You are repeating yourself without answering the question.

Is it that you cannot see the question?

Is it that seeing the question would break the cage? — Banno

How does the reality that science prioritizes evidence supposedly disregard non-beliefism?

You denied claiming that all belief are false. I asked then if you would agree that some belief is true. The above is not an appropriate response. I'm running out of reasons to continue. — creativesoul

Where did I supposedly claim that all beliefs are false?

• Please provide evidence for your claims.
• Advice: Refer to the Op, to see data that contrasts your claim.

A particularly appropriate place to invoke the crucial distinction between belief in something or other and belief that something or other. The former is about existence. The latter is about truth. Belief in God includes a belief that the statement "God exists" is true.

There is no such thing as a 'belief in science' like there is a belief in God or a belief in astrology or a belief in souls or spirits or re-incarnation, etc.

I personally believe that science works from a method meant to reduce the possibility for error.

Methodological Naturalism. — creativesoul

I don't detect the relevance of your comment above.

• Recall that belief is described in relation to typical definition, and scientific research.

You are still a believer, hiding your true hear in the words "prioritise". — Banno

Once more, that you believe, does not suddenly warrant that everybody believes.

Good.

Some belief is true then.

Agree? — creativesoul

A simplification:

1. Model i - belief:
   
   • Permits belief in science or evidence.
   • Also permits ignorance of evidence, but not only that, it generally permits ignorance of evidence. (i.e. frequent ignorance of evidence)
2. Model ii - non-beliefism:
   
   • Underlines that science prioritizes evidence.
   • Does not permit general ignorance of evidence.

An admirable aim. Holding false belief is something to avoid. Not all belief is false. Not all belief suffers the same issues as religious belief. Unraveling your errors requires understanding thought and belief. Notably, what they are, how they are expressed, and what makes them true/false. — creativesoul

In contrast, nowhere did I say that all beliefs are false.

• From the very beginning, in the Op, I mentioned that belief may both occur in evidence and non-evidence.
• However, that one may believe for example in science, does not suddenly remove that belief is a model that does not prioritize evidence, but instead permits general ignorance of evidence.

I find it arrogant for you to think you can teach, because not only do you not have anything meaningful to teach anyone, but you fail to recognize your own arrogance, your own inability to examine your own pre-existing beliefs, and your own failure to engage in charitable philosophical debate on a philosophy forum. — Noble Dust

Such is a typical response; for I have observed that many people don't tend to scrutinize beyond religious belief, as you continue to demonstrate well.

What? — Noble Dust

A review:

1. In stark contrast:
   
   • a. I had been a theist for quite a long while.
   • b. Four years ago, I had become an atheist.
   • c. Recently, I had come to scrutinize the very concept of belief, and not merely religious belief.
2. As far as I have observed, people don't tend to go beyond item (1.b) above, and your words demonstrate that you are one of said people.

Goal 1. is a good goal, and I trust you're learning a lot.

Goal 2. is pretty arrogant, given that you're new to the forum. I had a similar mindset when I joined. I've done a whole lot of learning, and basically 0 teaching. You'll find it's the same for you if you stick around; if you do, please learn to debate, though. — Noble Dust

1. I am yet to discover any novel information, from others here.

2. Why do you feel it is arrogant for me to teach, but quite alright for me to learn, due to some odd boundary, such as my time spent on this particular forum?

Which is (2)? You made this statement on line 2... — Noble Dust

• I stated (1.b), rather than (2), in my comment 8 minutes ago.
• Your comment is 3 minutes old, at the time this comment is written.

What is your goal with this thread? — Noble Dust

Goals:
1. Unravel errors of my own, where applicable. (i.e. learn)
2. Unravel errors in others. (i.e. teach)

You still believe A in your heart of hearts. — Banno

That you may chose to believe, does not suddenly warrant that everybody else believes.

And what would happen when there is contradictory evidence? When evidence A is contradicted by evidence B?

And this ignores the whole issue of what evidence is. — Banno

• This is already covered in the OP, which provides sources that heavily discuss and present research on evidence.
  
• Is reading the sources so arduous?

In between insanity and insincerity is self-deceptive fundamentalism, which I think is where our OP is situated. It's the inability to question one's own assumptions (let alone beliefs...). There's an element of denial, but I think the denial doesn't quite reach a conscious level. — Noble Dust

1. In stark contrast:
   
   • a. I had been a theist for quite a long while.
   • b. Four years ago, I had become an atheist.
   • c. Recently, I had come to scrutinize the very concept of belief, and not merely religious belief.
2. As far as I have observed, people don't tend to go beyond item (1.b) above, and your words demonstrate that you are one of said people.

Did you mean that "one can avoid failure by prioritising evidence", or that one can avoid failure in order to prioritize evidence?

If the latter, I've no idea what you could mean, so I will presume you meant the former. One must be selective, accepting some evidence, but not all.

Do you agree? — Banno

Simply, belief is such that does not prioritize evidence.

• In contrast, one may behave in manner that instead prioritizes evidence.

I quite enjoy irony.

Though this was my suspicion from the beginning, trying to reason with you is a waste of time. You are nothing more than a delusional cult leader trying to recruit members. Thankfully, it seems you've been quite unsuccessful thus far (only 10 members in your "non-beliefism" Facebook group). Maybe try going door to door with pamphlets?

Contrary to what other members have expressed, I don't see any positive result of your attempt to evangelize aside from being a practice dummy with which we can hone our arguing skills.
Either way I'm done here. Goodbye. — JustSomeGuy

It is unfortunate that you grovel in and enjoy your own errors, for self-denial of said errors shan't enable you to escape them.

• And recall, that despite your non-evidenced claim (as clearly seen here), it is unavoidable that proof and evidence are synonyms.

Well that's hardly a surprise. What is surprising is that you cannot see the irony of your predicament. — Banno

1. It's really not extremely complicated; one need not belief to observe evidence; i..e. evidence persists regardless of belief.

2. As an example, Christians don't tend to express faith or belief in oxygen/air, because oxygen/air is demonstrably present.

• They do however exercise faith in biblical "facts", which is a necessary thing, given the lack of evidence for biblical "facts".
• Note that I am not saying faith is necessary above, but instead that faith is demonstrably required for events lacking evidence.

Either you cannot or you will not answer a simple 'yes or no' question. Neither is acceptable. When you enter into a public philosophy forum and say things with such certainty, you voluntarily obligate yourself to directly answer relevant questions.

Do you believe what you write? — creativesoul

I'd already approached that type of query, earlier.

What is the criterion which - when met - counts as being a case of belief? — creativesoul

That was covered throughout this thread. Do read and discover.

Do you believe what you write? — creativesoul

I'd already approached that type of query, earlier.

Your very first sentence claims "science is true". Clearly this is a nonsense phrase in itself, but I'll allow that it's expressing a sentiment which differs from the literal interpretation.
Other ways to rephrase while keeping the same meaning:
"science finds truth"
"science is composed of facts"
Truth and facts rely on proof. In order for something to be a truth or a fact, it must be proven.
So, yes, you did "advocate scientific proof".

You are clearly very deep into this ridiculous ideology of yours, so I don't expect anyone here to be able to change your mind right now. I only hope the things people are saying to you here can plant the seed that eventually blossoms into you waking up and realizing how horribly misled you are. — JustSomeGuy

In stark contrast:

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.

3. The quote's source is below:

Do you believe what you write? — creativesoul

I'd already approached that type of query, amidst this thread.

Do you believe what you write? — creativesoul

My writing persists, regardless of belief.

No. They aren't. The fact that you think they are should discredit anything else you have to say on this subject.

All you have done throughout this entire discussion (with everyone here) is:
- Make a claim
- Provide a link to a single webpage/article/scientific study
- Conclude that your provided source is proof that your claim is indisputable fact

Not only is that not how logic argument works, that's not even how science works. You of all people, with your scarily dogmatic devotion to science, should understand that nothing in science is proven. Nothing. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Proof is for logic and mathematics. Those are closed, self-contained systems of propositions. Science is empirical. — JustSomeGuy

1. I didn't merely provide one paper (although the paper I linked to contains multiple references).
   
   
   • I also provided a link to "non-beliefism", which consists of other sources, that are not authored by myself.
2. As I underlined in an earlier reply, proof and evidence are synonymous, and that is the case regardless of your feelings.
   
3. Your behaviour is a symptom of belief; even when you were presented with clear evidence that contrasts your preconceived notion, you proceeded to grovel in your mistakes absent willingness to update those erroneous beliefs.
   
4. Please recall that dictionaries present "proof" and "evidence" as synonyms, contrary to your initial claim.
   
   
   • Reference A - Your initial claim: "Proof and evidence are not synonymous". (Source)
   • Reference B - Contrasting data showing that in fact, those things are synonyms:

What is most unsettling here is not your belief that we ought abolish belief, but that you have had this belief so intensely for years, to the extent of setting up your own domain, without recognising that irony. — Banno

1. Your response above is typical, it's a common type of response that I encountered when I initially began to discuss "non-beliefism" in 2016.
2. Such a typical response of yours, does not alter the reality, that:
   
   
   • We can avoid failure to prioritize evidence. (i.e. belief)
   • Instead, we can focus on alternative methods that prioritize evidence.

The OP has either no clue about thought and belief or is an insincere speaker. Neither warrants any further attention... — creativesoul

That you fail to acknowledge evidence, does not suddenly warrant that evidence is invalid.

This Psychology Today article explains it perfectly:

"Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.

Further, proofs are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist." — JustSomeGuy

• I don't detect the relevance of your quote above to the OP.
• Nowhere in the OP (or throughout our discussion) did I advocate scientific proof as you describe above.

There is no evidence as to what consitutes real evidence without begging the question.

What might be believed to be the best kind of evidence in science may not be believed to be the best kind of evidence when it comes to religion, the arts or ethics.

Apparently you are unable to see the enclosed circle within which your beliefs are moving. — Janus

Religious faith is not-scientifically founded, and this is not up to me.

Depends on whether a belief is arbitrary or well-founded. What constitutes a well-founded belief is best defined in science, and in relation to empirical propositions. When it comes to ethics, aesthetics or religion, it is not at all self-evident what constitutes evidence and hence what could best be counted as a justification for well-founded beliefs. — Janus

1.This was already covered in the Op; I already underlined that belief may occur both on evidence, and non-evidence.

• However, it is notable, that belief does not prioritize evidence, whereas science does.
• These are demonstrably opposing models; one seeks to thrive on evidence, while the other permits typical ignorance of evidence.

2. Religious beliefs are scientifically unfounded.

Assuming a sincere speaker...

Statements are statements of thought and belief. Positive assertions are statements of belief. "Science prioritizes evidence" is a positive assertion; it is a statement of belief about what science does. If science prioritizes evidence, then the belief statement is true.

The OP wants the reader to accept the dubious presupposition that it is humanly possibly to hold no belief.

Sure... from the moment of conception through the first mental correlation drawn... during that time period - and that time period alone - it makes perfect sense to say that humans do not hold and/or have belief.

Consider this...

The OP has a worldview. A new one - in fact. All world-views consist entirely of thought and belief about the world and/or ourselves. The OP cannot admit that s/he believes what s/he says. The OP cannot admit of having a worldview.

Why continue with such nonsense? — creativesoul

a. Your argument above originates from a trivial error.

b. That science prioritizes evidence, obtains regardless of anyone's belief, contrary to your response.

• Your claim: " 'Science prioritizes evidence' is a positive assertion; it is a statement of belief about what science does."
• As (b) underlines, your claim is false, because science does not require peoples' belief, such that science is a model wherein evidence is prioritized.

c. Why would you want to contact a model that fails to prioritize evidence (i.e. belief), instead of another that prioritizes evidence?

I quite agree with the idea that people hold onto beliefs in spite of evidence. I think it is well demonstrated. I agree that people can accept beliefs without sufficient evidence and also retain beliefs longer than would be the case had they sought out diagnostic information, and that people have a tendency to not question proto-beliefs. — Moliere

• Good, because that is what the OP talks about; science is such that prioritizes evidence, whereas belief does not.
  
• As for your latter query, one can behave in a manner that prioritizes evidence (contrary to the concept of belief).

And I have not once used the phrase "scientific proof" in this discussion, so I have no idea what you're referring to when you claim I was the one who spoke about it. — JustSomeGuy

Consider this past sequence:

1.a) My words: "belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence."

1.b) Notably, my words above are demonstrably correct, as seen in this scientific paper (as listed in the OP).

2.a) Your response: 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.

2.b) As is observed above, despite the this scientific paper (as evidence listed in the OP, in (2.a) you responded with some irrelevant sequence, not even bothering to contact evidence presented.

3) So, as is observed above in (2.a), you made an irrelevant reference of proof wrt to science ..i.e. scientific proof (when I didn't mention describe scientific proof in the OP) Why bother to bring up your quote in (2.a), about scientific proof?

Proof and evidence are not synonymous. — JustSomeGuy

I know you didn't, that's why I did. You implied they were synonymous; I was correcting you. This is the second time in this discussion that you have swapped our positions around after the fact. I don't know if you're really confused or purposefully being dishonest. — JustSomeGuy

1. On the contrary, your "correction" does not apply, and your words are ironically invalid, for "proof" and "evidence" are quite literally synonymous.

2. Reference A: Definition of "synonymous":



3. Reference B: Proof/evidence relationship:

You apparently misread or misunderstood. What I said was that "proof" is "sufficient evidence for knowledge". Maybe I should have been more explicit somehow, I don't know.

Proof is a kind of evidence, but they are not synonymous. All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof. — JustSomeGuy

I don't detect the relevance of your response above wrt the OP.

1. Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
   
2. In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
   
3. In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

A belief is an acceptance that something is true right? Someone can accept a claim that is based off of scientific thinking, or nonscientific thinking.

When you say non-beliefism, aren't you essentially saying that we should only accept things to be true based off of scientific thinking? Which is like saying even though belief as a concept permits nonscientific thinking, don't allow any nonscientific element in your beliefs. Or are you saying that we shouldn't accept anything as true at all? — SonJnana

• Simply, science prioritizes evidence, while belief (by definition and research) is a model that does not prioritize evidence.
• Unless belief is redefined to prioritize evidence, or unless some new research suddenly shows that belief generally permits evidence prioritization, the concept of belief, which is both defined, and researched to generally permit ignorance of evidence, ought to be avoided altogether.
• Why contact a model that doesn't prioritize evidence (i.e. belief) instead of a model (i.e. science) that prioritizes evidence?

The paper you're citing defines belief pretty early on, and it doesn't really match how you're defining belief, i.e. by reference to a single definition of a particular dictionary. Here's what they say in the first paragraph on their section titled Defining Belief:

That was my first cursory glance to the part of the paper that seemed relevant to your point. I didn't read it all. But I don't think that what you're explicitly stating is supported by your citation, and so I have reason to doubt that you've done the reading you're requiring of us all.

All that being said, it seems to me the most charitable interpretation I can give is that you'd rather people pay attention to evidence and observation rather than hold onto any sort of belief which is contradicted by evidence. But then what I'd wonder is -- what is this "paying attention" and "observation" such that it is not belief? Even given the basic definition above (which is surely more science-friendly than fixating on a single dictionary definition, and given that you like science should be something you'd pay attention to) -- how in the world do you pay attention or observe without representational content and assumed veracity of your observations? — Moliere

Yes, it is quite clear you merely glanced the paper; for the paper did not end with the early description you posted (where they admit "there is no philosophical consensus on what belief is (McKay and Dennett, 2009)").

The paper went on with scientific results:

"Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis. In support of this, there is research suggesting that beliefs may persevere even when the initial evidence for the beliefs is discredited (Ross et al., 1975, 1977; Anderson et al., 1980). As a result of these biases,people can accept beliefs without sufficient evidence and also retain incorrect beliefs longer than would be case if they sought out diagnostic information. The collective impact of these tendencies is that people (i.e., their cognitive systems) are unlikely to seek information that contradicts their proto-belief, so long as the proto-belief is consistent with pre-existing beliefs or satisfies strong emotional drivers."

"Gravitational theory," of which there are several, is not a fact, statement, or "observable thing." it is a theory, a model, a generalization. Only statements are true or false. Only matter and energy are observable. I made a similar point back a few pages, Here it is again: — T Clark

Which is a very unresponsive response. Now, please, respond to the specific examples and assertions I have made - Models/theories come first, evidence later. Examples - special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, gravity waves, Higg's Boson. Please respond directly to that specific statement. Agree or disagree. Explain why. If you don't think models/theories come first, say why. If you don't think the examples I gave are good ones, explain why.

I actually wanted to give up on this thread a while ago, but I didn't think that was fair to you. I want to give you another chance to act like a new citizen of our small, happy community. There are rules for philosophy and there are rules for reasonable discourse. One of the rules is to be responsive to sincere and civil comments and questions. — T Clark

In stark contrast, as I mentioned prior, gravitational theory is empirically observable:

1. Reference A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
2. One should not confuse theory, and scientific theory, and it is demonstrable that you have done just that.
3. Scientific theories (like gravitational theory) prioritize evidence, and this contrasts belief, that doesn't prioritize evidence.

A psychological problem for non-beliefism:

is it psychologically plausible that one can pragmatically adopt unwarranted assumptions for sake of competitive advantage, say when gambling, while keeping his state of belief unattached from his risky decision making?

The phenomena of cognitive-dissonance suggests to me that the answer is generally no. Once we have a stake in the game, we can't help but believe what we want to believe. — sime

On the contrary, because science prioritizes evidence, while belief does not, we actually can avoid belief, i.e. we can avoid failure to prioritize evidence.

Just to throw in my $0.02 - Observation - not complaint. Might even be an endorsement. This is a great discussion. Look at all the ideas that ProgrammingGodJordan has elicited. His thread has made people re-examine the reasons for their beliefs, or whatever you want to call them. It certainly has for me.

As I've said before - you guys (moderators) are responsible that this forum stays on track and keeps it's soul, which I have come to love. You do a good job. That being said, a whole lot of latitude is advisable. — T Clark

I thank you.

There is no proof of anything scientific. Only evidence. This means that every scientific truth is a belief. — BlueBanana

1. I was not the one who spoke about scientific proof, user "JustSomeGuy" is the one that tried to confluence proof (which differs from scientific proof) with evidence (which the OP referred to). (See source)

2. Belief and science are disparate, belief does not prioritize evidence, while science does.