Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:59:16 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Produced by PhpWiki 1.3.2-jeffs-hacks)
Content-Type: application/x-phpwiki;
  pagename=Discussion-Lexicon-Belief-2003-09-03;
  flags="";
  author=VectorHermit;
  version=2;
  lastmodified=1062611956;
  author_id=VectorHermit;
  markup=2;
  hits=13568;
  charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

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

* Hermit nods

* Lucifer frowns

<Hermit> Avoiding the problem

<Hermit> Rather than wrestling over it.

<Lucifer> Not really

<Lucifer> Now we have a problem

* Hermit readies hiomself for a wrestlingmatch :-)

<Lucifer> I no longer agree with the wordying

* Shadow has all sorts of problems :-)

<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

* Shadow raises the axe

<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

* Hermit nods

<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

* Hermit nods

<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> http://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

* 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
