ChaoticMindSays wrote:I stand by my statement that beliefs are important. Your statements don't 'prove' anything other than yourspecific definition of the word belief.
There are not only statements but explanations and argumentations.
Persecrates wrote:
IMO, there are no such things as justified (based on some sort of proof or evidence) belief
Chaotic wrote:
"IMO" Exactly. Semantics.
This 'formula' is only used to don't sound condescendant and/or pretentious. And because there is only one knowkledge I'm 100% certain of: The fact that I exist (
cogito ergo sum: Descartes). Then comes what I (quite evryone in fact) call knowledge, truths then, below, are hypotheses, then arguments, then ideas.
If I didn't write 'IMO', you would have said that's just a claim (it is not simply a claim because I argue it logically), as I said 'IMO', you think I believe something...
That is semantics/rhetoric...
Would you prefer I say 'the best hypothesis to this day'? It happens to be only (to the best of my knowledge) developped by me. My hypothesis, then. I argued it at length in many different topics.
Here an example. That's where it really started, in a discussion with Alun in my thread on Atheism (page 5):
Before, I have to give a new yet simple set of definitions to avoid further confusion:
- Idea: A vague interpretation of a phenomenon.
- Hypothesis : "a logically/rationally argued, interpretation of a fact/phenomenon."
- Knowledge : "Cognitively assimilated/integrated fact/information using logic, experience (empirically) and/or scientific method."
- Fact : "Something actual (whose existence has been proven/verified), past or ’present‘."
And Belief: "The acceptance (due to the unconscious and perceived 'need' to satisfy a desire/fear) of an idea/hypothesis as ‘truth’ without the need for/existence of (sufficient) proof."
I won’t get in the debate "Can we (us humans) pretend to know anything, any truth?", here. Still:
Note that acceptance is (beyond its submissive and choice factors) a quite definitive term.
When someone holds a belief it’s pretty difficult to make them doubt about it. And it’s all the more so since a belief doesn’t need reasoning, rational thinking to be formed. It simply needs an idea and a desire for it to be true. This desire can have many reasons/motivations and causes itself but it’s not the point here.
So, to be succinct, I’d say that a belief relies quasi exclusively on subjectivity. I don’t pretend that a human being can attain «complete objectivity». As complete objectivity is not attainable by a being (subject). A subject would need to reach the state of object. (As an object as no mental state by definition.). So, it’ impossible. It’s pure (formal/classical) logic, here.
BUT, we should be able to TRY to be as less subjective as we can. We have tools and methods at our disposal to do so (logic, scientific method…).
We would also, and prior to anything else, use psychoanalysis to understand the reasons/motivations and causes of our desires/fears. As we cannot know if the hypotheses we make are ‘objective’ until we know the reasons(/…) for them to be subjective (I.e. desired/believed) and thought/formulated by us.
I then, propose to limit the definition of belief (as I did). Since we are capable of formulating hypotheses («a logically/rationally argued interpretation of a fact/phenomenon.»), we should do it the most often we can. Hypotheses include facts/proof in their presentation. They are not be confused with knowledge, though. As a knowledge is the resulting information of an hypothesis proved beyond ‘any’ doubt: a fact
It’s laziness and the fear to lose our beliefs that stop us to do so… Or the childish desire to create ideas about events, concepts… when we don’t have enough data to formulate precise, intelligible, logical (therefore meaningful enough) hypotheses.
So, you see, that’s why beliefs have small epistemological or cognitive value/significance.
That’s why we try to form different categories of beliefs (as we already discussed).
To try to give them a status they shouldn’t have. The study of beliefs should strictly be the role of psychology/psychoanalysis not epistemology.
Science (as philosophy, ontology, and ’hard-sciences’ of course) should study hypotheses (that could partly include these «justified» beliefs). Not waste its time in the study of low cognitive value beliefs. (They have a low cognitive value since they are not rationally/logically based and formulated). But, as I said, they have a real psychological/psychoanalytic significance and are worth to be studied. They won’t help us to access ‘external’/exogenous knowledge, but they give us data on what we are.
«Tell me your beliefs (I‘ll try to deduce your desires fears), and I’ll tell you who you are.»
To conclude on this subject, I would like you to consider this:
Knowledge is NOT a subset of belief because an idea doesn’t have to be believed before to become (or not) a knowledge. It’s a misconception, a mistake.
We don’t need to form a belief before to attempt to understand a phenomenon or a concept. To form a belief BEFORE to have sufficient proof can induce mistakes, misunderstanding, denial and ’overlooking’ because you will tend (even unconsciously) to try to prove that your belief is the «right» one.
I think this has LESS probability to happen since we don’t have to invest emotionally in a hypothesis contrary to what we do in a belief (unless we also attach a belief to a hypothesis, of course. Which happen more often than one may think).
In fact, I implicitly state that a belief has not only a different nature than a knowledge, but they are antonymic.
So, I want to CLEARLY (re-)define the concept of belief (and many others but when the technique is understood, others can carry on) and the other ones I evoked. To have a CLEAR set of definitions which are not overlapping one another and have their own distinctive coherent meaning, nature, therefore definition.
All my process is to create/show (onto)logical differences of nature between beliefs, ideas, hypotheses, theories, facts, phenomenon, knowledge…
To redefine all terms (starting with these and (A)theism, Agnosticism because they are at the heart of our thought-process/psyche and lives/behaviors) for them to have a simple clear coherent identified ‘positive’ meaning and nature.
So, step by step, I try to reveal my cognitive/psychological/(onto)logical stance by examples and demonstrations.
My goal is even more ambitious but, again, step by step.
I also demonstrate (using formal logic based on a hypothetical made by Meleagar in Scott's thread
Can knowledge stem from faith? why knowledge cannot stem from belief/faith. Faith is of an identical
nature than belief but have a different
object.
So, please present an argued explanation/demonstration of your stance. Not only claims.
'real'/meaningful outside of Logic.
Persecrates wrote:
No balance can be obtained between emotions/desires/fears/beliefs and logic.
Even if you don't follow along with the mainstream trend the above quotes prove that you have a limited understanding of both logic and what is meaningful outside of logic.
If you say so...
Not everything that is 'meaningful' lies within the constraints of a logical system.
Care to argue this statement? Maybe to demonstrate it?
You see logic/reason as something "wired into our brains", and I see it as something we created.
As wanabe pointed out I think you're confusing the thought process both logical (the cerebro cortex treatment of the information) and emotional/irrational (agmydala, 'reptilian brain'...), with the logical method (classical/formal logic) ised to meaningfully demonstrate propositions (premise, inference and conclusion).
Our brain receive information, and we (our brain) try to interpret them. Logic is already present as this stage as it's inherently the way our brain try to correlate/link/associate the informations we receive to make sense of them. Logic is this physical treatment/categorization... of the data for the purpose to use it.
It's a tool, and there will always be an opportunity to make a better tool.
Maybe... But it's useless to claim that we will find another way to acquire knowledge. Let's use the one we have correctly and to the full before to throw it away...
I think, that the paradigm you're looking for, this different method can come by pushing logic to the limit, if it has limit...
It's like you desire to run before to know how to walk. Yoy (rhetorical, people) barely standing up and you think by simply desiring/believing it you're gonna run... Just like that... Our species is like embryos compare to the age of the universe... Maybe one day our species (or another evolved from ours) will fly, but please, let's concentrate on walking efficiently for now...
Hmm.. consider this. The fact that you put so much faith in your belief of logic has hampered your ability to, "ALWAYS doubt, always try to find counter-arguments to yours". Because you cannot see anything outside of the argument of logic...
You coud have been a Sphist, you use the concets of faith/beliefs when you are the one having faith in the existence of 'another/higher form of cognitive method' without even proving it
could exist...
Again, no beliefs here. I don't that there can't be another more effective/efficient cognitive method, I say it can only come from logic.
You say you have no beliefs, but your definition of beliefs seems to be seriously misconstrued. I don't believe anything to ever be proven, including the systems we use to prove things.
So, why don't you say ' know', instead of I believe then?
And therefor, by your definition of belief, we have to believe in those systems which we use to 'prove' our 'facts'.
Nope. We test them empirically. If thet give satisfaction we keep'em, if they don't we change, try to find better ones.
For now, logic not only give satisfaction but seem to be inherent to our brain structure. So...
Because for me logic is a tool... For you it is a master.
Reality is my master. If logic allows me to interpret it in a way than no other method (if such 'method' exist...) even come close to. Well, I'll use it as my best tool.
'Formal logic' is looked upon as a closed system, there is no room for movement. It is confined by strict rules.. Static. When something becomes static there is always a problem. Becoming static is like becoming stagnate. Dynamic systems are always far superior to static systems, if something cannot change then it cannot adapt.
Maybe formal logic but not logic itself. Logic itself is not a simple method, but an inherent consequence of our brain structure. We cannot decide to change it 'at will', like we can't change the universe (another closed system).
Metaphysics, intuition, experience... are among a few. They may appear to be logical, but that is only because we are trained to look through 'the glasses of logic' when we percieve them.
Metaphysics is the attempt to use Logic to answer question about existence. Metaphysics (philosophers) didn't create logic but discovered the rules of formal/classical logic.
Like physics attempts to discover the laws of the universe, they don't create them. like neuroscience discovered the brain and its role, it didn't create it.
Can our brain (us), supercede what is the
Our very brain, as I try to make you realize function totally logically in a binary fashion. 0/1. There is nothing else. For example, in the process of sending an order to contract muscles through electro-chemical signal, more ones than zeros is what makes us move and vice versa.