Beliefs

[Age]

Two questions here posed to those who believe some things are true.

1. If something was not true, then would you believe that it is true?

And,

2. If what you believe was true was not true, then would you want to here that?

[attofishpi]

Duh! Depends what "IT" is!

[promethean75]

"If something was not true, then would you believe that it is true?"

i can imagine conditions in which i would believe something that turned out to be not true. justified true belief is easy to come by. it's verification, the nature of what constitutes evidence, that's the big prob in phil. my answer then is decidedly 'yes', sir.

"If what you believe was true was not true, then would you want to here that?"

this I'm not so sure about after reading Nietzsche who asked 'why truth at all?', and i thought about it. then i wuz like shit man it doesn't even really matter what we believe if we've gotten along so far believing so many things that aren't true (god, morality, unity, freewill, soul superstition). clearly our species has room for error here... or better, the types and kinds of problems these are aren't efficacious, have no effect on what we do, are epiphenomena. they exist only in theoretical space as 'ideological' problems generated through linguistical confusions.

anyway alls i know is I'm not even sure it's critically important that i should know i were wrong about a 'philosophical' belief, if I were.

something scientific, yeah. i wanna be sure about the speed i leave the earth's atmosphere at, or the weather three days from now, or the amount of gas it takes me to get to Charleston and back, etc. if i were wrong about these things, then yes, I'd like to know please sir. 

[Maia]

I think there are two types of belief, the first based on information that I get directly from my own senses, and the second based on information that I get from sources that I trust. In each case, it is possible that as new information is gathered, beliefs could be modified, and perhaps, very occasionally, overturned. But I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which a belief based on the second type of information is able to overturn a belief based on the first.

[Age]

Duh! Depends what "IT" is!

So, it appears here that "attofishpi" would obviously believe some things are true, even when they are not.

[Age]

"If something was not true, then would you believe that it is true?"

i can imagine conditions in which i would believe something that turned out to be not true. justified true belief is easy to come by. it's verification, the nature of what constitutes evidence, that's the big prob in phil. my answer then is decidedly 'yes', sir.

Is it not possible for you to just remain open and not believe something is true until you found out definitely it's truth and so were absolutely sure?

"If what you believe was true was not true, then would you want to here that?"

this I'm not so sure about after reading Nietzsche who asked 'why truth at all?', and i thought about it. then i wuz like shit man it doesn't even really matter what we believe if we've gotten along so far believing so many things that aren't true (god, morality, unity, freewill, soul superstition). clearly our species has room for error here... or better, the types and kinds of problems these are aren't efficacious, have no effect on what we do, are epiphenomena. they exist only in theoretical space as 'ideological' problems generated through linguistical confusions.

But 'beliefs' do have effects, and can have very negative effects also.

anyway alls i know is I'm not even sure it's critically important that i should know i were wrong about a 'philosophical' belief, if I were.

Okay.

something scientific, yeah. i wanna be sure about the speed i leave the earth's atmosphere at, or the weather three days from now, or the amount of gas it takes me to get to Charleston and back, etc. if i were wrong about these things, then yes, I'd like to know please sir. 

Okay, you obviously just need to share your beliefs, first.

[Age]

I think there are two types of belief, the first based on information that I get directly from my own senses, and the second based on information that I get from sources that I trust.

Does this mean that you do not trust your own senses.

In each case, it is possible that as new information is gathered, beliefs could be modified, and perhaps, very occasionally, overturned.

Why only 'very occasionally'?

Also, if you were not believing some thing was true, before you found out what thee actual Truth is, then you would not even have to modify a belief in the first place correct?

But I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which a belief based on the second type of information is able to overturn a belief based on the first.

Okay. So the sources that you trust can not really be trusted if their finding/s are incompatible with your own senses, correct?

[Maia]

I think there are two types of belief, the first based on information that I get directly from my own senses, and the second based on information that I get from sources that I trust.

Does this mean that you do not trust your own senses.

In each case, it is possible that as new information is gathered, beliefs could be modified, and perhaps, very occasionally, overturned.

Why only 'very occasionally'?

Also, if you were not believing some thing was true, before you found out what thee actual Truth is, then you would not even have to modify a belief in the first place correct?

But I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which a belief based on the second type of information is able to overturn a belief based on the first.

Okay. So the sources that you trust can not really be trusted if their finding/s are incompatible with your own senses, correct?

+++Does this mean that you do not trust your own senses.+++

It would be impossible to function in the world without trusting one's senses. That's what they're for.

+++Why only 'very occasionally'?+++

Because if I believe it, it's very likely to be based on evidence that's already very good.

+++Okay. So the sources that you trust can not really be trusted if their finding/s are incompatible with your own senses, correct?+++

They wouldn't be sources I trust, if that were the case.

[Age]

I think there are two types of belief, the first based on information that I get directly from my own senses, and the second based on information that I get from sources that I trust.

Does this mean that you do not trust your own senses.

In each case, it is possible that as new information is gathered, beliefs could be modified, and perhaps, very occasionally, overturned.

Why only 'very occasionally'?

Also, if you were not believing some thing was true, before you found out what thee actual Truth is, then you would not even have to modify a belief in the first place correct?

But I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which a belief based on the second type of information is able to overturn a belief based on the first.

Okay. So the sources that you trust can not really be trusted if their finding/s are incompatible with your own senses, correct?

+++Does this mean that you do not trust your own senses.+++

It would be impossible to function in the world without trusting one's senses. That's what they're for.

So, to you, if and when you see the sun revolving around a flat earth, you trust your senses that the earth really is flat and the sun really does revolve around the earth correct?

+++Why only 'very occasionally'?+++

Because if I believe it, it's very likely to be based on evidence that's already very good.

'Evidence,' bad, good, or even 'very good' is NEVER 'proof' and it is only in 'proof' where the IRREFUTABLE Truth is found.

For example, seeing and investing the sun appearing to revolve around the earth is 'evidence', and some would argue 'very good evidence' that the sun revolves around earth. So, there is 'very good, supposed, evidence' for a geocentric earth, which some people started BELIEVING, INSTEAD of just ALWAYS REMAINING OPEN until THEE PROOF comes in revealing what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

+++Okay. So the sources that you trust can not really be trusted if their finding/s are incompatible with your own senses, correct?+++

They wouldn't be sources I trust, if that were the case.

But you said your BELIEFS are based on two sources of information;

1. From your own senses.

2. From sources you can trust.

But then you said you can NOT even imagine a situation where your own BELIEFS, from so-called 'trusted sources' could override your BELIEFS from your OWN senses.

So, to me, this would mean that your BELIEFS, from your own senses, would always override your OTHER BELIEFS, which you previously CLAIMED were 'trusted sources'. Or, are ALL your BELIEFS from BOTH sources NEVER incompatible, like they ARE in EVERY other adult human being?

[Walker]

Two questions here posed to those who believe some things are true.

Your premise that truth is a function of belief is a rather huge assumption, and I ain't buyin' it.

[Age]

Two questions here posed to those who believe some things are true.

Your premise that truth is a function of belief is a rather huge assumption, and I ain't buyin' it.

LOL I have NEVER expressed ANY such RUBBISH as this AT ALL.

WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?

[Walker]

Well shucks, it just kinda struck me that way.

[Maia]

Does this mean that you do not trust your own senses.



Why only 'very occasionally'?

Also, if you were not believing some thing was true, before you found out what thee actual Truth is, then you would not even have to modify a belief in the first place correct?


Okay. So the sources that you trust can not really be trusted if their finding/s are incompatible with your own senses, correct?

+++Does this mean that you do not trust your own senses.+++

It would be impossible to function in the world without trusting one's senses. That's what they're for.

So, to you, if and when you see the sun revolving around a flat earth, you trust your senses that the earth really is flat and the sun really does revolve around the earth correct?

+++Why only 'very occasionally'?+++

Because if I believe it, it's very likely to be based on evidence that's already very good.

'Evidence,' bad, good, or even 'very good' is NEVER 'proof' and it is only in 'proof' where the IRREFUTABLE Truth is found.

For example, seeing and investing the sun appearing to revolve around the earth is 'evidence', and some would argue 'very good evidence' that the sun revolves around earth. So, there is 'very good, supposed, evidence' for a geocentric earth, which some people started BELIEVING, INSTEAD of just ALWAYS REMAINING OPEN until THEE PROOF comes in revealing what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

+++Okay. So the sources that you trust can not really be trusted if their finding/s are incompatible with your own senses, correct?+++

They wouldn't be sources I trust, if that were the case.

But you said your BELIEFS are based on two sources of information;

1. From your own senses.

2. From sources you can trust.

But then you said you can NOT even imagine a situation where your own BELIEFS, from so-called 'trusted sources' could override your BELIEFS from your OWN senses.

So, to me, this would mean that your BELIEFS, from your own senses, would always override your OTHER BELIEFS, which you previously CLAIMED were 'trusted sources'. Or, are ALL your BELIEFS from BOTH sources NEVER incompatible, like they ARE in EVERY other adult human being?

+++So, to you, if and when you see the sun revolving around a flat earth, you trust your senses that the earth really is flat and the sun really does revolve around the earth correct?+++

I'm blind, I don't see the sun revolving around the earth, flat or otherwise.

+++'Evidence,' bad, good, or even 'very good' is NEVER 'proof' and it is only in 'proof' where the IRREFUTABLE Truth is found.

For example, seeing and investing the sun appearing to revolve around the earth is 'evidence', and some would argue 'very good evidence' that the sun revolves around earth. So, there is 'very good, supposed, evidence' for a geocentric earth, which some people started BELIEVING, INSTEAD of just ALWAYS REMAINING OPEN until THEE PROOF comes in revealing what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.+++

Is absolute proof of anything really possible? In the real world, very good evidence of something is the same as proof, for all practical purposes. We couldn't function otherwise.

+++But you said your BELIEFS are based on two sources of information;

1. From your own senses.

2. From sources you can trust.

But then you said you can NOT even imagine a situation where your own BELIEFS, from so-called 'trusted sources' could override your BELIEFS from your OWN senses.

So, to me, this would mean that your BELIEFS, from your own senses, would always override your OTHER BELIEFS, which you previously CLAIMED were 'trusted sources'. Or, are ALL your BELIEFS from BOTH sources NEVER incompatible, like they ARE in EVERY other adult human being?+++

If evidence is conflicting I reserve judgement until I have more, weighing up the trustworthiness of the sources.

[Age]

Well shucks, it just kinda struck me that way.

Okay, but as long as you are now well aware that I do NOT think any such thing, then its all well and good.

[Age]

+++Does this mean that you do not trust your own senses.+++

It would be impossible to function in the world without trusting one's senses. That's what they're for.

So, to you, if and when you see the sun revolving around a flat earth, you trust your senses that the earth really is flat and the sun really does revolve around the earth correct?

+++Why only 'very occasionally'?+++

Because if I believe it, it's very likely to be based on evidence that's already very good.

'Evidence,' bad, good, or even 'very good' is NEVER 'proof' and it is only in 'proof' where the IRREFUTABLE Truth is found.

For example, seeing and investing the sun appearing to revolve around the earth is 'evidence', and some would argue 'very good evidence' that the sun revolves around earth. So, there is 'very good, supposed, evidence' for a geocentric earth, which some people started BELIEVING, INSTEAD of just ALWAYS REMAINING OPEN until THEE PROOF comes in revealing what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

+++Okay. So the sources that you trust can not really be trusted if their finding/s are incompatible with your own senses, correct?+++

They wouldn't be sources I trust, if that were the case.

But you said your BELIEFS are based on two sources of information;

1. From your own senses.

2. From sources you can trust.

But then you said you can NOT even imagine a situation where your own BELIEFS, from so-called 'trusted sources' could override your BELIEFS from your OWN senses.

So, to me, this would mean that your BELIEFS, from your own senses, would always override your OTHER BELIEFS, which you previously CLAIMED were 'trusted sources'. Or, are ALL your BELIEFS from BOTH sources NEVER incompatible, like they ARE in EVERY other adult human being?

+++So, to you, if and when you see the sun revolving around a flat earth, you trust your senses that the earth really is flat and the sun really does revolve around the earth correct?+++

I'm blind, I don't see the sun revolving around the earth, flat or otherwise.

+++'Evidence,' bad, good, or even 'very good' is NEVER 'proof' and it is only in 'proof' where the IRREFUTABLE Truth is found.

For example, seeing and investing the sun appearing to revolve around the earth is 'evidence', and some would argue 'very good evidence' that the sun revolves around earth. So, there is 'very good, supposed, evidence' for a geocentric earth, which some people started BELIEVING, INSTEAD of just ALWAYS REMAINING OPEN until THEE PROOF comes in revealing what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.+++

Is absolute proof of anything really possible?

Yes.

There is one thing.

In the real world, very good evidence of something is the same as proof, for all practical purposes.

But were you just implying that there is NO such thing as absolute truth in your question above?

If yes, then if 'very good evidence' is the same as 'proof', then there is ALSO NO such thing as 'very good evidence'. Unless, of course, you want to say and suggest that there is a difference between 'proof' and 'absolute proof', and if you do, then what is that difference, exactly?

But if you were not imaging that, then good.

We couldn't function otherwise.

We, supposedly, could not function because of what, exactly?

Some people BELIEVE that they could NOT function without their phones, or some without money, but what some people think or BELIEVE that they can NOT function without, is not necessarily remotely true at all let alone thee actual Truth of things.

Also, and by the way, how do you distinguish between the 'real world' from any 'other world'?

I could also begin a sentence with, 'In the real world', also, but that in no way gives more weight nor more support for the rest of the sentence, either.

+++But you said your BELIEFS are based on two sources of information;

1. From your own senses.

2. From sources you can trust.

But then you said you can NOT even imagine a situation where your own BELIEFS, from so-called 'trusted sources' could override your BELIEFS from your OWN senses.

So, to me, this would mean that your BELIEFS, from your own senses, would always override your OTHER BELIEFS, which you previously CLAIMED were 'trusted sources'. Or, are ALL your BELIEFS from BOTH sources NEVER incompatible, like they ARE in EVERY other adult human being?+++

If evidence is conflicting I reserve judgement until I have more, weighing up the trustworthiness of the sources.

Okay, but that is just deflecting away from what I was asking.