|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7..11..15..19~20~21 | ||||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote: Don’t get too mired in nuanced definitions. You are right, there are different dictionary definitions. Which is why it’s not very productive to point to one’s preferred source (even though I previously gave you another source). So I say if two parties can’t agree on the precise meaning of the labels, then toss them out and simply discuss what one does or does not believe and why. Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote: Ah… there’s the rub! Why would you BELIEVE the top card is red? It’s one thing to say that it’s more likely to be a red card (which is indeed true), but it’s something else entirely to accept as true that it actually IS a red card! The fact is, the card could be either red OR black. In this case, the evidence for it being a red card is rather weak (26 reds versus 25 blacks). Not nearly strong enough, in my opinion, to accept as fact that the card is red. In the final analysis, it all comes down to what one is willing to accept as sufficient evidence for believing in something. And obviously, there will be great variation here. Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Assuming you accept the laws of probability, why would you *not* believe something that you know is probably true?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote: The average lifespan of a male born in the U.S.A. is 78 years. Statistically, it is “probably true” that most men will die at that age. Do you believe that YOU will die when you’re 78? To “believe” something is to accept it as true, no? And we regard things that are true to be facts, no? So to believe something is, in effect, to claim to know it as a fact. So in your cards example, you are claiming to know as a fact that the top card is red. Does such slim evidence (one less black card in the deck) warrant such a commitment? Hypothetically, as a Judge in a court, would you convict someone based on equally precarious evidence? After all, "why would you *not* believe" their guilt when it’s “probably” true (51% chance) that they committed the crime? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2016, R.S. wrote: 1) I believe that I'll live past age 78, because the average includes people who died in their teens, twenties, and thirties; I'm in my late 40s. The average life expectancy of people at any given age is higher than the a priori life expectancy that they had at birth. 2) No. "Belief" is not "knowledge." I don't know that the Lotto numbers tonight won't be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. In my example, I'm not at all claiming to "know" that the top card is a red card. A) I "know" that it's more likely to be a red card than a black card. B) I "believe," therefore, that it's a black card. 3) The court example is a great one. Criminal liability is not based on a belief; a disproportionate burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. One needs to believe beyond a reasonable doubt. that a suspect is guilty before convicting. HOWEVER, I would impose *civil* liability on a defendant based on the same evidence; that's exacrly the standard - more likely than not. That's why the OJ cases weren't inconsistent: He was found liable for deaths of Ron and Nicole, but not convicted of killing them. That would be the proper result for a single jury who thought it was 51% likely that he killed them.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote: Sure, but whatever the age calculated to be the “most probable” for someone your age is what I am referring to, so don’t take 78 too literally. Say, for the sake of argument, YOUR life expectancy is 85 years. Suppose that, statistically, THAT would be the most probable age of death for you. So do you “believe” that you will die at 85? Actually, knowledge is considered to be a subset of belief (justified true belief). When I (me personally) say I believe something, I mean that I accept it to be true. But as I said before, I apportion my beliefs to the evidence. The more compelling and robust the evidence for something, the more likely I am to believe it. For ME, A 1 card differential in a deck of cards does not justify “belief”. The reasonable doubt standard is apt. If you “doubt” something, why would you believe it to be true? In your cards example, do you believe “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the top card would be red? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2016, R.S. wrote: The most probable age of death still undoubtedly has a probability below 50%, so no. As for reasonable doubt, the standard is belief *beyond* a reasonable doubt (which would be redundant if "belief" in and of itself excluded doubt). But in general, for instance the red card thing, I'd believe it because the only other possibility is LESS likely.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
DelMagic Special user 719 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2016, R.S. wrote: Thank you RS and Lobo for the interesting discussion. While I think that I may be like Lobo in my worldview, I find myself more in agreement with RS on what it means to believe. I would equate the concept of knowing with believing. If I am 51% convinced that something is true, in my mind I am actually unconvinced. When doubt is present, belief is not present. Understanding the probability or odds of something does not lead to belief unless the probability is 100%. I do concur with Lobo that believing is not a decision of the will. When one is convinced by the evidence, no matter how strong or weak it is, then one becomes a believer. You cannot "decide" something is true when you are unconvinced by the evidence you are considering. I also sigh that so many people today view faith as believing in the unseen or unproven. Unfortunately many people "of faith" also think that way and it weakens their impact in supporting their own worldview. You may be convinced of a fact simply because your parents told you, or perhaps because you did repeated experiments in a laboratory. When you are truly convinced, then that fact is a matter of faith for you. The method used to acquire it doesn't change that it is a matter of faith. Faith = believing regardless of the warrant for the belief. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2016, DelMagic wrote: Thanks for your comments. They raise some interesting points. As to your first paragraph, I'm 100% with you when you say that if something is 51% true, you're actually unconvinced - as you should be! When I say I believe something, that doesn't mean I'm convinced of it. On the other hand, I disagree that "when doubt is present, belief is not present." I realize that this is probably semantic again, but it strikes me as odd. "Faith," I think, is simply belief in something that is unproven. By your own definitions (equating "believe" to "knowledge" and the lack of doubt), it would seem that faith is knowledge (faith is belief, which again is equated to knowledge, and being truly convinced, i.e. without doubt); personally, I would argue that by definition, knowledge precludes faith. For instance, in my example of the deck of cards minus the 7 of clubs, I have faith that the top card is red; this faith is grounded in my understanding of probability theory. If I turn over the top card, and it's the 2 of diamonds, I no longer have faith that the top card is red; I know it is. With respect to theism, a good number of my friends are very intelligent theists. Not a single one of them (contrary to what has been suggested in this thread) holds his or her position in spite of an absence of evidence (to the best of me knowledge, insofar as I have discussed this with many of them); each can point to things that makes the existence of God more likely than the non-existence of God, and that's the definition of evidence. Just as in a legal case, there are things that make one side's position more likely to be true, and there are things that make the other side's position more likely to be true. Personally, as non-theist, I don't find their reasons to be compelling evidence, but that's an entirely different matter.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Alternative Medical Treatments » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (18 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7..11..15..19~20~21 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |