@@ -188,4 +188,158 @@
<Hermit> Right KidA
<Hermit> I think it is true implies evaluation. I believe it is true implies trust.
+
+...
+
+<rhino> it often has self references
+
+* Hermit nods
+
+<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
+
+* Hermit nods
+
+<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>> http://virus.lucifer.com/sins.html
+
+* Hermit weeps
+
+<Hermit> beliefs
+
+<LuciferAFK> Hermit, read the justification article
+
+<Hermit> Where?
+
+<LuciferAFK> [LuciferAFK] http://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.
+
+* Hermit nods
+
+<LuciferAFK> Using a word which 99.9999% of the world thinks is "unjustified belief" <-- I will concede iff you can support this assertion
+
+* Hermit points back to the dictionary, and the roots of the word and the examples of its use and the repeated assertion that "'scientists' believe" and "I believe" so what is the difference.
+
+<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 shudders.
+
+<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
