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

[abaddon]

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

LOL

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

Simply, opposing meanings rather than listed amidst a word, will be listed amidst antonyms of a word.

 

[abaddon]

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.



Nah, just stupid.

Nah at this point I am going to join your drinking game. This whole thing is comedy gold.

 

[Thermal]

Simply, opposing meanings rather than listed amidst a word, will be listed amidst antonyms of a word.

Drink!

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

Based on dictionary definitions, does belief largely concern, or not largely concern non-evidence?

 

[JayUtah]

Based on dictionary definitions, does belief largely concern, or not largely concern non-evidence?

Loaded question. I do not believe the question can be appropriately answered by relying solely on the dictionary.

 

[abaddon]

Simply, opposing meanings rather than listed amidst a word, will be listed amidst antonyms of a word.

Doubly whammy "amidst" used incorrectly twice in a single sentence.

 

[Thermal]

Doubly whammy "amidst" used incorrectly twice in a single sentence.

I recommend a double shot of bourbon when he double-shots.

 

[JayUtah]

I recommend a double shot of bourbon when he double-shots.

I just opened a fresh bottle of Calumet Farm.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Based on dictionary definitions, does belief largely concern, or not largely concern non-evidence?

Loaded question. I do not believe the question can be appropriately answered by relying solely on the dictionary.

Had you contacted a neuroscientist (or neuroscience), prior to utilizing all the words amidst the entirety of your comments?

Had you contacted a neuroscientist (or neuroscience), concerning the usage of all the words amidst your studies in the past 30 years?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited picture for rule 6

FOOTNOTE:

Neuroscience utilizes standard belief definitions:
http://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/research/cameos/DeludedBrain.php

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327528/



Based on the footnote above, the prior question then re-emerges:

Based on dictionary definitions, does belief largely concern, or not largely concern non-evidence?

 

[Thermal]

I just opened a fresh bottle of Calumet Farm.

Just finishing a JB honey bourbon. A simple complement to a simple thread.

 

[JayUtah]

Had you contacted a neuroscientist (or neuroscience), prior to utilizing all the words amidst the entirety of your comments?

Had you contacted a neuroscientist (or neuroscience), concerning the usage of all the words amidst your studies in the past 30 years?

Distractive nonsense. You asked me how I would go about learning about the nature of human belief. I told you what I would do. Asking me whether I've actually done it is irrelevant.

Neuroscience utilizes standard belief definitions:

No, it doesn't use "standard belief definitions" (whatever those may be), and your source establishes no such thing. Specialized fields, however, almost always use a standardized vocabulary, so that experts in the field can communicate more efficiently and unambiguously. Like how computer science uses the words "code" and "encode" to mean different specific things, despite how general-knowledge dictionaries may define the words.

The vocabulary of cognitive neuroscience is not explained in the dictionary. You have to achieve some degree of expertise in the field to understand and use it appropriately.

 

[JayUtah]

Based on the footnote above, the prior question then re-emerges:

No, no amount of repetition relieves your question of its loaded premise. The crux of the rebuttal of your claim is that you are employing simplistic means to arrive at your conclusion. Insisting that others apply (and endorse) the same simplistic process does not make it work. Nor would the notion that your desired conclusion follows from that simplistic process. You aren't addressing the actual rebuttal.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No, no amount of repetition relieves your question of its loaded premise. The crux of the rebuttal of your claim is that you are employing simplistic means to arrive at your conclusion. Insisting that others apply (and endorse) the same simplistic process does not make it work. Nor would the notion that your desired conclusion follows from that simplistic process. You aren't addressing the actual rebuttal.

No, it doesn't use "standard belief definitions" (whatever those may be), and your source establishes no such thing. .

If not standard definition aligned, what definition of belief does neuroscience utilize?

 

[JayUtah]

If not standard definition aligned, what definition of belief does neuroscience utilize?

You linked to an paper that attempted to answer that question. What did the article say?

 

[Thermal]

If not standard definition aligned, what definition of belief does neuroscience utilize?

According to the link:

Belief can be defined as the mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of some idea

Don't note anything about a lack of concern for evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You linked to an paper that attempted to answer that question. What did the article say?

The article used standard definitions.
So, neuroscientific studies, are observed to use standard definitions of belief.

Your prior comments are then quite baffling:

Neuroscience utilizes standard belief definitions:

No, it doesn't use "standard belief definitions"

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

According to the link:



Don't note anything about a lack of concern for evidence.

What does the article mention of conviction's meaning?

What does the other article express of the word belief?

 

[JayUtah]

The article used standard definitions.

Equivocation. It offers its own definitions, which it hopes will be considered as standard in the field. It does not use what you've been up 'til now calling "standard definitions" (I.e., dictionary definitions).

Your prior comments are then quite baffling:

No, you're just trying to make them seem baffling by blustering around difficult facts.

 

[JayUtah]

What does the article mention of conviction's meaning?

What does the other article express of the word belief?

Did you read them?