What you're describing is epistemic egoism. It's the ideal of epistemic autonomy.
Given that we're not living in a vacuum, epistemic autonomy is not possible. — baker
So if I'm walking down a flight of stairs and I have a propensity to act as if the next step is the same dimentions as the previous steps but I trip because it's not, did I have a mistaken belief or a prediction error?
— praxis
Both are the same thing. — Isaac
If consciousness isn’t a prerequisite then it would be correct to say that my phone (specifically the calculator app) believes that two plus two equals four. — praxis
A mind is conscious, so it appears you’re drawing the line there and subconscious processes do not entail beliefs. — praxis
Prediction precedes belief? — praxis
So, let me try to understand where the line is for you.
"I believe there is a God" is a statement of belief, right?
What about "I believe there's a 50% chance the coin will land on heads"? That's not a belief, according to you, right? (working on your example above - holding there to be a greater than 50% chance of inflation is not a belief)
What about "I believe there is a 99.999999999% chance there is a God"? Still not a belief? Or have we crossed into belief territory yet? — Isaac
You don't believe, you know, that there is a 50% chance, statistically speaking and assuming a perfect coin, that the coin will land on heads. It's true by definition. — Janus
in the example, the speculator holds anything definite to be the case about the likelihood that inflation will continue to rise, but merely that she bets on that since inflation is currently rising, and she goes with the idea that it will continue.. — Janus
if they don't feel sure that it's true and only believe it's likely to be true, then they don't believe it's true — Janus
they don't even have to believe it's likely to be true to bet on its being true or to act as if it's true. — Janus
If I'm 100% certain there's a 50% chance, then there's a 50% chance. — Isaac
If I'm 100% certain there's a 50% chance, then I'm 100% correct that there's a 50% chance? — ZzzoneiroCosm
I can be 100% certain and also 100% wrong. — ZzzoneiroCosm
That's not how probability works. If I'm 100% certain there's a 50% chance, then there's a 50% chance. If I'm 80% certain there's a 50% chance, then there's a 40% chance (depending on the exclusivity of the other options). Probability is already a measure of uncertainty, you can't have uncertainty about the probability as being some kind of separate measure. — Isaac
Unless she's acting randomly, then betting money one way indicates a belief in the likelihood of that outcome. Obviously, people might act randomly, but it's hardly the normal case, and very difficult to prove in any case. — Isaac
if they don't feel sure that it's true and only believe it's likely to be true, then they don't believe it's true — Janus
Indeed. They believe it to some degree of certainty below 100%. The most common case. A belief with 100% certainty is rare. — Isaac
they don't even have to believe it's likely to be true to bet on its being true or to act as if it's true. — Janus
No indeed. They could act randomly or irrationally. It's not common though. — Isaac
And again, your distinction of "feels certain" from "is certain" does not make sense.
Wo else makes this distinction? Can you point to a source? — Banno
What you're describing is epistemic egoism. It's the ideal of epistemic autonomy.
Given that we're not living in a vacuum, epistemic autonomy is not possible.
— baker
Ego is an undeniable aspect of being human so it’s no surprise that it will influence personal beliefs.
If an individual is nefarious and they have power and influence then they can insist their personal beliefs are more important than the beliefs of some alternate mass or group of people with less power and influence. But, all tyrants are eventually overthrown, even those who seem to have total power. The combined belief of a large majority that they are not being treated in an acceptable way that makes their lives worth living is often the reason why those who think their beliefs/legacy will ‘stand for a thousand years,’ gets overthrown relatively quickly. — universeness
The epistemic egoist maintains that one must possess positive reasons in favor of other people's reliability or trustworthiness before their beliefs and testimony offer prima facie social evidence.
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12184#:~:text=The%20epistemic%20egoist%20maintains%20that,offer%20prima%20facie%20social%20evidence.
Yeah, interesting. I suppose that's more true than it might at first seem if one considers social as well as economic power relationships. I do think it's surmountable though, but I agree the temptation makes it difficult to be sure. — Isaac
I think, one difficulty here is that there's two aspects to these types of discussion that people are interested in. The 'beliefs' we find most interesting are those like god, socialism, transgenders, etc... But these are a tiny minority of beliefs.
We all believe, for example, that larger objects cannot fit inside smaller ones.
The former type of beliefs I think are held almost entirely for reasons of social relationships. The latter type more for pragmatic or biological reasons. The forces which act on each type will be different.
Prediction precedes belief?
— praxis
A prediction is a belief. But we're not getting anywhere just disagreeing about definitions. What is the consequence of a distinction between that which we're aware of holding to be the case and that which we hold to be the case but are unaware that we do? Whatever word we give those two categories, how does their differentiation bear on the question? — Isaac
Could you sketch out how exactly, or point me to a source? — baker
It's not clear this would generally even be considered a belief, but rather, knowledge — baker
I find that often, the former are attempted by many people to be advocated as the latter. For example, "All men are created equal" or "Those who refuse to get vaccinated against covid are selfish" are sometimes advocated as being as equally true, objective, self-evident as "2 + 2 = 4". — baker
we are one hundred percent certain... — Janus
if ...nothing biasing towards one or the other — Janus
She may have no idea whether inflation will continue to rise or not, but simply decides to bet one way or the other. That is not irrational because the chances may be incalculable, in which case it would be rational to suspend belief. — Janus
I'm allowing that people may across time vacillate between belief (defined as feeling certain) and doubt (feeling uncertain). — Janus
they may believe one hundred percent that its likely to be true — Janus
As I said above I don't think it is always irrational to act without believing anything in particular. — Janus
we are one hundred percent certain... — Janus
...is always contradicted by...
if ...nothing biasing towards one or the other — Isaac
I don't understand why you've disallowed 'quite certain of...', or 'a slight inclination toward...', or ' I'm not sure but I'm inclined to believe...' ... or any other such expression of moderated doubt. — Isaac
'Likely to be true' is already a measure of uncertainty. So saying I'm 100% certain that it's 50% likely is just exactly the same as saying I'm 50% certain. — Isaac
I agree, which is why I included 'random' in there too. I don't think either case is common though. — Isaac
We are 100% certain that, absent biasing factors, there is a 50% chance of either outcome — Janus
I just recommend a more nuanced way of speaking about what we are doing when our conviction is not 100%. For example if I say I believe God exists, I would mean that I have no doubt God exists. Or if I believe the butler did it then I would be 100% convinced that the butler did it — Janus
it might be based on a gut feeling — Janus
I believe, Isaac, I am on your side of this one. I don't see that believing something to be true entails 100% certainty. Further i don't see how one could even ransack oneself, let alone others, to determine, then, if one met that criterion. It would mean, in my case, that I have no political beliefs at all. I would suddenly lack all sorts of beliefs about my family and friends and certainly people I know less well. Jimmy is kind. Hm, well, I don't know what he is like when he is abroad. Scientists, given their epistemology and methodology, would have to refrain from believing pretty much everything. From saying they believe X. Since they would have to admit that perhaps what seems obvious today may be revised by further research. It's not like a light switch, even one with a third position (half lit). If we say we believe something it means that is our position on something with varying degrees of certainty. But it is the position we take, the conclusion we have drawn, some with greater certainty that others. Sure, some people are damn certain about nearly all their beliefs or at least they think they should feel that way and present themselves that way. I don't see them as the role model for a definition of belief.I just recommend a more nuanced way of speaking about what we are doing when our conviction is not 100%. For example if I say I believe God exists, I would mean that I have no doubt God exists. Or if I believe the butler did it then I would be 100% convinced that the butler did it — Janus
Why 100? If you want to reserve a special word for when one considers the probability 100%, why not another for 99%? One for 51%, one for 32%... What is it about 100% that warrants it's own word? I can't see the advantage of what you're advocating. — Isaac
I can't think where you've read such a thing into what I've written when I've mostly been arguing the exact opposite - that belief is dynamic and usually held in degrees of certainty. — Isaac
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.