Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[abaddon]

Does belief largely concern, or not largely concern non-evidence?

That doesn't concern me.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Scooter, you may benefit from Googling poster JayUtah. He has modestly given you the short version of his CV, but his bragsheet is somewhat lengthy. Please Google away, so you know who you condescend to.

Regarding post #466, there are three reasonable conclusions a reader might reach:

1. You are trolling.
2. You are an idiot.
3. The English language poses some challenges for you.

Gonna roll with number three, giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Your claimed 'belief meaning zero' is only one of four primary definitions (and you interpret that wrongly, re: especially). The other three, that you provided, make no reference to a lack of evidence being fundamental to belief. You transparently gloss over this with a '...'.

re: 2. 'That belief has many meanings, does not suddenly erase that belief largely concerns non evidence.'

No, no, no. You have been claiming all along that belief has one consequential meaning, the oafish 'largely lacks concern for evidence' tripe. Posters have been explaining to you for pages that your usage is inadequate, which you reject in favor of your cherry-picked definition (which, ironically, is still wrong). Resorting to dictionary dueling is indeed silly, but when you make up definitions it drags the discussion to basics.

The type of brain that rejects post #466 is the type that is still working.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0

If you read at least the preview of my nonbeliefism book (no need to buy), you would have observed that I had long approached the fact that a dictionary's instance of belief may possess multiple meanings.



FOOTNOTE:

No such cherry picking exists. No meaning that a dictionary may have for belief, opposes that it has low concern for evidence.
Opposite meanings for belief, would be found in antonyms, rather than under belief.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That doesn't concern me.

No, it doesn't.

 

[abaddon]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

My apologies. I forgot to mention that you do not grok hyphenation either.

If you read at least the preview of my nonbeliefism book (no need to buy), you would have observed that I had long approached the fact that a dictionary's instance of belief may possess multiple meanings.

Did that. While the childlike "reasoning" was briefly amusing, my kids moved past that long ago let alone me.

FOOTNOTE:

No such cherry picking exists. No meaning that a dictionary may have for belief, opposes that it has low concern for evidence.

How cute.

 

[JayUtah]

Does belief largely concern, or not largely concern non-evidence?

Loaded question.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

My apologies. I forgot to mention that you do not grok hyphenation either.


Did that. While the childlike "reasoning" was briefly amusing, my kids moved past that long ago let alone me.

How cute.

Teach the children calculus.
Deliver them beyond the scope of "sheeple-dom".

 

[Thermal]

Yet another value-less statement, of yours.

If you read at least the preview of my nonbeliefism book (no need to buy), you would have observed that I had long approached the fact that a dictionary's instance of belief may possess multiple meanings.

Perhaps so, but you repeat over and over and over that it has only one meaning, the 'lack of regard for evidence' one.

FOOTNOTE:

No such cherry picking exists. No meaning that a dictionary may have for belief, opposes that it has low concern for evidence.
Opposite meanings for belief, would be found in antonyms, rather than under belief.

Wrong again. Meanings can easily differ without being found in the antonyms list. See Merriam's #3 versus your cherry.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Does belief largely concern, or not largely concern non-evidence?

Loaded question.

A loaded question is one that has unjustified assumptions.

What part of the question is non-factual, or not true to standard dictionaries?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Perhaps so, but you repeat over and over and over that it has only one meaning, the 'lack of regard for evidence' one.

FOOTNOTE:



Wrong again. Meanings can easily differ without being found in the antonyms list. See Merriam's #3 versus your cherry.

Nonsense.

Why would antonyms of a word exist amidst the multiple meanings on the instance of that very word?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0

FOOTNOTE:

That I mention one meaning continuously, does not remove the fact that multiple meanings via belief, support that one meaning.

 

[JayUtah]

No meaning that a dictionary may have...

There is nothing magical about a dictionary or encyclopedia that makes them the be-all and end-all of knowledge on a subject. The notion that these books provide some sort of "standard definition" that we all must agree upon is yours alone. It is not something that the rest of the world believes.

Dictionaries and encyclopedias by their nature provide only cursory explanations of concepts. Trying to base an argument on what is or isn't included in those discussions is therefore ill-advised. You want to discuss the nature of belief and the nature of science, but you don't want to examine all that has been said on the subject. Instead you want to pretend that you can learn all you need from general-knowledge references -- and worse, you want to pretend that's all that is or could ever be: you simply pound your fist on the table, declared "by definition!" and think you've done something marvelous.

 

[JayUtah]

What part of the question is non-factual, or not true to standard dictionaries?

The part where you insist we accept your notion of "standard dictionaries" as the authoritative body of knowledge. Also the part where you simplify the relationship between belief and evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited response to moderated content

 

[abaddon]

Nonsense.

Why would antonyms of a word exist amidst the multiple meanings on the instance of that very word?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

FOOTNOTE:

That I mention one meaning continuously, does not remove the fact that multiple meanings via belief, support that one meaning.

Well why would antonyms NOT exist? Explain flammable and inflammable. Why do they mean the same thing? Have you no clue as to the origins of english?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The part where you insist we accept your notion of "standard dictionaries" as the authoritative body of knowledge. Also the part where you simplify the relationship between belief and evidence.

I need not simplify anything; for dictionaries already express such a relation.

How else do you select to observe belief's meaning, if not by dictionary, 'wise one'?

FOOTNOTE:

Do you observe dictionary definitions of science or engineering as valid?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Well why would antonyms NOT exist? Explain flammable and inflammable. Why do they mean the same thing? Have you no clue as to the origins of english?

Here is the question once more, with the highlighing of a crucial portion:

Why would antonyms of a word exist amidst the multiple meanings on the instance of that very word?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited further breach of rule 0

 

[JayUtah]

I need not simplify anything; for dictionaries already express such a relation.

Asked and answered. Dictionaries necessarily simplify their explanations. That doesn't mean the concepts themselves are that simple. You're applying these simplistic explanations as if they were sufficient to an understanding of the concepts.

How else do you select to observe belief's meaning, if not by dictionary, 'wise one'?

By consulting an expert in cognitive neuroscience and having him recommend texts beyond the dictionary. Dictionaries are not magical.

 

[abaddon]

Here is the question once more, with the highlighing of a crucial portion:

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

.

Well here you go. Take the three words "inept" "inert" and "inane". Fairly derogatory terms, I think you will agree.

If, however, I were to state that JayUtah, for example was most "ept" in his "ert" statements and is absolutely "ane". What would you make of it?

Apologies to Jay.

 

[Thermal]

Here is the question once more, with the highlighing of a crucial portion:

The reason, PGJ, is that 'belief' has definitions which span a broader spectrum than some simple words. It's not that the different meanings are complete opposites, but that they have significantly different meanings depending on their context.

T

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited response to moderated content

 

[JayUtah]

Do you observe dictionary definitions of science or engineering as valid?

False dilemma. The question is not between "valid" and "invalid," which can be too easily equivocated in the context of this discussion. I use the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and I consider the definitions for science and engineering in that work to be correct in the sense that they do not contain material error. But I do not consider them even remotely complete. This distinction would be important in an argument where the absence of some proposition from the dictionary definition were being used to claim science or engineering didn't embody the proposition.

 

[JayUtah]

Apologies to Jay.

Meh, I'm neither over- or underwhelmed. I'm just whelmed.