Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 22, 2011, 18:11 (5053 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-Indeed as David just pointed out, the main reason I always avoid "belief" is because of its strong connection to faith. This is why in my own framework, I add "Accepted" as an alternative. What comes next modifies my use of this term.-Belief is often used synonymously for faith. I think that we should try to separate these; -Belief encompasses four categories I've identified. -1. Acceptance of a claim without evidence or experience. (Faith) 
"The stars will show me my destiny."-2. Acceptance of a claim by inference or deduction. (Reason) 
"If all goats are bofurs and and all bofurs are yaks, then all goats are yaks."
"When I leave meat out, maggots appear. Therefore meat spontaneously generates maggots." -3. Acceptance of a claim by raw data. (Empirical)
"When I leave meat out, maggots appear." 
"The sun rose yesterday." 
"The car was two meters long."-4. Acceptance of a claim by related experience. (Experiential)
"You have no idea what it feels like to be unloved!"
"You just... you just had to be there!"-I draw a distinction between 2 & 3 to differentiate data or observations from inferences. Though as even my examples point out, it can be difficult not to mix them. But my point is that some claims can be accepted without needing to think deeply about them. (Even though we should...)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"