Describe Discussion-Lexicon-Belief-2003-09-03 here.

<Hermit> Avoiding the problem

<Hermit> Rather than wrestling over it.

<Lucifer> Not really

<Lucifer> Now we have a problem

<Lucifer> I no longer agree with the wordying

<Lucifer> wording even

<Hermit> So, edit it. Fix it. Make you happy. But please avoid belief.

<Lucifer> Then you won't agree with it

<Hermit> That's the only problem

<Lucifer> I'm willing to use a different word if you can provide one

<Shadow> Cool! time for schism!! ;-)

<Hermit> I provided several

<Lucifer> No, I want something that means what I mean

<Lucifer> You provided none yet

<Shadow> looks like irreconcilable differences, folks

<Lucifer> No, we can always make up a new word if it comes to that

<Hermit> A philosophy when it refers to a comprehensive interlocked internal representation of being towards self.

<Hermit> A position when it refers towards taking a stance bassed on an assessment.

<Lucifer> So if I assume it is safe to cross the street that is a position?

<Hermit> Accepting/acceptance when it involves strong testable evidence, or rejecting when it relates to to conclusive disproof.

<Hermit> It appears safe to cross the street. You don't know about the meteorite that is about to land there (yet)

<Lucifer> So if I assume it is safe to cross the street that is an appearance that I hold to be true?

<Hermit> Yes

<Lucifer> Yes, I didn't say whether it is true or not

<Kid-A> certainty, confidence, credence, reliance, sureness, trust, blahh

<Lucifer> I don't think appearance is a good synonym for belief

<Lucifer> Not for english users anyway

<Hermit> I didn't suggest it.

<Lucifer> So what do you suggest?

<Hermit> Although it is frequently a good way of describing the external reality as you perceive it which leads you to develop a position.

<Lucifer> true. I know

<Hermit> So I talk about the external - perceive appear seem etc

<Hermit> Or about my internal map, position, accept, reject etc

<Hermit> Because these things are different

<Lucifer> accept and reject are not really nouns

<Lucifer> position is one type of what I am thinking of

<Hermit> accepting is the noun, but it has a different taste.

<Hermit> i.e. not rejecting when one perhaps should.

<Hermit> I'm telling you that in English the words have been deliberately skewed. Latin, German and Greek do not have the problem.

<Lucifer> So? Many words have been deliberately skewed yet we still use them

<Kid-A> judge, know, maintain, postulate, presume, speculate, suppose, take for granted, think...take ur pick

<Hermit> And English didn't have the problem.

<Lucifer> liberal has been skewed, religion has been skewed

<Lucifer> We just have to be careful to define our words, not avoid them

<Hermit> But belief is poisoned.

<Hermit> Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

<Lucifer> I do not think belief is poisoned

<Hermit> Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.

<Lucifer> 1913?

<Hermit> Sorry

<Hermit> A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith.

<Hermit> The thing believed; the object of belief.

<Hermit> A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed.

<Hermit> Thats my desktop Dictionary (Public Domain)

<Hermit> But it is congruent with the OED

<Lucifer> httphttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief&r=67

<Lucifer> That is the modern usage

<Lucifer> n 1: any cognitive content held as true

<Hermit> Held as true without evidence to show its truth value

<Lucifer> no

<Hermit> Yes

<Lucifer> Where does it say that? It doesn't say that.

<Hermit> Go through all of the definitions there

<Lucifer> You have to add words to the definition?

<Lucifer> I did

<Hermit> I am saying that the definition is deficient. That one.

<Lucifer> You have to quote a 1913 dictionary to prove it?

<Hermit> Because it does not explain that "held as true" is not the same as "true"

<Lucifer> Of course not, why would it?

<Lucifer> Obviously "any cognitive content held as true" is not the same as "any cognitive content that is true"

<Hermit> I see that "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc." says the same

<Hermit> Lucifer, then you are agreeing with my statement.

<Lucifer> I'm not agreeing that the definition is deficient

<Lucifer> I think it is correct

<Hermit> That "held as true" is only needed in the absense of evidence that a thing is true.

<Lucifer> I am looking for a word that means "any cognitive content held as true"

<Lucifer> Hermit, I do not agree that "held as true" is only needed in the absense of evidence that a thing is true.

<Lucifer> I hold as true that I am talking to you now.

<Hermit> So why do I need to "hold something as true" when I know it is true?

<Kid-A> you dont know its true

<Lucifer> I don't know with certainty who I am talking to

<Lucifer> But I hold it as true based on good evidence

<Hermit> When I know that a proposition's truth value approaches unity.

<MRmark> it is possible you are talking to an extreemly inteligent monkey

<Lucifer> Same with everything I hold as true

<Kid-A> it is a cognitive assertion, in otherwords, think....thats a good word...think

<Hermit> Right KidA

<Hermit> I think it is true implies evaluation. I believe it is true implies trust.

...

<rhino> it often has self references

<LuciferAFK> I don't think self references are useful in the wiki

<Hermit> At the end of the day it should do that automagically

<rhino> are references to existing topics marked automatically?

<Hermit> Not unless they are WikiWords?

<Hermit> Unfortunately

<LuciferAFK> or fortunately, depending on your point of view

<rhino> oh, because i asw some references to "philosophy" in a document where it really meant "worldview"

<Hermit> But I'm thinking about how it will work in an XML environment.

<Hermit> Got a link?

<LuciferAFK> btw, the justification article linked above provides a justification for my use of "belief"

<rhino> the hypocricy entry, i think... inconsistency with one's "philosophy" was linking to the philosophy entry

<rhino> which diodn't make much sense, i think

<Hermit> Weltanschauung

<rhino> heh

<rhino> i learned that from the freud's text i posted :P

<Hermit> Heh

<Hermit> It was coined by Kant AFAIR

<LuciferAFK> Maybe this hypocrisy entry makes more sense>> httphttp://virus.lucifer.com/sins.html

<Hermit> beliefs

<LuciferAFK> Hermit, read the justification article

<Hermit> Where?

<LuciferAFK> LuciferAFK? httphttp://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/justification

<LuciferAFK> Philosophers distinguish between justified and unjustified beliefs.

<LuciferAFK> MITECS is peer reviewed and imho authoratative

<Hermit> A mainly good article.

<Hermit> It just overloads a word.

<Hermit> Which means unjustified belief.

<Hermit> And thus opens us up to Fred's style of argument.

<Hermit> Which is silly IMO

<LuciferAFK> Yes, those MITECS cognitive scientists and philosophers are just silly

<LuciferAFK> :-/

<LuciferAFK> back to work now

<Hermit> Using a word which 99.9999% of the world thinks is "unjustified belief" to mean acceptance of something solidly founded is silly, even if it is MITECS doing it.

<LuciferAFK> Using a word which 99.9999% of the world thinks is "unjustified belief" <-- I will concede iff you can support this assertion

<LuciferAFK> The dictionaries that I pointed to are at least as good as yours

<Hermit> You pointed to mine and acknowledge that "held to be true" takes belief unless there is evidence.

<LuciferAFK> no

<Hermit> Yes.

<Hermit> Scroll down

<Hermit> The Current and ancient Webster definitions are on that page.

<Hermit> And are the same.

<LuciferAFK> I know what I said Hermit

<LuciferAFK> The logs prove it

<LuciferAFK> "cognitive content held to be true" does not mean "cognitive content held to be true without evidence"

<LuciferAFK> The dictionary said the former, not the latter

<LuciferAFK> Still does in fact

<Hermit> Why is it held as true?

<LuciferAFK> Doesn't matter

<Hermit> Why isn't it true?

<LuciferAFK> That is a different question

<Hermit> If it is true it doesn't need to be "held as true"

<LuciferAFK> I disagree

<Hermit> Would you say I hold it as true that the Earth orbits the sun in everyday speech?

<LuciferAFK> I think you are misinterpreting "held to be true"

<Hermit> When being pedantic?

<Hermit> Or would you say that only when saying something "I hold it true that all men have a right to be happy"?

<LuciferAFK> When being pendantic you would have to say they orbit each other

<Hermit> BTDT

<LuciferAFK> ?

<Hermit> Been there done that

<LuciferAFK> I know what it means

<LuciferAFK> I don't know why you said it

<Hermit> Orbit each other.

<LuciferAFK> Is that not correct?

<Hermit> Yes, of course it is correct.

<LuciferAFK> Did you not specify "when being pendantic"?

<Hermit> That is a perfect example of pedantry.

<Hermit> I've used it too.

<LuciferAFK> Crips, I was just trying to answer your goddamn question


Last edited on Wednesday, September 3, 2003 1:59:16 pm.