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

by dhw, Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 13:10 (5049 days ago) @ David Turell

MATT: If we want a simplified version of belief, how about this: Acceptance of a claim?-DHW: I am not after a simplified version. I am after a definition that will fit all varieties of belief, will be clearly distinguishable from knowledge, and will cover the element of subjectivity that is integral to all beliefs.-MATT (to David): Would you be willing to settle on belief as just being "acceptance of a claim?" It's as bare bones as it gets...-DAVID: You are right, the barest of bones, but it does fit in with the implication that a 'claim' is never proof, and on that basis it works.-I am not after the barest of bones. See above for what I am after.-In my post of 25 January at 09.24 I explained what I thought this thread was meant to achieve and what I thought we had already achieved so far. Following on from previous posts in which we sorted out the problem of levels (common sense v. philosophical), the gap between knowledge and truth, and the distinction between knowledge and belief (though we still don't agree on a definition), in my post of 24 January at 20.07 I attempted to enumerate the various foundations of belief. I thought this was the purpose of establishing an epistemological framework.-I don't really mind if you are happy with "acceptance of a claim". For me it conjures up the world of the gold rush, property law and insurance. But if we are trying to clarify distinctions, I don't find it very helpful. You had agreed to my definition of knowledge as "possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it." Does "acceptance of a claim" establish a clear distinction? Not for me. Again, see my first response quoted above. "Possession of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it" simply seems to me to be clearer, and I still don't understand why you object. I do remain dissatisfied with "possession", though, and am not convinced by "acceptance" (perhaps it's too passive). As I said in my response to David, I'd like a combination of internalization and stability. But for me this is only a means to an end, the end being to divide up the different components of our epistemological framework. -*** I've just read your latest post on the subject, and will have to leave my response till later.