The definition you've quoted is more or less the same, as is the psychological conception of belief as a behavioural disposition towards evidence, which of course is modelled as probability distributions over choices, actions and so on.

Furthermore, by the definition above one is said to be in a state of belief whether or not one has infallible proof. So really your statement boils down to the assertion of infallible belief. I think. Or are you saying that one should judge all beliefs as being fallible?

Obviously science does not consist of infallible beliefs and since there is not even a mathematical justification for a correct way to interpret evidence it seems one cannot eliminate the role of subjective decision making in the assessment of evidence.

There are no infallible proofs and to a certain extent they are subjective, except those which are said to be infallible by definition or by assumption — sime

Simply:

1. Science is a model that prioritizes evidence.

2. Belief (by definition and research) is a model that does not prioritize evidence. (Prioritize meaning it can allow evidence, although it generally permits ignorance of evidence)

3. Therefore, the very concept of belief is non-scientific.

Of course, but if he said "no" it would be a lie. He knows that, which is why he refuses to answer. I was just trying to make him aware of one of many beliefs he does, in fact, hold. — JustSomeGuy

Direct quote from the link you provided in regards to "scientific proof":
"While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."

Did you even read your own source? I'm legitimately beginning to wonder of you're trolling. You have presented so many blatant contradictions and inconsistencies in your "arguments" that I don't see how you could be serious about any of this. — JustSomeGuy

1. I didn't say that proof and evidence were not synonymous.
2. I'd carefully read your earlier response, so I advise that you also carefully read once more, my earlier response.

Please, don't solve the aging and death cycle with AGI, not for me, maybe for you but definitely not for humanity. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Why don't you wish for aging to be solved?

How do you know the purpose of life isn't to create automobiles or flat screen tv's? — fishfry

I don't detect the relevance of your question.

If beliefs are defined as the assignment of probabilities to outcomes conditioned on one's partial knowledge, and if it is impossible to decide upon any particular probability assignment on the basis of one's partial knowledge, then for the purposes of acting one is forced to choose a set of probabilities, i.e. a model, without justification. Hence my referring to justified belief as practical belief.

You say no beliefs are necessary. Then let's suppose you are presented with an urn containing an unknown number of red and black balls and you have no other information. What is the rational choice of prior probabilities? — sime

1. Belief, (by definition and research) is contrary to the definition that you manufactured above:

2. Ignoring the definition you manufactured above (which contrasts how belief is generally described) science obtains whether or not one chooses to believe in science...

I think you are confusing the idea of practical belief with religious faith in scenarios pertaining to prediction and control. You've jumped the shark from a practically reasonable statement, to what a community would interpret to be a conceptual error.

In statistical decision theory, belief is the assignment of probabilities to possible outcomes, and in every instance it is impossible to assign definite probabilities without a priori assumptions. Science consists of the collection and evaluation of evidence in response to the beliefs states of the science community, which vary extensively for reasons pertaining to scientists having different knowledge, unconscious biases and so forth.

As a programmer, have you ever studied data-science? Tell me how I should decide upon what is 'the definitive' algorithm for winning a Kaggle competition, and how do i decide what it is, in such a way as to avoid any assumptions and hence belief? — sime

1. No, I don't detect that I have confused "practical belief" with "religious faith"; in fact, I had long encountered scientism, which is near to the 'practical belief' you refer to.

• However, scienticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism".

2.a) I tend to ignore the names of scientific things that bear religious connotations, such as the god particle.

• This however does not signify that I ignore the contents of that scientific thing.

2.b) For example: That there are Deep Belief Networks, does not suddenly remove that belief (by definition and research) is model that generally permits the ignorance of evidence.





3.a) You asked if I ever studied data-science, and the answer is yes, I have done things like composing a heart irregularity detection model for kaggle.
3.b). I had also written a basic neural network, without using high level Machine learning libraries that provide abstractions.
3.c) I had also written a book on artificial neural networks for kids.
3.d) I also created something called the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

4) The items in (3) involve numbers. I need not any belief to observe numbers.

I'm sorry, did you really just say "On the contrary" before restating what I said?

You claimed belief involved ignoring evidence. I corrected you by saying that belief involved a lack of sufficient evidence or proof, and your next comment is claiming my own sentiment (which was in opposition to yours) as your own?

And I see you're going to make me ask a third time: (I'll narrow it down even more to just one simple question) do you believe you are speaking to a human right now? — JustSomeGuy

1. Your prior response was invalid, as it attempted to confluence scientific proof, and proof.

2. In my stating the synonyms: proof, evidence, I simply re-iterated my original discussion as underlined in the OP wrt to the supposedly new 'proof' term you introduced (it wasn't new, because the proof that is referred to is synonymous with the word evidence).

• Pertinently, my stating the synonyms: proof, evidence demonstrates that you were falsely attempting to confluence the synonyms: proof, evidence (which the OP referred to) with scientific proof (which was not what the OP was referring to).

3. One need not belief to observe probabilities. It's probable that some Ai, or some human is creating messages, through your account. That probability does not warrant or require belief.

Ah, we poor inferiors accustomed to belief. But that's the point, right? Yet we aren't believers enough to fall for this approach. I've seen this kind of thing on other forums. It's often someone who just knows that he is somehow a prophet on another level. His arrogance is so staggering that others can't help but be sucked in by the thread. It's like bad reality TV. You just can't change the channel. — dog

• As I had underlined in the OP, I hadn't scrutinized belief for quite a long while, so like you I had been accustomed to it.
  
• However, with a bit of focus, one may come to trivially observe that belief is a concept that contrasts science.

This is false. Belief involves a lack of sufficient evidence for knowledge. A lack of proof. And believe it or not (no pun intended)--even in science--proof is an extremely rare thing. — JustSomeGuy

Difficult, indeed. For all of us. In fact I may even venture to say it's impossible.

You never actually answered my question, though. Do you believe you are speaking to an adult male? Do you believe you are speaking to a human? — JustSomeGuy

1. On the contrary, see scientific research, showing that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence.
2. Notably, there is a difference between scientific proof, and proof.
3. So, it is indeed valid that belief generally occurs absent evidence/proof.

Are you really using flat-earthers as fodder for your argument that belief should be abolished? Try for some higher-hanging fruit; the stuff everyone in this thread has been offering. — Noble Dust

1. What "high hanging fruit" has been offered by the others?
2. Yes, that flat earthers exist, does not invalidate gravitational theory. Likewise, it is demonstrable that gravitational theory persists regardless of belief.

My username is JustSomeGuy, so it is probable that I am an adult male. But it's very possible that I could be an adolescent girl. As you read this comment, do you believe you are reading the comment of an adult male or of an adolescent girl?
It is also entirely possible that I am, in fact, an artificial intelligence. Do you believe that you are reading a comment written by a person, or that you are reading a comment written by an artificial intelligence?

Literally everything you "know" is based on belief, save for one single thing: that you exist.

Speaking disparagingly about the concept of belief shows serious ignorance. You are as blinded by your bias as the most fundamentalist young-Earth creationist. — JustSomeGuy

1. As you are quite accustomed to belief, I see that it may be difficult to detach yourself from it.

2. It is probable that you are male, and so on.

3. Pertinently, I need not any belief to observe probabilities as valid.

1. Some empirically observable thing is Gravitational theory.
2. There exists people that believe that the earth is supposedly flat. (Such a belief does not agree with gravitational theory)
3. It is observable above that gravitational theory obtains regardless of flat-earth belief.
4. Likewise, gravitational theory obtains regardless of the belief of any human.

Hi. I must confess that I can find only another example of vague abstract evangelism here. Would you mind boiling this down in practical terms? Isn't this just the idea that everyone should be super-ultra-scientific? Doubt everything, except that what constitutes evidence is ambiguous and that doubt is somehow automatically virtuous?

Sometimes the word 'scientism' is thrown around a little recklessly, but I think it fits here. As I've followed the thread, I see you enact what I'd call a kind of fanaticism that won't budge an inch. I'm new here too, and I'm not trying to make an enemy. My thinking is that being on a forum is pointless if one isn't exposed to criticism, so I'm offering you some criticism. Maybe it'll speed the rule of artificial intelligence somehow. — dog

1. It is somewhat tiring when people bring up scienticism when I describe "non beliefism", because as an atheist, I had long encountered scienticism.
   
2. Anyway, scienticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism".

Where?

Regardless of whether or not ProgrammingGodJordan believes that he "observes" but does not believe things about belief, his belief about (his) belief persists regardless of his belief (or observation) of it. So, he's quite right about that. — Πετροκότσυφας

Why do you garner that belief is unavoidable?

My post didn't make any specific reference to theistic belief except in a quote from you. Isn't the whole point of your thread that all beliefs are invalid? Is there a difference between an invalid theistic belief and an invalid non-theistic belief? No need for any special approach. — T Clark

1. In contrast, as underlined in the OP:

• One may believe in both evidence, and non-evidence. (i.e. there are valid beliefs in science)
• Despite the above, not only may belief occur on evidence, but by unfortunate extension, belief general permits ignorance of evidence, and that contrasts science, which prioritizes evidence.

2. So, what I mentioned before still applies; that is, whether you are theistic or not, shall probably affect how many steps my responses to you may contain.

1. Why would using standard definitions supposedly be "the genesis of my issues"?
2. Also, don't forget the latter part of my earlier response:

By extension, research shows that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25741291 — ProgrammingGodJordan

You continue to use exact phrases in your arguments. Using single words consistently is a good way to make a clearer argument, but using entire phrases just means that you have an entire premise in your head which is unassailable; in other words, everyone responding to you in this thread is challenging your pre-concieved notion of what you think belief is, but because you believe your premise is unassailable, you're either blind to what's happening in the debate, or unwilling to acknowledge it. — Noble Dust

1. In contrast, I refer to standard definitions:

2. By extension, research shows that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence.

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25741291

Not always. Just occasionally, folk believe stuff because of the evidence. — Banno

1. I already underlined that one may believe in evidence in the OP:

2. By extension, that one may believe in science, does not suddenly erase that the concept of belief does not prioritize evidence, but instead permits that evidence is typically ignored.

• In other words, belief can both occur in science, and unfortunately by extension, belief typically permits ignorance of evidence!

— T Clark

Are you theistic by chance? — ProgrammingGodJordan

What possible relevance does that have to this discussion? You should be addressing my statements.


Whether you are theistic or not, shall probably affect how many steps my responses to you may contain.

So what is you aim, if not to convince us? — Banno

How do we know that you do not believe, against your own recommendation, that the evidence persists regardless of belief? — Banno

1. Why do you garner you must believe, in order to observe that science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence?
   
2. In other words, don't you recognize that regardless of whether or not you believe, science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence?

As for life in general, I don't see why intelligence is preferable to other strategies. Ants or bacteria may long outlive bigger brained mammals and their technological creations. Despite all our success, bacteria still have us way outnumbered. It's a bit egotistical to think we're the central focus of life. — Marchesk

1. The OP underlined that AGI/ASI is reasonably human-cognitive exceeding in nature, and thus the OP underlines humans are reasonably not the central focus of life.
   
2. Pertinently, AGI/ASI can theoretically solve any task, given sufficient compute resources, including tasks performed by bacteria!

So you believe that?

And you want us to believe it, too? — Banno

No.

Later in your post you say "not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief!" Which is a fine thing to say, although I disagree with it strongly. But saying your goal is to abolish belief is silly. You might as well say we should abolish thought. Humans are story-telling creatures. It's a much a part of us as opposable thumbs. First, before they are anything else, theories and models are stories. Beliefs are stories. Science is a story. — T Clark

Are you theistic by chance?

Science isn't true. What does that even mean? Statements are true or false. It's reasonable to say that science is a useful method or methods for gaining knowledge about the world. It's not the only useful method. Beside that, truth, as defined by scientists, is a scientific concept. It's a circular argument.

All that being said, NDT is part right - whatever science is, it is whether or not people believe it is what it is. — T Clark

1. True definition:"in accordance with fact or reality."

2. So, Neil deGrasse Tyson is demonstrably correct, science is true; science aims to describe reality.

This is an incredibly naïve description of how science works. The models come first, then the evidence. All theories are models. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. He didn't do experiments. He made models. Other guys came along later and gathered evidence. Our current, best scientific understanding of the nature of physical reality is called the "Standard Model." The Higgs Boson and gravity waves were predicted decades ago by theoretical physicists based on theories/models. They weren't confirmed until the last few years using extremely expensive, complicated equipment designed and operated specifically to confirm or deny those models. — T Clark

1. In contrast, science does not constitute belief.

2. Both scientific theory and scientific hypothesis generally occur, and align on evidence.

3. Instead, belief generally permits the ignorance of evidence.

1. Your words: "Again, it underlies all forms of thought; it underlies "scientific thinking" (whatever that is), [belief] in evidence, rational arguments. There's no rational argument to make because belief underlies rationality; apprehending the role belief plays in experience and thinking requires reflection and intuition. If you can't see it, you just can't, which you probably can't."

2. My response:

• I don't detect any cognitive science papers that show that belief is unavoidable.
• Science generally occurs on evidence, while in contrast, belief permits that evidence is typically ignored.
• So, we can contact a model i.e. scientific thinking, that is something that prioritizes evidence, rather than contact belief, which generally permits ignorance of evidence.

1.Your words: "Your belief in non-beliefism is noted.
Of course, you would not believe your belief to be self-contradictory..."

2. My response:

• Your response is typical.
• Whether or not anybody believes in non-beliefism, it remains valid that belief generally occurs such that people ignore evidence.

1. Your words: "So we ought believe the evidence?"
2. My response: The evidence persists regardless of belief.

1. I don't detect any novel information from those threads.

• I've been discussing "non-beliefism" online since 2016, so I've seen many similar responses.

2. Again, why do you garner that belief is unavoidable?

1.Your words: "If you're going to bring an argument to the table, you ned to engage in a detailed defense, instead of just rehashing talking points. Show us why you [believe] your arguments to be valid."

2. My response:

• That's ironic, for you have constantly rehashed or implied that belief is unavoidable.
• Why do you garner that belief is unavoidable?

1. Your words: "What about the belief that belief should be abolished, should that belief be abolished too? Thus, this thread should be abolished."

2. My response: If you actually read any of the sources related to the OP, you would have probably encountered:

• Belief, by definition and research, is such that generally permits ignorance of evidence.
  
• Something that generally permits ignorance of evidence, contrasts science.
  
• So, whether or not I exist, belief remains a concept today, that generally permits ignorance of evidence!

• The OP does not support "beliefism".
• The OP supports "non-beliefism" instead.

1. Yes, what you said above does not alter the reality that I can observe some probability, without believing in such a probability.

2. It may be somewhat odd to grasp, since you had probably been used to the concept of belief for quite some time.

3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking.

1. Recall what I said before, that it is probable that somebody/something is utilizing your account to compose messages.

2. Notably, I don't need to believe in the probability above, to observe it as valid.

It is probable that somebody/something is utilizing your account to compose messages. I need not belief to observe said probability.

One need not belief to observe probabilities.

What is your point?

1. Your account persists, whether or not anyone believes it does.

2. As an example, that flat earthers exist (belief that the earth is supposedly flat) does not suddenly disregard gravitational theory.

• This is an indication that beliefs don't have any bearing on whether science is true or not; science obtains regardless of belief.