WorkInProgress VectorHermit

Etymology Old English weye, weigh or measure: Old English cennan, to declare. Perception; understanding, Middle English kennen (influenced by Old Norse kenna, to know). Initially introduced on the httpBBS of the httpChurch of Virus in 2005 at http;action=display;threadid=33430;start=0.

Noun 'weyken' (plural weyken)

  1. Data internalized as supportable knowledge with a sustainable provisional truth value ascribed to it through the medium of critical rationalism and reasoning based on intersubjectively verifiable evidence (for example - and ideally, through the scientific method).
  2. :My weyken (based on experience and non-falsification) is that the sun will most probably appear to rise tomorrow.

Collective Noun 'Weyken System'

  1. A group of supported, coherent, related and mutually consistent weyken.

Transitive Verb

to 'weyken' (third-person singular simple present 'weyken', present participle 'weykening', simple past 'weykened', past participle 'weykened')

  1. To provisionally assign a truth value to a reasonably supported proposition.
  2. :After examination, I 'weyken' these numbers fairly represent the accounts.
  3. To provisionally assign the likelihood of a predictable event
  4. :Based on the meteorological indicators, I 'weyken' there is a likelihood of rain tomorrow.
  5. To determine, based on evidence the likelihood that someone is telling the truth.
  6. :After hearing your witnesses on this matter, I 'weyken' you are correct when you say that.

Intransitive Verb

  1. to 'weyken' (third-person singular simple present 'weykens', present participle 'weykening', simple past 'weykened', past participle 'weykened')
  2. To engage in the process of 'weyken'.
  3. :After reviewing the critique, I 'weykened'.

Adjective 'weyken'

  1. Describing a cognitive position attained through weyken
  2. :John never having seen an white crow, held the weyken (perspective) that it was possible based on his having seen other albino creatures.

<!--{{wikipedia}} uncomment if you know there is a Wikipedia article-->

Related terms

See Also

belief mappig

Introduced: The Hermit, 2005 April (Letter posted to the BBS follows http;action=display;threadid=33430

See also: belief, acceptance, faith, trust, truth, truth value, Discussion-Lexicon-Belief-2003-09-03

Introductory Letter

Words are important. Every time somebody says something along the lines of, "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow", that somebody appears to provide "supporting evidence" for those who say "I believe in pixies" (or who believe in other wholly imaginary things - like "gods") and expect to be taken seriously. There are, of course, qualitative differences between these classes of statement - Newton's laws underlie the first (no matter how erroneous the concept of "sunrise" may be), while the others are unsupportable in any rational sense. Yet, this distinction is in no way apparent when examining the statements in the absence of knowledge about the process of formulating them. Both classes of statement speak only of belief, and the fact that the value of the conclusions and the methods of deriving these conclusions are completely different, is occluded by this word. For example, when the physicist "believes that general relativity remains a competent model" and the biologist "believes that the process of evolution is best explained by Darwin’s theory", the layman cannot distinguish these "beliefs” or, more accurately, the process that lead to these statements from, e.g. the "distinguished scientist” (probably, but not necessarily propounding out-of-field), or "world leader" (as if this were a qualification) who "believes in God", "believes in Creationism", or worse yet, believes in "Intelligent Design*".

This overloaded usage appears a primary cause of the general confusion and equivocation of ideas and values based on reason (e.g. evolution), with those developed through religious, political, social or other strongly held convictions (e.g. creationism). This confusion may not be entirely accidental. Certainly, those who tend to issue statements of the latter class are unlikely to follow the argument that a distinction is necessary, if they understood it, would and quite likely disagree with it, and might strenuously disapprove of an attempt to distinguish between rationally supported and irrational belief. Nevertheless, not entirely irrational people do sometimes think such thoughts and attempt such arguments. For example, this topic was previously discussed on the Church of Virus’ mail list, and "belif" was proposed as a word to describe so called rational beliefs (WikiHelpWanted A link to the discussions with Eric (1998?) would be helpful here). This had the dubious advantage of being an homonym. Dubious because, for people attempting to clarify a confusion of concepts, a homonym perpetuating and disguising the distinction - at least in verbal communication - and possibly taken as mere erroneous usage in written form, appears less than clear at best - and distinctly disingenuous at worst (almost as bad as "Intelligent Design"). At any rate, despite the merits of the suggestion, the concept never seems to have taken off in any major way - even on the Church of Virus. Yet, the challenge appears to be extant, and the need for a more narrowly defined word readily apparent once we grant that this is, at least potentially, a problem. Any observation of people will show that our conversations and discourse are punctuated by our beliefs, both in fact and in usage. Unfortunately, which class of "belief" is almost invariably left ambiguous.

Nevertheless, if we are to discuss issues rationally, whether of philosophy and religion or of science and current affairs - or indeed of anything else, unequivocating our usage of belief is important so as to allow others the ability to assess the value of our assertions based on the process involved in reaching our conclusions. Clearly it is up to those of us who find buried equivocations distasteful to find a palatable solution for our own use, and to be careful to use it only in appropriate contexts; those who disagree that this would be helpful are unlikely to offer their willing cooperation in the process.

Perhaps "Weyken" might be a suitable alternative to "belief". Weyken is a composite word based on Old English weye to weigh or measure and Middle English's kennen influenced by the Old Norse kenna, 'to know' as well as Old Enlish's cennan, 'to declare perception; understanding' and meaning, "Data internalized as supportable knowledge with a sustainable provisional truth value ascribed to it through the medium of reasoning based on evidence (for example - and ideally, through the scientific method)."

Weyken will hopefully have a more general appeal than belif - which did little to differentiate itself from its murkier origins except to assert the belif that a rational belif was superior to an irrational belief. An argument that even belif's most ardent supporter's apparently have not found sufficiently persuasive to cause them to adopt it in general usage.

Weyken can and should be viewed as a direct replacement for the words "believe", "belief" and "belief system" only when used in circumstances where the belief asserted to is a consequence of the application of reason, preferably formal and defensible (as in the scientific method), indubitably only when the proposer is prepared to explain and defend the rationality of the processes used, and most particularly when the reasoning results from rational evaluation of all available evidence for the truth value of the proposition in question. In other words, weyken provides a new word to separate the overloaded concepts of "accepting as true in consequence of evaluation" and "accepting as true in the absence of evidence, or in the face of the evidence" carried by "belief." The hope is that the embedded etymological cues will suffice to remind proponents of the careful use of words to use the term effectively. The anticipation is that with appropriate usage, this word ought to replace belief for the process of concluding as a consequence of evaluation of evidence in fairly short order, being so very much more specific and appropriate - even if the users of belief cling to the more general usage. Such legacy use, and it arises, will only serve to invalidate the equivocation and highlight the ambiguity fundamental to the confusion required to camouflage the unsupportable.


Refer the wiki of the Church of Virus at http for a formal definition of "weyken".

http"Mailing List / Memetics / Re: Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word?", Hermit, 2006-09-13

Words are ultimately either self-fulfilling or irrelevant. If sufficient people come to agree that 'weyken' has utility, then this will, in and of itself, ensure wider awareness and thus adoption of 'weyken' as a well-defined word. Please note that the usage of a word in the public record, or appearance in "published" works is what is required to guarantee its inclusion in dictionaries. Refer, e.g. http I and the editors of wiktionary currently disagree on the utility and attested status of 'weyken'. I am, for a number of mutually reinforcing forms, convinced that others will eventually come to agree with me:

      First, necessity. I think that if civilisation does not come to a brutish end in the near future, that "weyken" or some other word indicating the same thing (in other words denoting deliberation as a cause for assigning a positive truth value and excluding irrational "belief), will eventually make the cut into general usage. If there is actually anything in the value of having a particular word to unambiguously mean a particular thing (and the history of language suggests to me that this is the case), then this is a desperately needed word. Without 'weyken' or its equivalent, whether deliberately or through happenstance, the fantastic 'beliefs' of lunatics, idiots and the deluded are indistinguishable from the rather differently derived 'beliefs' of scientists and philosophers; at least in the absence of careful examination of frequently inadequately provided context, subject, and speaker as well as the often limited (if not entirely absent) capacity for critical discernment held by the evaluator.
      Secondly, aside from the "argument from necessity", there is also the "argument from use." I am personally aware of the following general usage:
          o A large number of people who helped post-Katrina in New Orleans (engineering, military and insurance) who worked with me there are familiar with and using the word. This includes its use in a number of official reports which should make it into the public record at some time.
          o I have used it, and defined it, during the course of providing expert witness testimony, making it part of court records. I will continue to do this. Hopefully this will eventually be picked up by Google.
      Thirdly, it will almost certainly make it into print in the medium term. Certainly if, as seems quite likely, I publish more books or refereed articles, I will almost certainly include 'weyken' on the grounds that I know of no other word which conveys the concept of "Data internalized as supportable knowledge with a sustainable provisional truth value ascribed to it through the medium of critical rationalism and reasoning based on evidence (for example - and ideally, through the scientific method)" - meaning that - like any useful word, a large number of other words, many of them having 'subject specific technical connotations', are required to convey its precise meaning. Having a single word to express this important concept, means not only that one can avoid such lengthy discourse and pedantic definition excluding the common meaning of 'near synonyms', but the very existence of a word for such "critical rational evaluation based on evidence" forces recognition of the fact that the closest existing English words: 'belief'; 'think'; and 'recognize', do not, by any manner of means, even denote the process of determining why something is regarded by the utterer as being probably true, let alone providing any indication of conscious evaluation. While I grant that a rational person could quite legitimately not see the requirement for a word such as 'weyken', I think that even they will acknowledge that the only people to whom the existing confusion can possibly be advantageous are the aforementioned "lunatics, idiots and the deluded."

I hope this addresses, at least on a temporary basis, your concern. Ultimately, the question of whether the need for such a word exists, and if the need exists, if 'weyken' is that word, will be decided by our successors. As I assert myself to consider ontology and accurately communicated 'meaning' significant, I have carefully adopted 'weyken' to fill what I perceive as a communication (and critical conceptual) gap. Given that the usage of "lunatics, idiots and the deluded" is unlikely to change if it shows them at a disadvantage, it will clearly have to be those to whom accurate communication matters, who will have to change theirs, if they agree with me about its importance. So far, this has frequently proven to be the case. Whether or not 'weyken' succeeds, as I suspect it will, I have at least 'nailed my colors to the mast'. Should you agree with me, all you need to do is to continue to use it. Such use will help to legitimize it.

http"Mailing List / Memetics / Re: Weyken, a bright, shiny and needed word?", Hermit, 2006-10-26 This gem, from httpChurch of Virus BBS, General, Serious Business, The Stealth Holocaust - Genocide of the Gaps, Reply 3, Blunderov, 2006-10-26, where he quotes,, may be enough to convince those who argue that the use of one word to mean two completely different things, to the exclusive benefit of propagation for the belief-systems of one set of users, to reconsider their position.

"Only a society of numbed-out, reality-adverse imbeciles could believe[1] in the existence of smart bombs. In a related matter, recent public opinion surveys have revealed close to seventy percent of the population of the United States does not believe[2] in the Theory of Evolution, yet believes[3] that a mythological character called Satan is a literal entity.

[1] The "belief" intended here represents a deliberate, dualistic usage, deliberately conflating both meanings of "belief", as a "rational belief" (or as we advocate a rational person should say, "weyken", meaning not just "rational", but reasonable to accept because of the use of a particular methodology to evaluate all of the available facts in order to reach a particular sustainable conclusion), and "irrational belief" (which, given that the "believer" whose ability to propagate his "beliefs" depends to an extent on this confusion will not change, should be left as "belief"). On the one hand, the term "smart bombs", while an oxymoron, has a compelling impact (especially as they detonate) which cannot be denied, and so must be accepted, in other words, "rational belief"; on the other, the implied idea established by the phrase "smart bomb", that a bomb can be smart enough to kill only the guilty and not harm the innocent is clearly erroneous, and acceptance of this implied concept requires "irrational belief."

[2] The theory of evolution is a strong scientific theory which postulates the mechanism explaining the observation that in any population, allele frequencies change over time. The theory of evolution does not require "belief" to accept it, merely the capacity to evaluate its ability to explain and predict, the lack of any other theory providing similar explanatory and predictive capability, and the willingness to accept that which is supported by this investigation as true. So because "belief" is not required, "rational belief" is intended and given that the process to establish that the "rational belief" is indeed rational is that defined by "weyken", that the use of "weyken" is appropriate.

[3] This "belief" in a mythical being requires the suspension of evaluation, and the willingness to accept that which is not, as nevertheless somehow being. For the "believer", there is no difference between a "real person" and "Satan"; for some believers, when they munch on the communion wafer, the "miracle of transubstantiation" really does change it into "the body of christ" and they really, truly, are cannibals. These "beliefs" clearly are not supported by anything which a rational person would accept as "reasonable" and so, while the believer may, and probably does reject the label of his "belief" as "irrational", are examples of "irrational beliefs".

Clearly, it is only because the rational person does not differentiate between the different classes of belief, that the believer can conflate these two completely different meanings of "belief". In other words, it is only because the two classes are not differentiated that the believer can say, but why is "your belief" in the theory of evolution "better" than my belief in Satan. And it is only because rational people use the same word to describe a conclusion reached by two completely different processes that this conflation puts them on the awkward spot of having to try to explain why the two "beliefs" are different. As the believer might say, my beliefs are indistinguishable from yours to me, and seem just as good to me, and 70% of the people around me agree that my beliefs are rational (notice that this is not precisely ad numeram as he is arguing that they agree that he is rational, not that what he believes is true), so I think that you are the one being irrational here. In this way, correct or not, the ability to make this argument appears to help those defined by their "beliefs" as "believers" in propagating their worldview.

So we have seen how the confusion above helps the propagation of irrational ideas. The use of "weyken" for "belief", when and only "weyken" is meant, seems to shut this door.

The challenge to a rational person taking the other side in this discussion, arguing that a new word is not needed to separate belief and weyken, is to attempt to explain how the confusion of "belief" (reached through acceptance or "irrational belief"), with "belief" (weyken, data internalized as supportable knowledge with a sustainable provisional truth value ascribed to it through the medium of critical rationalism and reasoning based on evidence (for example - and ideally, through the scientific method)) benefits the propagation of a rational perspective.

For Virians

If weyken helps us to communicate more effectively, and if it helps us identify and avoid the accidental acceptance of "mystical delusions" by ensuring that they are differentiated from "reasonable delusions" or even "non delusions", then presumably we should adopt weyken without further ado. After all, defining and using weyken seems to be a concrete step towards our goals.

Quoting from our httpweb site, "Virus was originally created to compete with the traditional (irrational) religions in the human ideosphere with the idea that it would introduce and propagate memes which would ensure the survival and evolution of our species. The main advantage conferred upon adherents is Virus provides a conceptual framework for leading a truly meaningful life and attaining immortality without resorting to mystical delusions."

Last edited on Tuesday, July 8, 2014 2:29:11 pm.