Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

On the other hand, I believe the word simply means that a statement or concept is accepted as true, or at least probably true, irrespective of how the believer came to that conclusion. Both carefully analysed scientific theories, and religious concepts accepted purely because they are stated in a book that people say is true, are examples of “beliefs”.

Who is wrong? The Internet, me, or both of us?

everyone is correct

SCIENCE said:

everyone is correct

Seems unlikely.

SCIENCE said:

everyone is correct

+1

Maybe you are getting faith and belief mixed up.

Peak Warming Man said:

Maybe you are getting faith and belief mixed up.

Don’t think so.

Quite possibly the Internet is.

Peak Warming Man said:

Maybe you are getting faith and belief mixed up.

But surely one can have belief in their faith.

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Maybe you are getting faith and belief mixed up.

But surely one can have belief in their faith.

Sure, presumably most people who have faith in something also believe it.

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Maybe you are getting faith and belief mixed up.

But surely one can have belief in their faith.

This could take up all day and I’ve got things to do today.

you know how sometimes people shorten phrases, so “unfounded belief” might become “belief”, it’s not quite synecdoche but it’s semantics, and better than when you morrison phrases

SCIENCE said:

you know how sometimes people shorten phrases, so “unfounded belief” might become “belief”, it’s not quite synecdoche but it’s semantics, and better than when you morrison phrases

But surely when there is an alternative, even shorter single word, that better describes the thing being discussed, it would be better to use that word.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

you know how sometimes people shorten phrases, so “unfounded belief” might become “belief”, it’s not quite synecdoche but it’s semantics, and better than when you morrison phrases

But surely when there is an alternative, even shorter single word, that better describes the thing being discussed, it would be better to use that word.

‘r’ ‘u a linguistic prescriptivist tho’

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

you know how sometimes people shorten phrases, so “unfounded belief” might become “belief”, it’s not quite synecdoche but it’s semantics, and better than when you morrison phrases

But surely when there is an alternative, even shorter single word, that better describes the thing being discussed, it would be better to use that word.

There seems to be a move toward using less accurate words.
e.g. African American meaning black American when the term strictly speaking could mean any American of African heritage.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

On the other hand, I believe the word simply means that a statement or concept is accepted as true, or at least probably true, irrespective of how the believer came to that conclusion. Both carefully analysed scientific theories, and religious concepts accepted purely because they are stated in a book that people say is true, are examples of “beliefs”.

Who is wrong? The Internet, me, or both of us?

The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”.
The truth of the statements in these articles ranges from near zero probability to near 100% probability.
Or in other words, every sentence containing the words “might be” or “could be” is meaningless, worthless.

Another one that hit me recently is the word “validated”. If a sentence in popular text contains the words “has been validated” then it is false.

I assume you’ve come across the word “scientist” as in, for instance, “a scientist says”.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

On the other hand, I believe the word simply means that a statement or concept is accepted as true, or at least probably true, irrespective of how the believer came to that conclusion. Both carefully analysed scientific theories, and religious concepts accepted purely because they are stated in a book that people say is true, are examples of “beliefs”.

Who is wrong? The Internet, me, or both of us?

The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”.
The truth of the statements in these articles ranges from near zero probability to near 100% probability.
Or in other words, every sentence containing the words “might be” or “could be” is meaningless, worthless.

Another one that hit me recently is the word “validated”. If a sentence in popular text contains the words “has been validated” then it is false.

I assume you’ve come across the word “scientist” as in, for instance, “a scientist says”.

If “might” and “could” or not allowed, and “has been validated” is also not allowed, what is allowed?

Do you have some particular comment on the word “scientist”?

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

On the other hand, I believe the word simply means that a statement or concept is accepted as true, or at least probably true, irrespective of how the believer came to that conclusion. Both carefully analysed scientific theories, and religious concepts accepted purely because they are stated in a book that people say is true, are examples of “beliefs”.

Who is wrong? The Internet, me, or both of us?

The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”.
The truth of the statements in these articles ranges from near zero probability to near 100% probability.
Or in other words, every sentence containing the words “might be” or “could be” is meaningless, worthless.

Another one that hit me recently is the word “validated”. If a sentence in popular text contains the words “has been validated” then it is false.

I assume you’ve come across the word “scientist” as in, for instance, “a scientist says”.

Unlike mathematics where a result can be replicated as many times as you wish to calculate, with natural systems there are usually many factors involved and alteration to anyone can alter a conclusion, so unless all factors can be controlled like in a laboratory environment, results cannot be replicated precisely. Even when all facts are thought to be known, others are likely to be found as some stage that will influence the understanding of the situation. Therefore could, might, maybe, likely, unlikely, etc., are necessary terms.

mollwollfumble said:

The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”.
The truth of the statements in these articles ranges from near zero probability to near 100% probability.
Or in other words, every sentence containing the words “might be” or “could be” is meaningless, worthless.

Another one that hit me recently is the word “validated”. If a sentence in popular text contains the words “has been validated” then it is false.

I assume you’ve come across the word “scientist” as in, for instance, “a scientist says”.

As for “belief”, let’s look at the top hits on Google scholar.

• Contemporary Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.
• What is the basis of belief in an era when globalization, multiculturalism and big business are the new religion?
• one of Europe’s foremost contemporary philosophers confronts the theme of faith and religion. He argues that there is a substantial link between the history of Christian revelation and the history of nihilism
• James’s view may be attacked on the flank by arguing that belief is not a matter of the will at all, not under voluntary control. Voluntarism with respect to belief is usually attacked in its naive versions and defended in more sophisticated formulation
• The web of belief. Our word” science” comes from a Latin word for knowledge. Much that we know does not count as science, but this is often less due to its subject matter than to its arrangement. For nearly any body of knowledge that is sufficiently organized to exhibit appropriate evidential …
• Alief and belief. A visitor to these stark and imposing lands of the Hualapai Indians on the western rim of the Grand Canyon knows what sensation is being promised at the journey’s climax.
• This is the third volume in Alvin Plantinga’s trilogy on the notion of warrant, which he defines as that which distinguishes knowledge from true belief. In this volume, Plantinga examines warrant’s role in theistic belief, tackling the questions of whether it is rational.
• In this paper I will present a puzzle about names and belief. A moral or two will be drawn about some other arguments that have occasionally been advanced in this area, but my main thesis is a simple one: that the puzzle is a puzzle.
• I shall do four things in this paper. First, I shall propose a certain theory of the semantics of belief ascriptions as being the best theory of their semantics relative to a certain assumption.
• Belief de re. Interest in de re belief during this half-century was kindled by WV Quine, who focused inquiry on the problem of quantification into belief contexts.
• The aim of this paper is to sketch a theory of justified belief. What I have in mind is an explanatory theory, one that explains in a general way why certain beliefs are counted as justified and others as unjustified.
• Legend and Belief is a descriptive and analytical study of the legend, the most prolific and characteristic form of folklore in contemporary Western civilization.
• Illogical belief. My purpose here is to present a defense against some criticisms that have been leveled against various doctrines and theses I advanced in Frege’s Puzzle.
• Impassioned Belief presents an original expressivist theory of normative judgments. According to his Ecumenical Expressivism normative judgements are hybrid states partly constituted by ordinary beliefs and partly constituted by desire-like states.
• Beyond Belief collects fifteen celebrated, broadly ranging essays in which Robert Bellah interprets the interplay of religion and society in concrete contexts from Japan to the Middle East to the United States.
• Belief, truth and knowledge. A wide-ranging study of the central concepts in epistemology-belief, truth and knowledge. Professor Armstrong offers a dispositional account of general beliefs and of knowledge of general propositions. Belief about particular matters of fact are described as structures in the …
• The relationship of national images to international conflict is clear: decision-makers act upon their definition of the situation and their images of states-others as well as their own. These images are in turn dependent upon the decision-maker’s belief system.
• Belief in the law of small numbers. Reports that people have erroneous intuitions about the laws of chance. In particular, they regard a sample randomly drawn from a population as highly representative, Ie, similar to the population in all essential characteristics. The prevalence of the belief …

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

On the other hand, I believe the word simply means that a statement or concept is accepted as true, or at least probably true, irrespective of how the believer came to that conclusion. Both carefully analysed scientific theories, and religious concepts accepted purely because they are stated in a book that people say is true, are examples of “beliefs”.

Who is wrong? The Internet, me, or both of us?

There you go. That answers your question.

Religion works like drug addiction, gives you a pleasure response that compromises rational thought and gives a withdrawal if you stop going.
I mean if you look at them from an observational point of view they are all absurd, self contradictory and border on fantasy
Modern fiction is more fleshed out than religious texts

I prefer to keep the words “belief/believe” for religious stuff. For science stuff, I like “it is my understanding”. That way you are presently your interpretation. Because belief is belief and understanding is something else (and modifiable).

buffy said:

I prefer to keep the words “belief/believe” for religious stuff. For science stuff, I like “it is my understanding”. That way you are presently your interpretation. Because belief is belief and understanding is something else (and modifiable).

I suppose that it is in the delivery that becomes the perception.
Because it is the listener who may interpret things differently.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”.
The truth of the statements in these articles ranges from near zero probability to near 100% probability.
Or in other words, every sentence containing the words “might be” or “could be” is meaningless, worthless.

Another one that hit me recently is the word “validated”. If a sentence in popular text contains the words “has been validated” then it is false.

I assume you’ve come across the word “scientist” as in, for instance, “a scientist says”.

As for “belief”, let’s look at the top hits on Google scholar.

• Contemporary Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.
• What is the basis of belief in an era when globalization, multiculturalism and big business are the new religion?
• one of Europe’s foremost contemporary philosophers confronts the theme of faith and religion. He argues that there is a substantial link between the history of Christian revelation and the history of nihilism
• James’s view may be attacked on the flank by arguing that belief is not a matter of the will at all, not under voluntary control. Voluntarism with respect to belief is usually attacked in its naive versions and defended in more sophisticated formulation
• The web of belief. Our word” science” comes from a Latin word for knowledge. Much that we know does not count as science, but this is often less due to its subject matter than to its arrangement. For nearly any body of knowledge that is sufficiently organized to exhibit appropriate evidential …
• Alief and belief. A visitor to these stark and imposing lands of the Hualapai Indians on the western rim of the Grand Canyon knows what sensation is being promised at the journey’s climax.
• This is the third volume in Alvin Plantinga’s trilogy on the notion of warrant, which he defines as that which distinguishes knowledge from true belief. In this volume, Plantinga examines warrant’s role in theistic belief, tackling the questions of whether it is rational.
• In this paper I will present a puzzle about names and belief. A moral or two will be drawn about some other arguments that have occasionally been advanced in this area, but my main thesis is a simple one: that the puzzle is a puzzle.
• I shall do four things in this paper. First, I shall propose a certain theory of the semantics of belief ascriptions as being the best theory of their semantics relative to a certain assumption.
• Belief de re. Interest in de re belief during this half-century was kindled by WV Quine, who focused inquiry on the problem of quantification into belief contexts.
• The aim of this paper is to sketch a theory of justified belief. What I have in mind is an explanatory theory, one that explains in a general way why certain beliefs are counted as justified and others as unjustified.
• Legend and Belief is a descriptive and analytical study of the legend, the most prolific and characteristic form of folklore in contemporary Western civilization.
• Illogical belief. My purpose here is to present a defense against some criticisms that have been leveled against various doctrines and theses I advanced in Frege’s Puzzle.
• Impassioned Belief presents an original expressivist theory of normative judgments. According to his Ecumenical Expressivism normative judgements are hybrid states partly constituted by ordinary beliefs and partly constituted by desire-like states.
• Beyond Belief collects fifteen celebrated, broadly ranging essays in which Robert Bellah interprets the interplay of religion and society in concrete contexts from Japan to the Middle East to the United States.
• Belief, truth and knowledge. A wide-ranging study of the central concepts in epistemology-belief, truth and knowledge. Professor Armstrong offers a dispositional account of general beliefs and of knowledge of general propositions. Belief about particular matters of fact are described as structures in the …
• The relationship of national images to international conflict is clear: decision-makers act upon their definition of the situation and their images of states-others as well as their own. These images are in turn dependent upon the decision-maker’s belief system.
• Belief in the law of small numbers. Reports that people have erroneous intuitions about the laws of chance. In particular, they regard a sample randomly drawn from a population as highly representative, Ie, similar to the population in all essential characteristics. The prevalence of the belief …

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

On the other hand, I believe the word simply means that a statement or concept is accepted as true, or at least probably true, irrespective of how the believer came to that conclusion. Both carefully analysed scientific theories, and religious concepts accepted purely because they are stated in a book that people say is true, are examples of “beliefs”.

Who is wrong? The Internet, me, or both of us?

There you go. That answers your question.

Does it?

What was the answer?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”.
The truth of the statements in these articles ranges from near zero probability to near 100% probability.
Or in other words, every sentence containing the words “might be” or “could be” is meaningless, worthless.

Another one that hit me recently is the word “validated”. If a sentence in popular text contains the words “has been validated” then it is false.

I assume you’ve come across the word “scientist” as in, for instance, “a scientist says”.

As for “belief”, let’s look at the top hits on Google scholar.

• Contemporary Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.
• What is the basis of belief in an era when globalization, multiculturalism and big business are the new religion?
• one of Europe’s foremost contemporary philosophers confronts the theme of faith and religion. He argues that there is a substantial link between the history of Christian revelation and the history of nihilism
• James’s view may be attacked on the flank by arguing that belief is not a matter of the will at all, not under voluntary control. Voluntarism with respect to belief is usually attacked in its naive versions and defended in more sophisticated formulation
• The web of belief. Our word” science” comes from a Latin word for knowledge. Much that we know does not count as science, but this is often less due to its subject matter than to its arrangement. For nearly any body of knowledge that is sufficiently organized to exhibit appropriate evidential …
• Alief and belief. A visitor to these stark and imposing lands of the Hualapai Indians on the western rim of the Grand Canyon knows what sensation is being promised at the journey’s climax.
• This is the third volume in Alvin Plantinga’s trilogy on the notion of warrant, which he defines as that which distinguishes knowledge from true belief. In this volume, Plantinga examines warrant’s role in theistic belief, tackling the questions of whether it is rational.
• In this paper I will present a puzzle about names and belief. A moral or two will be drawn about some other arguments that have occasionally been advanced in this area, but my main thesis is a simple one: that the puzzle is a puzzle.
• I shall do four things in this paper. First, I shall propose a certain theory of the semantics of belief ascriptions as being the best theory of their semantics relative to a certain assumption.
• Belief de re. Interest in de re belief during this half-century was kindled by WV Quine, who focused inquiry on the problem of quantification into belief contexts.
• The aim of this paper is to sketch a theory of justified belief. What I have in mind is an explanatory theory, one that explains in a general way why certain beliefs are counted as justified and others as unjustified.
• Legend and Belief is a descriptive and analytical study of the legend, the most prolific and characteristic form of folklore in contemporary Western civilization.
• Illogical belief. My purpose here is to present a defense against some criticisms that have been leveled against various doctrines and theses I advanced in Frege’s Puzzle.
• Impassioned Belief presents an original expressivist theory of normative judgments. According to his Ecumenical Expressivism normative judgements are hybrid states partly constituted by ordinary beliefs and partly constituted by desire-like states.
• Beyond Belief collects fifteen celebrated, broadly ranging essays in which Robert Bellah interprets the interplay of religion and society in concrete contexts from Japan to the Middle East to the United States.
• Belief, truth and knowledge. A wide-ranging study of the central concepts in epistemology-belief, truth and knowledge. Professor Armstrong offers a dispositional account of general beliefs and of knowledge of general propositions. Belief about particular matters of fact are described as structures in the …
• The relationship of national images to international conflict is clear: decision-makers act upon their definition of the situation and their images of states-others as well as their own. These images are in turn dependent upon the decision-maker’s belief system.
• Belief in the law of small numbers. Reports that people have erroneous intuitions about the laws of chance. In particular, they regard a sample randomly drawn from a population as highly representative, Ie, similar to the population in all essential characteristics. The prevalence of the belief …

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

On the other hand, I believe the word simply means that a statement or concept is accepted as true, or at least probably true, irrespective of how the believer came to that conclusion. Both carefully analysed scientific theories, and religious concepts accepted purely because they are stated in a book that people say is true, are examples of “beliefs”.

Who is wrong? The Internet, me, or both of us?

There you go. That answers your question.

Does it?

What was the answer?

There was a lot to consider.
Not that it made finding an answer any easier.

buffy said:

I prefer to keep the words “belief/believe” for religious stuff. For science stuff, I like “it is my understanding”. That way you are presently your interpretation. Because belief is belief and understanding is something else (and modifiable).

Well that seems to be the common usage on the Internet, but I don’t see that distinction in the dictionary definitions for the word, and I don’t see the resaon to assign that meaning to the word “belief” when there is a perfectly good word that has that meaning by definition (“faith”).

consider belief for a moment to be like the sensation of the color red, experience of, even if you don’t have a word for the color red

clearly the work of the bulb on the shoulders can incline a sensation of red viewing whatever apparently red object, even though no such color (as experienced) exists

from that above i’d suggest beliefs can exist with no language at all, and be both correct and incorrect simultaneously

transition said:

consider belief for a moment to be like the sensation of the color red, experience of, even if you don’t have a word for the color red

clearly the work of the bulb on the shoulders can incline a sensation of red viewing whatever apparently red object, even though no such color (as experienced) exists

from that above i’d suggest beliefs can exist with no language at all, and be both correct and incorrect simultaneously

But if you had no language, how could you know the colour was called red?

>Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

i’m thinking propositional attitude or something, i’d better look it up…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_attitude

“A propositional attitude is a mental state held by an agent toward a proposition.

Linguistically, propositional attitudes are denoted by a verb (e.g. “believed”) governing an embedded “that” clause, for example, ‘Sally believed that she had won’.

Propositional attitudes are often assumed to be the fundamental units of thought and their contents, being propositions, are true or false from the perspective of the person. An agent can have different propositional attitudes toward the same proposition (e.g., “S believes that her ice-cream is cold,” and “S fears that her ice-cream is cold”).

A number of software systems are now available to simulate propositional attitudes for industrial purposes, for customer relation management systems, decision support and content generation (Galitsky 2012).

Propositional attitudes have directions of fit: some are meant to reflect the world, others to influence it.

One topic of central concern is the relation between the modalities of assertion and belief, perhaps with intention thrown in for good measure. For example, we frequently find ourselves faced with the question of whether or not a person’s assertions conform to his or her beliefs. Discrepancies here can occur for many reasons, but when the departure of assertion from belief is intentional, we usually call that a lie.

Other comparisons of multiple modalities that frequently arise are the relationships between belief and knowledge and the discrepancies that occur among observations, expectations, and intentions. Deviations of observations from expectations are commonly perceived as surprises, phenomena that call for explanations to reduce the shock of amazement”

>The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”

perhaps used to mean consider the possibility of, which of some articles may be better said entertain the possibility of, and there’s probably a difference if one wanted, though discerning that difference may not serve pop science very well

sometimes I read things, I entertain the possibility I understand whatever, then that evolves to consider the possibility, even likelihood I don’t understand much of whatever at all

so might and could may serve as a hook of sorts, to get a reader interested, a license to speculate of something more, to make that layman contribution, to participate, the call to the citizen scientist, space for an idiot to have an idea, experience the intellectual elevation, encouragements that way

transition said:

>The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”

perhaps used to mean consider the possibility of, which of some articles may be better said entertain the possibility of, and there’s probably a difference if one wanted, though discerning that difference may not serve pop science very well

sometimes I read things, I entertain the possibility I understand whatever, then that evolves to consider the possibility, even likelihood I don’t understand much of whatever at all

so might and could may serve as a hook of sorts, to get a reader interested, a license to speculate of something more, to make that layman contribution, to participate, the call to the citizen scientist, space for an idiot to have an idea, experience the intellectual elevation, encouragements that way

Here’s an example of what transition is saying: “entertain the possibility of” and “a hook of sorts. to get the reader interested:”.

transition said:

>Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

i’m thinking propositional attitude or something, i’d better look it up…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_attitude

“A propositional attitude is a mental state held by an agent toward a proposition.

Linguistically, propositional attitudes are denoted by a verb (e.g. “believed”) governing an embedded “that” clause, for example, ‘Sally believed that she had won’.

Propositional attitudes are often assumed to be the fundamental units of thought and their contents, being propositions, are true or false from the perspective of the person. An agent can have different propositional attitudes toward the same proposition (e.g., “S believes that her ice-cream is cold,” and “S fears that her ice-cream is cold”).

A number of software systems are now available to simulate propositional attitudes for industrial purposes, for customer relation management systems, decision support and content generation (Galitsky 2012).

Propositional attitudes have directions of fit: some are meant to reflect the world, others to influence it.

One topic of central concern is the relation between the modalities of assertion and belief, perhaps with intention thrown in for good measure. For example, we frequently find ourselves faced with the question of whether or not a person’s assertions conform to his or her beliefs. Discrepancies here can occur for many reasons, but when the departure of assertion from belief is intentional, we usually call that a lie.

Other comparisons of multiple modalities that frequently arise are the relationships between belief and knowledge and the discrepancies that occur among observations, expectations, and intentions. Deviations of observations from expectations are commonly perceived as surprises, phenomena that call for explanations to reduce the shock of amazement”

Yes. Acceptance, for now..
Belief doesn’t state that it cannot change. It is simply the current status.
Faith is something that changes far less easily.
We have faith in a belt drive right up to the point when it fails.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”

perhaps used to mean consider the possibility of, which of some articles may be better said entertain the possibility of, and there’s probably a difference if one wanted, though discerning that difference may not serve pop science very well

sometimes I read things, I entertain the possibility I understand whatever, then that evolves to consider the possibility, even likelihood I don’t understand much of whatever at all

so might and could may serve as a hook of sorts, to get a reader interested, a license to speculate of something more, to make that layman contribution, to participate, the call to the citizen scientist, space for an idiot to have an idea, experience the intellectual elevation, encouragements that way

Here’s an example of what transition is saying: “entertain the possibility of” and “a hook of sorts. to get the reader interested:”.

While 90% will say WTF is this shit you’be come up with now?

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”

perhaps used to mean consider the possibility of, which of some articles may be better said entertain the possibility of, and there’s probably a difference if one wanted, though discerning that difference may not serve pop science very well

sometimes I read things, I entertain the possibility I understand whatever, then that evolves to consider the possibility, even likelihood I don’t understand much of whatever at all

so might and could may serve as a hook of sorts, to get a reader interested, a license to speculate of something more, to make that layman contribution, to participate, the call to the citizen scientist, space for an idiot to have an idea, experience the intellectual elevation, encouragements that way

Here’s an example of what transition is saying: “entertain the possibility of” and “a hook of sorts. to get the reader interested:”.

chuckle

my evil sense of humor likes the idea humans are mostly water, so they aren’t impossible to drown

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>The one I have trouble with is the science articles which say “might” and “could”

perhaps used to mean consider the possibility of, which of some articles may be better said entertain the possibility of, and there’s probably a difference if one wanted, though discerning that difference may not serve pop science very well

sometimes I read things, I entertain the possibility I understand whatever, then that evolves to consider the possibility, even likelihood I don’t understand much of whatever at all

so might and could may serve as a hook of sorts, to get a reader interested, a license to speculate of something more, to make that layman contribution, to participate, the call to the citizen scientist, space for an idiot to have an idea, experience the intellectual elevation, encouragements that way

Here’s an example of what transition is saying: “entertain the possibility of” and “a hook of sorts. to get the reader interested:”.

chuckle

my evil sense of humor likes the idea humans are mostly water, so they aren’t impossible to drown

all they need is to lose a little air.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

On the other hand, I believe the word simply means that a statement or concept is accepted as true, or at least probably true, irrespective of how the believer came to that conclusion. Both carefully analysed scientific theories, and religious concepts accepted purely because they are stated in a book that people say is true, are examples of “beliefs”.

Who is wrong? The Internet, me, or both of us?

Not all people have a religious or non-religious belief because of a book though. It simply comes down to marrying the mind with the emotional component of humanity and arriving at that individual place of what is the truth for each person.

>Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

that’s sort of the pejorative sense maybe, which raises the question of why it might dominate in returns on search results

and the answer to that is probably because formation of beliefs and negotiations between or of them happen all the time, involves psychology, philosophy, ideology, socialization, cultural influences, politics, goes wide to ideas and views of consciousness even, and conscience, ethics, morality

My father had similar trouble with the word “discrimination”.

It simply means recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

transition said:

>Reading random stuff on the electric internet, it seems to be a widely accepted belief that the word “belief” applies only to statements or concepts that are accepted with little or no rational consideration or evidence.

that’s sort of the pejorative sense maybe, which raises the question of why it might dominate in returns on search results

and the answer to that is probably because formation of beliefs and negotiations between or of them happen all the time, involves psychology, philosophy, ideology, socialization, cultural influences, politics, goes wide to ideas and views of consciousness even, and conscience, ethics, morality

and probably in my use of pejorative there, there is better than a hint of why, because it relates to approval/disapproval