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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 27, 2011, 04:10 (4858 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: "Acceptance of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it." And my own: Acceptance of a claim. 
> To settle fears about this being too simple, lets consider that it is possible to believe something that is known by others, and not yourself. For awhile as an atheist, I believed in evolution, instead of having knowledge about it. 
> 
> ...some BELIEFS connected with the theory of evolution are based partly on KNOWLEDGE...-> ...Second part: knowledge can't be ambiguous if everyone who is aware of the information accepts it as being true! -Any subject on which we have incomplete knowledge I would at the least consider incomplete if not ambiguous. We need a position from which it is safe to launch tentative (and testable!) conclusions. (Accepting) -We might be approaching this from different angles: we can derive any kind of belief from the statement of belief I proposed. We can then build flexible definitions based on the kinds of belief we're talking about. I'm an engineer; it makes more sense to build things with moving parts!-
> 
> MATT: In my personal usage I use the term "accept" as in "I provisionally accept the claim [x] made by consensus," as opposed to "I believe [x]." 
> 
> Personal usage is not an ideal element in an epistemological framework designed to make meanings clear to everyone. There is already confusion here. In your post of 21 January at 14.01, you wrote: "knowledge is a consensus of what we think the truth is" (I don't accept this, by the way), so how in your terms can an "assertion of truth" (your definition of claim) made by consensus relate to belief? In any case, "accept" and "believe" can mean totally different things. "Mr X believes that he is soon going to die" = his conviction that this is so; "Mr X accepts that he is soon going to die" = he's resigned to the fact. I just don't understand your objection to "believe". What's wrong with it in the examples I've given (24 January at 20.07)?
> -You say you don't agree with my definition... but the definition of knowledge we accepted from you is a congruent statement... yes, I am positively confused now! Thinking about what you say here a little more, science operates by consensus. So, scientific knowledge is spurious?-As for what's wrong with it, maybe a negative proof is in order. -There exists a society called "The Flat Earth Society." (No... I'm not making this up!) By your definition of belief, the earth being round becomes a belief--not knowledge--because this other group claims that the world is flat. -We might have to modify our accepted definition of knowledge. Consensus sounds more sane by the minute...-> MATT: If more conciseness is needed, we can modify it.
> 
> Conciseness is not the issue. I'm looking for clarity (see my earlier post).
> -Exactly what is the difference between these words; because a concise claim is necessarily clear! -
> ***I see from your latest post that 1+1=2 counts as a "claim"! So what is your definition of knowledge now? Your definitions may be more concise, but they get more confusing with every post.-I do not mean this statement in a snarky or condescending way, but I don't know where you learned philosophy! The definition I'm using for claim comes right out of a textbook I have on critical reasoning. This was used in an introductory class on logic I took through my college's philosophy dept. Any assertion of truth that a person makes is a claim. -There are inductive claims (Sun will rise tomorrow) and deductive claims. (1+1=2)

--
\"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.\"