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
<Lucifer> I no longer agree with the wordying
<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
<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
<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
<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
<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
<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> 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.
<LuciferAFK> Using a word which 99.9999% of the world thinks is "unjustified belief" <-- I will concede iff you can support this assertion
<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> 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