Obviously, not as dense as you. You are using analogies in an effort to force me to describe what it is you cannot describe, and one of your buddies believes you’re brilliant. The problem with your analogies is that you are comparing scientific paradigms to various dictionary definitions and encyclopedia articles that describe the definition of “belief” to be various. Where as, “paradigm,” has a relatively stable semantic evolution.
There are various different ways that contemporary philosophers have tried to describe beliefs, including as representations of ways that the world could be (Jerry Fodor), as dispositions to act as if certain things are true (Roderick Chisholm), as interpretive schemes for making sense of someone’s actions (Daniel Dennett and Donald Davidson), or as mental states that fill a particular function (Hilary Putnam).[2] Some have also attempted to offer significant revisions to our notion of belief, including eliminativists about belief who argue that there is no phenomenon in the natural world which corresponds to our folk psychological concept of belief (Paul Churchland) and formal epistemologists who aim to replace our bivalent notion of belief (“either we have a belief or we don’t have a belief”) with the more permissive, probabilistic notion of credence (“there is an entire spectrum of degrees of belief, not a simple dichotomy between belief and non-belief”).[2][3]
I believe it is a good idea for atheists to have a little bit more respect for the concept I have emphasized in bold letters, than what the theists have for the concept of belief that they are using to support their belief that the gods use magic to cause beliefs.
And, then, I believe the third paragraph answers your analogy challenge to me.
Beliefs are the subject of various important philosophical debates. Notable examples include: “What is the rational way to revise one’s beliefs when presented with various sorts of evidence?,” “Is the content of our beliefs entirely determined by our mental states, or do the relevant facts have any bearing on our beliefs (e.g. if I believe that I’m holding a glass of water, is the non-mental fact that water is H2O part of the content of that belief)?,” “How fine-grained or coarse-grained are our beliefs?,” and “Must it be possible for a belief to be expressible in language, or are there non-linguistic beliefs?”.[2]
I bet you can get a bunch of hearts from your buddies if you can compose a response to this post.
How do we go from paradigm to paradigm?
It certainly does not go like from belief to belief by magic - paradigms need superior evidence. And in the realm of abstract ideas, the idea has to be held as doctrine.
Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina , meaning “teaching, instruction”) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system.
We codify ideas in our minds.
In law, codification is the process of collecting and restating the law of a jurisdiction in certain areas, usually by subject, forming a legal code, i.e. a codex (book) of law.
We probably create some kind of category system of things we learn, and that is doctrine, even if it is personal doctrine.
Want to make a bet on it?