus
7.3k
One uses the word "believe"...the other does not. — Frank Apisa
A merely terminological difference, so we can leave that aside, since it wasn't about that I was asking.
So...if I think that I know X and say, "I think that I know X"...I have described the situation to the max.
If instead I say, "I believe I know X"...I have muddied the waters a bit...FOR NO GOOD REASON. — Frank Apisa
I can understand what you are saying (since it written in a language I am fluent in) but I cannot understand why you are saying it. Can you provide some explanation of your reasoning? — Janus
leo
264
When I make a guess...I call that guess a guess. I see no reason to pretend it is something else; no reason to disguise the fact that I am making a guess. — Frank Apisa
But we agreed that a guess and a belief are not the same thing, and you gave different definitions for them. So surely, when you do something that fits the definition of guessing you are making a guess, and when you do something that fits the definition of believing you are doing believing right? I honestly do not get what you don't understand about that.
Your definition for "believing": "accepting something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true".
I gave you an example of something you do that fits exactly your own definition of "believing".
You have the right to not use the word "believe" or "believing" to describe something you do that fits your definition for "believing". But do you at least agree that you do things that fit your own definition of "believing"?
First, allow me to repeat that I do not do "believing"...which, in many contexts, is using the word "believe" to disguise a guess, supposition, estimate...and that stuff. — Frank Apisa
In what context do people use the word "believe" to disguise a guess? When people say they believe in a god, by your definition they accept as true that there is a god, without having the evidence to establish it as true, and we agreed that this is different from making a guess, so they are not disguising a guess. — leo
fresco
20
↪Frank Apisa
Okay. I take it you quoted Jabberwocky in the misguided view that since Lewis Carroll concerned himself with 'nonsense' then his significant observation about 'power' regarding meaning should be ignored. (The fact that Carroll was perhaps linguistically ahead of his time in recognizing the significance of syntax for semantics, of course deflates the simplistic label 'nonsense poem' but such analysis would do your mission no favours, woud it ? :wink: ) — fresco
Any assertion made that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist...
...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS. — Frank Apisa
Terrapin Station
9.1k
Any assertion made that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist...
...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS. — Frank Apisa
Must. Repeat. The. Mantra. — Terrapin Station
leo
265
↪Frank Apisa
At the end of the day you do what you want. I just find it peculiar that you react this way with believing and not with any other concept. If you say that you bring a glass of water to your mouth and swallow the water, I would say well you drink water, but if you insist that "NO I DO NOT DO DRINKING" then I wonder, why this reaction?
Don't you see that you accepting as true that English is not my first language, without having the evidence to establish it as true, is you believing, precisely because this is how you defined believing?
If you say that there are things you believe, but you never say "I believe", I can understand. But if you insist that you do not believe anything, while we have proof of the contrary, then I don't understand your point of view.
As to the idea that beliefs are guesses in disguise, to believe is to assert something as true (while not having sufficient evidence), while to guess is to assert something without claiming it is true. I agree with your idea that beliefs are sometimes based on guesses, and I agree that it is wrong to claim that something believed is objective truth, but I don't agree that a belief is a guess in disguise, because believing something is seeing it as subjective truth, which is definitely not the same as guessing. — leo
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.