There is a letter in the latest New Scientist from someone who says that he doesn’t have beliefs, he has working hypotheses.

It is my belief that the word “belief” and the words “working hypothesis” have very nearly the same meaning.

So if I have some evidence to support some proposition I will believe it, more or less strongly depending on the extent and strength of the evidence. In other words, the proposition will be accepted as a working hypothesis.

What is your belief on this matter?

The Rev Dodgson said:

There is a letter in the latest New Scientist from someone who says that he doesn’t have beliefs, he has working hypotheses.

It is my belief that the word “belief” and the words “working hypothesis” have very nearly the same meaning.

So if I have some evidence to support some proposition I will believe it, more or less strongly depending on the extent and strength of the evidence. In other words, the proposition will be accepted as a working hypothesis.

What is your belief on this matter?

My belief is that it doesn’t matter and that a serious publication should focus on serious, substantive matters.

If it’s his belief that he doesn’t have beliefs, I’d say he’s defining “beliefs” too narrowly.

is believing the same as knowing?

Bubblecar said:

If it’s his belief that he doesn’t have beliefs, I’d say he’s defining “beliefs” too narrowly.

that is still a belief system though and therefore improbable on him to assert as no beliefs.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There is a letter in the latest New Scientist from someone who says that he doesn’t have beliefs, he has working hypotheses.

It is my belief that the word “belief” and the words “working hypothesis” have very nearly the same meaning.

So if I have some evidence to support some proposition I will believe it, more or less strongly depending on the extent and strength of the evidence. In other words, the proposition will be accepted as a working hypothesis.

What is your belief on this matter?

My belief is that it doesn’t matter and that a serious publication should focus on serious, substantive matters.

OK, but clearly it does matter to some people, so I think it is a reasonable topic for a letters page, or even for discussion on this august forum.

I am one of the people who thinks it matters, because when you ascribe particular connotations to a word that affects people’s thinking in any discussion where that word is used.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There is a letter in the latest New Scientist from someone who says that he doesn’t have beliefs, he has working hypotheses.

It is my belief that the word “belief” and the words “working hypothesis” have very nearly the same meaning.

So if I have some evidence to support some proposition I will believe it, more or less strongly depending on the extent and strength of the evidence. In other words, the proposition will be accepted as a working hypothesis.

What is your belief on this matter?

My belief is that it doesn’t matter and that a serious publication should focus on serious, substantive matters.

OK, but clearly it does matter to some people, so I think it is a reasonable topic for a letters page, or even for discussion on this august forum.

I am one of the people who thinks it matters, because when you ascribe particular connotations to a word that affects people’s thinking in any discussion where that word is used.

and thus you both have differing views and belief systems in this moment!! :P

CrazyNeutrino said:

is believing the same as knowing?

No, knowing implies certainty, although in normal usage it is probably closer to having no reasonable doubt, whereas a belief may be on the balance of probabilities.

I’ll accept a working hypotheses if you show me the working.

Ian said:

I’ll accept a working hypotheses if you show me the working.

If we called it a provisional hypothesis, would you demand to see the provisions?

A belief is no,dog a position without evidence

Dropbear said:

A belief is no,dog a position without evidence

Holding, not “no dog”

Dropbear said:

A belief is no,dog a position without evidence

That’s so true.

Faith separates them, a belief system requires a good deal of faith and is mainly found in religion.
A working hypothesis is basically a scientific construct and abides in the world of men.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

I’ll accept a working hypotheses if you show me the working.

If we called it a provisional hypothesis, would you demand to see the provisions?

I am a bit peckish.

dv said:

Dropbear said:

A belief is no,dog a position without evidence

That’s so true.

yes

Dropbear said:

A belief is no,dog a position without evidence

Not necessarily. “Belief” is not that normally narrowly defined. One can no,dog beliefs on the basis of evidence.

“My belief, on the basis of the evidence presented to this court, is that there was no dog, my lord.”

“Belief” is not that normally narrowly defined = not normally that

Bubblecar said:

Dropbear said:

A belief is no,dog a position without evidence

Not necessarily. “Belief” is not that normally narrowly defined. One can no,dog beliefs on the basis of evidence.

“My belief, on the basis of the evidence presented to this court, is that there was no dog, my lord.”

we argue that, in this case the dog is not needed

dv said:

Dropbear said:

A belief is no,dog a position without evidence

That’s so true.

Lol screw you guys, I’m laughing so much it hurts

dv said:

My belief is that it doesn’t matter and that a serious publication should focus on serious, substantive matters.

The magazine in question was New Scientist, not some serious publication.

Dropbear said:

Dropbear said:

A belief is no,dog a position without evidence

Holding, not “no dog”

Well the dictionary says:

“
An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: ‘his belief in extraterrestrial life’

1.1Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion:”

So it may imply absence of evidence, but it may not.

My working hypothesis is that the word should be avoided (like “spirituality”).

But can we come up with a better alternative than “working hypothesis”.

Peak Warming Man said:

Faith separates them, a belief system requires a good deal of faith and is mainly found in religion.
A working hypothesis is basically a scientific construct and abides in the world of men.

I believe that the word is very often used with absolutely no reference to religion.

ol’ has a strong belief about that power of unconcluded unconclusion
paradox and contradiction, why would truth resolve in a few seconds
in a few moment of enthusiastic comprehension of that so appealing

>>But can we come up with a better alternative than “working hypothesis”.<<

I prefer understanding. It is my understanding that….. This is then open to change if you learn more.

buffy said:

>>But can we come up with a better alternative than “working hypothesis”.<<

I prefer understanding. It is my understanding that….. This is then open to change if you learn more.

I formed the opinion that… Or words to that effect.

buffy said:

>>But can we come up with a better alternative than “working hypothesis”.<<

I prefer understanding. It is my understanding that….. This is then open to change if you learn more.

This.
Simple and clear.

Perhaps “understanding” when the evidence seems to be strong, and “opinion” when there is greater doubt.

kii said:

buffy said:

>>But can we come up with a better alternative than “working hypothesis”.<<

I prefer understanding. It is my understanding that….. This is then open to change if you learn more.

This.
Simple and clear.

I read medical journals. You always hedge your bets when you word a paper….

;)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Perhaps “understanding” when the evidence seems to be strong, and “opinion” when there is greater doubt.

Yes opinion implies personal observation but not making representations toward understanding or seeing all the factors.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Perhaps “understanding” when the evidence seems to be strong, and “opinion” when there is greater doubt.

I believe that I have an opinion about understanding this.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Perhaps “understanding” when the evidence seems to be strong, and “opinion” when there is greater doubt.

seems fair enough

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Perhaps “understanding” when the evidence seems to be strong, and “opinion” when there is greater doubt.

seems fair enough

Is fact stronger than understanding?

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Perhaps “understanding” when the evidence seems to be strong, and “opinion” when there is greater doubt.

seems fair enough

Is fact stronger than understanding?

Well there is always doubt about the facts, but understanding has another layer of doubt because the facts may be misleading, so in my opinion, yes.

Belief = accept something to be true without proof ?

ol’ is of the belief that 1+1=2, if the objective is to simply add whatever it is true

beliefs are in fact so very common (and most involve reliable outputs and inputs that are an individuals reality) that it’d require a peculiar commitment to render the word and word-concept seem of dubious usefulness.

every moment of every day people everywhere rely on beliefs that are tried and tested and retried and tested, to the point they aren’t given much thought.

I doubt there’s an typical adult human (for example) alive whose every wakeful moment isn’t guided by hundreds if not thousands of beliefs.

transition said:

beliefs are in fact so very common (and most involve reliable outputs and inputs that are an individuals reality) that it’d require a peculiar commitment to render the word and word-concept seem of dubious usefulness.

every moment of every day people everywhere rely on beliefs that are tried and tested and retried and tested, to the point they aren’t given much thought.

I doubt there’s an typical adult human (for example) alive whose every wakeful moment isn’t guided by hundreds if not thousands of beliefs.

I’d rather know something than belief in something

>I’d rather know something than belief in something

further, beliefs don’t have to be, and commonly aren’t in words, and they do the job as well as the situation in which they are worded.

for example, every moment you move you rely on gravity for balance, it’s very ‘reliable’, in fact the thing itself informs more reliably than any words or word-concepts you probably have for it. It informs of up and down and much more, to the point you can say you ‘know’ many things that involve it. It’s not so much a learned concept (any formal theory of gravity) regards it that informs of body motion through space and negotiating obstacles.

probably of experience of the everyday world, expectation and belief are fairly much the same thing.

you know, I pick up a rock of size X and throw it with Y force and I expect it to go Z distance, which is not so different to believe it will go Z distance.

and the idea that expectations are the same thing is not so daft, as the unexpected often results in something like disbelief.

http://stars.chromeexperiments.com/

The Rev Dodgson said:

It is my belief that the word “belief” and the words “working hypothesis” have very nearly the same meaning.

LOL. Makes perfect sense.

Then perhaps “faith” is a “working hypothesis” with a single confirming anecdote.

Perhaps “obsession” is a “working hypothesis” that a person has tried and failed to disprove.