The God idea. Argue with this.

[Randorama]

But this is all semantics. They implied believing in God without evidence. Hence no evidence is offered.

If CMoon doesn't believe in God himself then I'm not sure what he is arguing for. If you don't require any evidence then why don't you believe in God yourself? Are you talking about religion in general, like including Buddhism or whatever?

Can't care less about faiths, but the definitions, for the sake of clarity, are the ones which can be found online, as well (yeah, semantics, it pays me the rent among other things). Faith, religion and whatnot: the whole 'zomg I am right because I said so!' strikes me as...wait, it does not strike me at all.

[doctorx0079]

But this is all semantics. They implied believing in God without evidence. Hence no evidence is offered.

If CMoon doesn't believe in God himself then I'm not sure what he is arguing for. If you don't require any evidence then why don't you believe in God yourself? Are you talking about religion in general, like including Buddhism or whatever?

Can't care less about faiths, but the definitions, for the sake of clarity, are the ones which can be found online, as well (yeah, semantics, it pays me the rent among other things). Faith, religion and whatnot: the whole 'zomg I am right because I said so!' strikes me as...wait, it does not strike me at all.

Well I found online definitions. But it's seems Wikipedia and Wiktionary don't quite agree. One problem with just using definitions that are online.

Again, this is getting way off topic.

[RGC]

Well, beliefs by definitions are without evidence [...] It's the typical definition you find in Psychology handbooks, Cognitive sciences literature, etc... A belief can be justified and true, if if it effectively matches fact.

Surely the hidden assumption in the tripartite definition is that justification itself entails evidence, so belief as a whole also entails evidence. Some factor/s must contribute to the fruition of the belief state in order for it to arise and maintain -- I see no reason why those factors should have their roots purely in what is currently scientifically observable. I'd argue therefore that Faith is certainly belief without scientific evidence, but not belief without evidence per se. Yes, I realise this is nitpicking.

Also, am I the only one ("it's just you...it's just you..." ad infinitum) who would hesitate before calling any of these examples of scientific assumptions "beliefs":

-Our senses can tell us about the real world
-The real world exists, [and has order to it]
-The senses of other people can tell us about the real world, and those other people exist.

While ultimately I would have to concede that these are beliefs, I'm still not convinced that scientists must undergo such discreet belief states before their minds can generate hypotheses. To try to capture my discomfort with an analogy: Is belief in the ball entailed by my ability to catch it? Or, is belief in the presence of the ball subsumed by some larger "belief framework" constructed entirely independently from this game of catch? If so, in whose mind does the belief arise, if at all? If we cannot identify at least one mind, do we have the right to continue calling the assumption-of-the-ball a belief?

Ed, you hinted that epistemology directly addresses this unease (or at least that by understanding the concept of epistemology, the problem becomes clear). Could you explain how epistemology tackles this issue of underlying assumption versus discreet belief states?

There may yet be a way to tie this back in with religious beliefs in terms of how they differ from scientific foundational beliefs/assumptions.

[Randorama]

Well I found online definitions. But it's seems Wikipedia and Wiktionary don't quite agree. One problem with just using definitions that are online.

I think Jerry Fodor wrote a paper per day (since he was 2 or something) on beliefs and whatnot. I think that I would skip scanning his works, though.

Surely the hidden assumption in the tripartite definition is that justification itself entails evidence, so belief as a whole also entails evidence. Some factor/s must contribute to the fruition of the belief state in order for it to arise and maintain -- I see no reason why those factors should have their roots in what is currently scientifically observable.

Hence the example of something like Anton's syndrome. People do experience neural activity, but it does not match external input. You can record it as well, but you can't say it matches something 'out there'. Those people do entertain beliefs nonetheless (belief without evidence). In general, one promotes 'beliefs' to knowledge when they turn out to be good explanations of facts (Fodor would call them 'fixated beliefs').

I'd argue therefore that Faith is certainly belief without scientific evidence, but not belief without evidence per se. Yes, I realise this is nitpicking.

In the sense of neural activity, for the lack of a better term? I'd say yes.

While ultimately I would have to concede that these are beliefs, I'm still not convinced that scientists must experience such identifiable belief states before their minds can generate hypotheses. To try to capture my discomfort with an analogy: Is belief in the ball entailed by the ability to catch it?

One does not have a belief by itself but a whole set of 'beliefs', which can 'cash out' as justified if one can catch the ball. It may be that one catches the ball because (ultimately) of the so-called 'cognitively impenetrable' processes (e.g. because we are able to compute the trajectory of the ball enough to catch it and without being able to control this computation), but in practice we actually know something about how these processes and how we process them at a conscious level.

In practice, the set of beliefs turns out to be more reliable than not (say, 'knowledge'), and a lot of fixated beliefs over the century have given us a picture a number of phenomena.

A scientist is usually supposed to absorb a good chunk of 'justified true beliefs' to be able to observe facts and discern relevant ones. If one of them turns out to be false, it can be updated with a true one, though. In practice, once one can fixate some belief and turn it into knowledge (philosophical jargon ftw...), the 'belief problem' becomes solvable somehow, and not a mistery.

Exaggerating a bit, I studied syntax 'believing' in 'movement' of constituents, then i switched to a more modern theory which shows evidence for copying of constituents, not movement. I believed in the former because the evidence I had at hand pointed in that direction.

Upon more exposure, the newer proposal sounded a better explanation with a broader coverage of facts. It might as well as be that right now we know so little of the topic that even this explanation is close to fairy-tales, in terms of validity. Nonetheless, it is not completely made up on the spot and pretty much open to improvements.

[jpj]

You need evidence if you want to convince people who don't already agree with you. If not then fine, do your own thing, as I said before.

what? like this thread?

LOL @ the god idea

argue with this pleaze if you're religious.
You should soon be atheist soon if sane.

[doctorx0079]

You need evidence if you want to convince people who don't already agree with you. If not then fine, do your own thing, as I said before.

what? like this thread?

LOL @ the god idea

argue with this pleaze if you're religious.
You should soon be atheist soon if sane.

There's no evidence here.

Words by themselves aren't evidence. Cite some object or some THING that lends credence to your belief.

[Super Laydock]

You need evidence if you want to convince people who don't already agree with you. If not then fine, do your own thing, as I said before.

what? like this thread?

LOL @ the god idea

argue with this pleaze if you're religious.
You should soon be atheist soon if sane.

I love you too jpj!

Though being absolutely right (prove me wrong, please I beg ya. Someone said tome it is never a good idea to argue with an idiot. If you think I am 1 -no probs with that at all - , then draw your own conclusion), I was a bit too confronting there.

BTW: 9 pages and no need to lock! I luve all of you, yes you theists too!

[jpj]

You need evidence if you want to convince people who don't already agree with you. If not then fine, do your own thing, as I said before.

what? like this thread?

LOL @ the god idea

argue with this pleaze if you're religious.
You should soon be atheist soon if sane.

There's no evidence here.

Words by themselves aren't evidence. Cite some object or some THING that lends credence to your belief.

i think you missed my point yes, you do get the oddball christian preacher, but jews and muslims will virtually never try to convert anyone. and this is very much a two-way street: atheists trying to convert theists. so unless an atheist can "back up" that there is no god, can't they just leave theists alone? (providing they are doing no harm; ie 99.9% of them)

I love you too jpj!

...yeah, but only for my body

and yeah, 9 pages on, i think we're doing alright [/quote]

[Super Laydock]

[quote="jpj
...yeah, but only for my body
[quote]

We agreed not to talk about this in public...

you scoundrel.

[jpj]

i still can't walk straight

[RGC]

While ultimately I would have to concede that these are beliefs, I'm still not convinced that scientists must experience such identifiable belief states before their minds can generate hypotheses. To try to capture my discomfort with an analogy: Is belief in the ball entailed by the ability to catch it?

One does not have a belief by itself but a whole set of 'beliefs', which can 'cash out' as justified if one can catch the ball. It may be that one catches the ball because (ultimately) of the so-called 'cognitively impenetrable' processes (e.g. because we are able to compute the trajectory of the ball enough to catch it and without being able to control this computation), but in practice we actually know something about how these processes and how we process them at a conscious level.

I suddenly realised that a more useful analogy would employ intention to catch the ball as opposed to ability, because of what the latter could imply ("hardwired" computations, and so on). I wanted to capture the idea that conscious attention is turned towards the ball in flight, and raise the question of whether an intentional belief in the ball is a necessary contribution to the overall state one experiences when preparing to catch it. The reason I use this example is because in my scenario time is very much a factor. How many (and what) beliefs would I have time to formulate before the ball hits me square on the nose? Is belief in the existence of the ball really essential over and above things like intending to catch x, deciding which hand to use, etc?

Your explanation of a 'set of beliefs' being cashed out in different ways, rather than discreet beliefs individually formulated on demand, is an interesting proposal. However, it does echo what I said before about a belief in the presence of the ball being subsumed by some larger "belief framework" constructed separately. To push this possibility: how do you define a 'set of beliefs' or a 'belief framework' if not in terms of many discreet beliefs such as a belief in the ball, a belief in the effect of gravitation, etc? If belief sets are determined by a fixation process, surely I wouldn't have time to assimilate a belief in the ball into my personal belief set, not to mention all the other potential beliefs that could arise in that precise instant. In short, a belief in the ball is not entailed by my intention to catch it (at least, not straighforwardly).

Moreover, and to steer this back on topic, how would this apply to beliefs of a scientific or religious nature? If, as you imply, the scientist need not hold the individual belief that, say, reality is ordered (because she only cashes out the beliefs from her set that are required on a day-to-day basis), is it right to say that she holds that particular belief in the first place? I would suggest not. Applying this reasoning to other scientific framework assumptions would mean that it is not necessary for scientists to hold these beliefs either (mentioned earlier):

-Our senses can tell us about the real world
-The real world exists, [and has order to it]
-The senses of other people can tell us about the real world, and those other people exist.

In fact, if the 'belief set' theory applies, it still isn't obvious that these scientific assumptions should be regarded as beliefs at all. I'm still not clear on how a belief that the universe is ordered features in the mind of some unassuming geologist, either as a discreet belief, or as part of a larger belief set.

Are there any givens (in the sense of belief sets) when it comes to monotheistic beliefs? Although the existence of God is the most obvious candidate for a framework assumption, we must remember that the belief in His existence is pretty much centrally rehearsed when the theist engages in his religious work (along with repeating the other core beliefs: God is Good, God is Powerful, God is Love, and so on). Conversely, how often does the scientist chew over his core belief that reality has constant measurable features when it comes to his work? Perhaps this provides a clue towards some of the fundamental differences between scientific and religious beliefs. One implies assumptions running so deep they never need mentioning, and the other indicates beliefs that require a constant airing.

yes, you do get the oddball christian preacher, but jews and muslims will virtually never try to convert anyone. and this is very much a two-way street: atheists trying to convert theists. so unless an atheist can "back up" that there is no god, can't they just leave theists alone? (providing they are doing no harm; ie 99.9% of them)

Shame we can't dump the busybody atheists into an arena with the religious fanatics and watch them fight to the death! (Oh wait, isn't that what's happening?). Atheism must surely be gaining ground in the 'which camp requires most psychiatic care' stakes.

[CMoon]

RE: Science as a set of beliefs.

There is truth to this, but the statement is highly misleading.

Not if you understand what "epistemology" is.

Let's not abuse the definitions of words so horribly that they become meaningless. Epistemology is the term that defines the conflict you're talking about, and the word "belief" should not be falsely accused of having sectarian biases. This is what I believe!

I'm going to have a lot of little quotes because I can't post when I work and now I have a lot to respond to.

Yeah, epistemology. Sorry, I don't want to play over at your house. I've always had quite a bit of problems with the whole philosophy camp mostly because nothing requires evidence, and the proofs are not as solid as something like a geometry proof. I'm not trying to stir everyone up, but I've never found philosophy particularly enlightening because it from my perspective often seems like so much hot air and just endless arguing forever.

Nonetheless, I hold firm, and just saying 'epistemology' doesn't win your point. You need to show me how the faith in a supreme and divine creator is equivalent to a base assumption that the world and our perception of it is real.

As a scientists I would say we can at least gather some evidence to support that one believe we rely on, though clearly somethings will remain black boxes forever.

How on earth that equates to the very nature of faith, where the believing despite evidence is part of what makes up faith, and the believing is a central tenant of your character, whether you will go to heaven or hell, etc.

This to me is like saying 'a good guess' is the same is faith. That the real world is exists is 'a good guess', if it ends up not being true, then oh well. For the Religious person however, faith is not a 'good guess', it is not believe that they've come to just because they think it seems rather likely, or highly probable. God believing folks didn't come to their faith based on probability, so this comparison to me seems nonsense.

Anyway, Ed, I want you to know (if not already obvious) that clearly the philosophy isn't my strong point. I'm an empiricist. And if any of this came off snappy, it wasn't intentional, but I'd like you to try to show me how these two beliefs are the same in some way this stupid old science guy can understand it.

[CMoon]

Re: Chris' post. I think that in general the whole 'the world exists!' idea is a bit irrelevant to what one believes.

Right. I mention this belief in perception and the existence of a 'reality' as the only presuppositions I know of in science. It is true that one can function entirely without these beliefs, and note that the 'dream' is very very consistent, operating as though by natural laws.

In a way, it is really irrelevant as you say, but these are the only 'beliefs' I can think of. In my mind, science is very cynical and skeptical. You are always playing devil's advocate; which is why I want to hear more of how Ed can argue that science and religion are both belief systems. I am imagining this is some sort of philosophical arguments I don't understand.

[CMoon]

But this is all semantics. They implied believing in God without evidence. And they didn't offer any evidence.

You need evidence if you want to convince people who don't already agree with you. If not then fine, do your own thing, as I said before.

but that's just it. I think religion is something either you are raised with OR for some reason with other religious people (or reading spiritual works) you come to a revelation. I do not think it can be come to through evidence, and how terrible if this is true. Should we throw out God because of the fossil record, because of the age of the earth, because of a heliocentric universe? I don't think so.

To take this from another angle, Religion is at its core a spiritual matter (I'll leave the social/cultural aspects alone for now), and there is no way that I know of to investigate spiritual matters. By the very definition we may assume that spiritual phenomena are subjective and non-materialistic. How then are we to have evidence (which by most people's standards IS materialistic) for the spiritual?

Let me ask, and I do not mean this sarcastically, but have you read many spiritual works--not by quacks like new earth creationists, but by inspired religious writers? The little I've read do not speak of evidence. Ever. They speak of personal, subjective revelations which do not lend them self to proof.

If CMoon doesn't believe in God himself then I'm not sure what he is arguing for. If you don't require any evidence then why don't you believe in God yourself? Are you talking about religion in general, like including Buddhism or whatever?

To answer the last question first, I was not raised with religion and have never felt a draw to any particular orthodoxy. When I look at the world and the universe, I see much evidence that could be interpreted both in favor of a universe with a creator, or in favor of a godless universe spun into existence by chance. If one day I find there is a god, I will be both happy and confused--the second because there is of course so much terrible suffering in the world. We've long heard from Christianity that suffering is a burden for all (I'm probably expressing it wrong) but the degree of suffering in the world is well beyond stupid, but can only be taken by a conscious being as obscene. I think Christians might say that this is what mankind has brought upon himself through original sin, but it is impossible for me to believe the God that Christians believe in could idly sit by as so many horrible things happen on earth.

To go to the first part. We all live in a world with plenty of people who don't believe the way we do. You can of course shun or mock them, but many of us have come to live with and respect their views; understanding the strengths of their opinions, even admiring the qualities of a faith we ourselves don't share.

Reading some of the comments (on several boards I visit) that have such arguments as 'prove God does or doesn't exist', I've come to believe that a great deal of Christians and atheists don't seem to understand anything about religion or the nature of faith. I surprisingly find myself offended when people's comments about faith reduce the very notion of spirituality through personal revelation to a set of geometry proofs.

It's an interesting question though. Should we find ourselves defending ideals we ourselves don't share. I can only attribute it to a belief that Christianity and religions do have value (a view not shared by a lot of agnostics) and that understanding the nature of religion and faith is worthwhile.

[Ed Oscuro]

Wrong.
n.

Not really.

Yes, really. All the definition of belief states is that it is a psychological condition, which incidentally is the definition I was working off of. A belief may be false, but by itself the word does not mean that it must be. Since you quoted Wikipedia, the following passages are relevant:

In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief.

See? Scientific knowledge can be held as a true belief. Belief in a sun god is a false belief.

Earlier in the piece:

The relationship between belief and knowledge is subtle.

Relationship, not difference.

Incidentally, CMoon is wrong when he states that I think science is a belief system; it's not. Regardless, one has to believe (a psychological condition) certain premises to be true. This is distinct from having faith in religion, which we all agree is no good.

If somebody wants to argue that faith and belief are the same thing, no, they're not. Wiki again:

Faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth, or in a doctrine that expresses such a truth.

It is not at all the same thing to believe that empiricist science is generally correct based on the evidence of living a modern life, and having blind faith in some proposition or other.

We needed 8 pages just to remind us that religion isn't the problem, mankind is.

I have to agree this is true btw

This is funny coming from you !
You can't really say this and then be against guns.
It's either yes to both or no to both.

Alright. Heh.

Ed, you hinted that epistemology directly addresses this unease (or at least that by understanding the concept of epistemology, the problem becomes clear). Could you explain how epistemology tackles this issue of underlying assumption versus discreet belief states?

In a stunning break from the rest of my post, I was being sloppy here and using epistemology in place of empiricism.

So for that, CMoon and RGC, I apologize. It's pretty evident (now using a better source than Wikipedia!) that pure rationalism has to give way to the facts of empiricism, otherwise the practice of science becomes a useless exercise and we would be able to divine the deepest secrets of the universe simply through reasoning.

To recap:

Belief and faith are two distinct things. Science isn't founded on belief, naturally, but one still must believe the scientific method to be true (or not, if you're a creationist or ID type).

[jpj]

one last point i'd like to make about 'evidence or gfo' or whatever: while *we* don't have evidence, that isn't to say that there hasn't been evidence in the past. if you believe the bible (or moreover, the koran), to be true, then there were all kinds of miracles and acts of god thousands of years ago that were the impotus for these religions to begin with.

[Ed Oscuro]

Epistemology vs. science food fight jpj, eh?

The Bible provides a completely different kind of 'evidence' than science requires, and I imagine one can hold the reverse case true as well.

[CMoon]

Incidentally, CMoon is wrong when he states that I think science is a belief system; it's not. Regardless, one has to believe (a psychological condition) certain premises to be true. This is distinct from having faith in religion, which we all agree is no good.

If somebody wants to argue that faith and belief are the same thing, no, they're not.

Ahhh. I genuinely thought that's what you were arguing.

[Ed Oscuro]

It's a subtle point to be sure. Let's see how long it takes for Rando to come to terms with it

[Michaelm]

We needed 8 pages just to remind us that religion isn't the problem, mankind is.

I have to agree this is true btw

Alright. Heh.

Ok, so mankind is the problem you say.
Then why all this psychology and philosophical talk if mankind IS the problem.
I don't get that. If mankind is the problem then surely we can expect people to start killing or whatever out of philosophical and/or psychological reasons that are said to bring good to a lot of people too.
After all, like monotheism, it isn't the gun that kills people. It's people pulling the trigger.

In normal everyday situations it's considered normal to not give people false hope. But when it comes to something meaningless as you're own life it suddenly becomes irrelevant how fucked up one can become by thinking you will be judged and you desperately want to do the right thing with all the consequences it brings when this problem can be solved so easily over time. Yet I'll be fined when I don't wear my safety belt
Oh wait, Now I see where mankind is the problem

[Ed Oscuro]

I didn't think further discussion on that point is necessary. You have anti- gun and religion views, and I tend to think that while those are bad, people who threaten other peoples' lives over the 'net and try to interject their pet issues into any discussion at hand aren't really part of the solution.

[doctorx0079]

what? like this thread?

There's no evidence here.

Words by themselves aren't evidence. Cite some object or some THING that lends credence to your belief.

i think you missed my point yes, you do get the oddball christian preacher, but jews and muslims will virtually never try to convert anyone. and this is very much a two-way street: atheists trying to convert theists. so unless an atheist can "back up" that there is no god, can't they just leave theists alone? (providing they are doing no harm; ie 99.9% of them)

I love you too jpj!

...yeah, but only for my body

and yeah, 9 pages on, i think we're doing alright

The point of the thread was, Laydock posted some stuff saying God doesn't exist, and wanted you to prove He does. If you don't want to, fine, but wasn't the point of the thread.

And no, I don't love just everybody.

[Michaelm]

I didn't think further discussion on that point is necessary. You have anti- gun and religion views, and I tend to think that while those are bad, people who threaten other peoples' lives over the 'net and try to interject their pet issues into any discussion at hand aren't really part of the solution.

And I hold you so high ?
Eh, I mean hang you so

[doctorx0079]

Okay, so apparently CMoon believes in something he calls revelation, which is something that comes directly into your mind without sense experience. Okay, let's say there is such a thing and you're not on drugs. How can a revelation not connected to sense experience, tell you a damn thing about reality? If I dream that I am falling, that doesn't tell me about reality, since I am not looking at reality.

[jpj]

hm, i'm not sure that's exactly what he said...

[CMoon]

Okay, so apparently CMoon believes in something he calls revelation, which is something that comes directly into your mind without sense experience. Okay, let's say there is such a thing and you're not on drugs.

zOMG! Do you know how many religious people you just dissed?

There's a point I have to ask what your own background is in religion (if you are religious), how much you have read or spoken with people who are religious, etc? I believe to most Christians, their personal relationship they have with God, a subjective experience mind you, is very much central to their faith. You aren't seriously saying you've never heard of this before???

C'mon, where are our Christian posters when we need 'em, somebody help me out.

[doctorx0079]

Okay, so apparently CMoon believes in something he calls revelation, which is something that comes directly into your mind without sense experience. Okay, let's say there is such a thing and you're not on drugs.

zOMG! Do you know how many religious people you just dissed?

There's a point I have to ask what your own background is in religion (if you are religious), how much you have read or spoken with people who are religious, etc? I believe to most Christians, their personal relationship they have with God, a subjective experience mind you, is very much central to their faith. You aren't seriously saying you've never heard of this before???

C'mon, where are our Christian posters when we need 'em, somebody help me out.

Why should we care?

[Ed Oscuro]

:lol:
And I hold you so high ?
Eh, I mean hang you so :P

We can still be friends, right?

The point of the thread was,

Threads often go the way people want them to...I wouldn't worry too much about it

How can a revelation not connected to sense experience, tell you a damn thing about reality? If I dream that I am falling, that doesn't tell me about reality, since I am not looking at reality.

Putting aside the fact that some visions happen (are described as such) in the real world but are considered so extraordinary as to be a sign from above...

If you consider yourself a well-adjusted person, and there's suddenly some sort of revelation (be it a voice in your head or whatever), why would this not seem to be a part of reality? You're here on Earth, and suddenly something happens. It's just coming to you through a different channel than normal experience.

Especially considering that most people don't understand how hallucinations can come about or any of the other complexities of the mind and you see how this works. Interpretation is what sets the religious apart from others, I think.

[doctorx0079]

If you know that you are hallucinating, there is no reason to believe that the hallucinations are anything other than just that.

[Randorama]

See? Scientific knowledge can be held as a true belief. Belief in a sun god is a false belief.

Never said otherwise. Unsurprisingly, I try to constrain hypotheses so that they don't turn into flogista on a daily basis. Is that your case? So far you're entertaining the 'zomg internet wars!' belief. I don't get why (polite for: can you stop with Ego crises? Thanks). Anyway!

The relationship between belief and knowledge is subtle.

The latter is an 'ideal' (in the algebraic sense) of the latter. A psychologist wouldn't differentiate, in general. I am not a psychologist and overall I can safely say that I look for truth-functional pieces of evidence (but here it becomes hair-splitting, at least in my field). I am also not an empiricist/behaviourist, so no constraints from random stimula, as well.

Incidentally, CMoon is wrong when he states that I think science is a belief system; it's not.

In fact, I was talking about Justified True Beliefs, or 'knowledge'. That is, information on which we can be safely sure (or, in case, updated to a more relevant solution). But see below...

Belief and faith are two distinct things. Science isn't founded on belief, naturally, but one still must believe the scientific method to be true (or not, if you're a creationist or ID type).

One does not really need to 'believe' in scientific method, since the method comes with its way of offering proofs (plus or minus various flogista, like empiricism). It comes by itself once you do science, since you can sit down and make experiments (hard-nosed people usually need to see it by themselves...).

Usually when post-modernist creeps argue 'zomg you believe that etc' they are 'right'. Problem is, the belief happens to be right, and the believer happens to be irrelevant. My aboriginal colleagues get my same results even if they are not white (!). A good guess is that a belief which works fine for everyone has some connection with facts. Which one though?...Hence science.

It is also obvious that, if one 'believes' in science (zomg the experiments are right because the teacher said so!) and the flying spaghetti monster, the two things can go along together in one's mind as long as they don't conflict. Dropping false beliefs can be particularly hard (or impossible) in pathological cases (say, Capgras' syndrome, the one posted below), even if they conflict with true ones. That is the way mind seems (not) to work.

A good aneddocte on this comes from something I experienced a while ago. I was listening to a lecture by two big names in a big uni (the biggest, so to speak) and one of the two big names (a psychologist) at some point was analyzing how the boolean type of algebra used in Semantics is different from the Language of Thought of Jerry Fodor.

Problem is, the 'Language of Thought' is that theory which assumes for `thoughts' to be computed via...boolean algebra. This person didn't know that she was basically opposing two theories which were in the end equivalent, and acting upon this belief, she produced a long waffle about how to adjucticate who is right or wrong. Would this be surprising? No, because she didn't know that she was making up a wrong opposition. The other big name also didn't know and didn't correct her (I felt like I was having an hallucination, btw).

One could say: 'but she was saying crap!', true, she also built 20 minutes of waffles on something which wasn't even wrong, to quote Pauli (or Bohr, or whoever). To make matters worse, she wasn't even remotely willing to accept that she got it wrong. Getting tenure in Harvard (whoops!) made her believe that her points were impenetrable to evidence, somehow.

Also, if she were wrong, it was a pretty big risk to be found out. Bashing the student, regardless if he was right or wrong (we were in three, anyway), was a good way to remove the piece of evidence of her incompetence and, in a cruel system like US academia, remove proof that she is not up to the task. What about facts? Well, tenure>>>>facts, of course.

Bottom line: one can have all the neural activity he wants, but there is really no causal activity with things in the world (else Skinner and behaviourists would have been right) on a constant basis. Once one can side-step this problem, it is possible to to fixate 'beliefs' and get knowledge, which in turn is susceptible to updates (otherwise we could do quantum mechanics or neurocognition of language with sticks and stones). It is not an automatic process, actually pretty tricky. I would like to have a penny for every person that writes up 'ehi, but if I throw globalization in, my results are 3% more correct' (eh?).


Sure, beliefs can give us fuzzy feelings, but using fuzzy feelings (...or tenure) is not a particularly good criterium to get it right. Further problem, fuzzy feelings are cognitively impenetrable: it's a tad hard to control them. They are also vastly irrelevant in things objective. Yes, even if they are strongly strong and make you do some good things (saying, helping others because you believe in Lord Kelvin...a good case of the Gettier problem).


Any handbook of Cognitive Science or Psychology has at least a chapter on beliefs, goals, desires, etc...As far as I know, Jerry Fodor (1975) is the first throughout attempt to use these traditional philosophical distinctions in the psychological realm. Alternatively one can look up Pylyshyn (1984,1999,2003,2007). Sorry for not posting links on the intarweb.