Ideas, Beliefs, Doctrines, Ontologies, and Pardigms

[CyberHiker]

@Cognostic

@CyberHiker

How does a person strongly behold beliefs without it becoming a doctrine to refer to for exercising whatever it is the belief is supposed to do for them?

Gee, I don’t fucking know? How did we move from Euclidian Geometry to non-Euclidian Geometry. How did we Go from Newton’s Gravity to Einstein’s Gravity? How did we move from a flat earth to globes. How dense are you.

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.

@Wikipedia

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.

@Wikipedia

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.

@Wikipedia

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.

@Wikipedia

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?

[CyberLN]

@CyberHiker

I believe it is a good idea for atheist to have a little bit more respect for the concept I have emphasised in bold letters, than what theist have for the concept of belief that they are using to support their belief that the gods use magic to cause belief.

And, then, I believe the third paragraph answers your analogy challenge to me.

Wow! You’re doing an awful lot of believing!

[CyberHiker]

You are so smart. I’m so jealous.

@Wikipedia

Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism ) is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. It is the idea that majority of the mental states in folk psychology do not exist.[1] Some supporters of eliminativism argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. The argument is that psychological concepts of behaviour and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level.[2] Other versions entail the non-existence of conscious mental states such as pain and visual perceptions.[3]

I really hope you, brilliant atheists, do not mind if I take the position of an Eliminative Materialist in my arguments. It seems to put forth a better assumption than what you are championing to be the paradigm for semantic etymology, or whatever.

[Sheldon]

@CyberHiker

Obviously, not as dense as you.

More dense?

@CyberHiker

You are using analogies in an effort to force me to describe what it is you cannot describe,

Damn, but then again why would he require a description of something he can already describe?

@CyberHiker

one of your buddies believes you’re brilliant

A lot less less embarrassing than you believing you are brilliant.

@CyberHiker

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.

Be a dear and explain why this is a problem, and for whom?

@CyberHiker

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.

I don’t care what subjective beliefs you hold, why would I?

@CyberHiker

I bet you can get a bunch of hearts from your buddies if you can compose a response to this post.

I bet this bothers you, but then since it bothers you enough to mention it I’m backing a safe bet.

@CyberHiker

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?

Yes, you may want to look up the definition of doctrine, also try to grasp why some people categorise claims, and then may choose to withhold belief, since it is axiomatic that it need have nothing whatsoever to do with doctrine. Is it Münchhausen’s trilemma you’re parroting? That seems to be the kind of snake oil you’re trying to peddle here.

[SatanicMechanic]

@CyberHiker

I believe it is a good idea for atheists

Yea…….about that, no one tells me what’s a good idea for me. Go indoctrinate someone else.

I sense this devolving into a no true Scotsman fallacy and gatekeeping of atheism. No thanks @CyberHiker

[Cognostic]

@CyberHiker

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.

Your distinction between belief and paradigm is eronious. A paradigm is still a belief. We use the scientific method because we believe it is the best way to understand the world around us. When something better comes along, we will change our belifs. This is how ALL Belief Works. Difficulty arises only when people refuse to accept new information that contradicts currently held beliefs.

I did not use analogies at all.

@CyberHiker

How does a person strongly behold beliefs without it becoming a doctrine

I gave specific examples. Nothing you asserted changes that. You have not succeeded in digging yourself out of the pit you find yourself in.

[David_Killens]

I find life is simpler and less confusing if I attempt to simplify things as much as possible. When one begins to jump through linguistic hoops in an attempt to explain anything, to me it raises a red flag.

I see this all the time with theists attempting to explain that their god exists. Instead of proving a valid explanation and valid evidence, they launch into a complex game of wordsmanship and convoluted logic.

[Tin-Man]

@CyberHiker

I really hope you, brilliant atheists, do not mind if I take the position of an Eliminative Materialist in my arguments.

Why should we mind? Considering all the biological waste material you’ve been spewing, I’d say you are doing exceptionally well in that position.

[Sheldon]

@CyberHiker

I really hope you, brilliant atheists, do not mind if I take the position of an Eliminative Materialist in my arguments.

Hell, not sure I could even if I wanted to.

@CyberHiker

It seems to put forth a better assumption than what you are championing to be the paradigm for semantic etymology, or whatever.

It do, well do tell?

[CyberHiker]

@David_Killens

I see this all the time with theists attempting to explain that their god exists. Instead of proving a valid explanation and valid evidence, they launch into a complex game of wordsmanship and convoluted logic.

And so, are you implying that you suspect that I am a theist troll?

Yes, or no?

And, how about everyone else whose attention I have drawn - do you believe that I am on a mission to confuse you into making a false statement that I am then going to print it for all the world to see that atheists are stupid???

How does this scheme work?

[CyberHiker]

@David_Killens

You think my logic is convoluted???

Simply put: the tool that we are missing to solve arguments is a reliable ontology.

Ontology

The theists’ ontology inevitably begins with god - the creator of all that exists. They cannot escape that doctrine!

The atheists ontology is not going to begin with god - it should not be that difficult to recognize that to be a valid argument.

[Sheldon]

@CyberHiker

And so, are you implying that you suspect that I am a theist troll?

Yes, or no?

YES…

[Sheldon]

@CyberHiker

And, how about everyone else whose attention I have drawn - do you believe that I am on a mission to confuse you into making a false statement that I am then going to print it for all the world to see that atheists are stupid???

Who can say, but I could care less if that helps.

@CyberHiker

How does this scheme work?

Who said it would work?

[Sheldon]

@CyberHiker

The atheists ontology is not going to begin with god - it should not be that difficult to recognize that to be a valid argument.

Atheism isn’t an argument, atheism simply doesn’t begin with anything, is it simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

[CyberHiker]

That is why humanism is the ontology that atheists would behold as true, or more accurate. The humanism ontology is going to begin with something different. It is not going to begin with a supernatural creation.

And atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theism doctrine as the principle for public policy. Get used to it, because in your lifetime that will be the semantic paradigm that you will encounter. There is an error in the dictionary definitions using the term “belief.”

“Belief,” is unsettled science. And we need a reliable ontology to settle the science of human abstraction of language, or communication. We cannot make any rule about evaluating arguments without a reliable ontology.

[Sheldon]

@CyberHiker

That is why humanism is the ontology that atheists would behold as true. The humanism ontology is going to begin with something different.

Well this doesn’t address the flaw in your previous claim of course. I also find it a dubious assertion, that an atheist need necessarily be a humanist.

[Tin-Man]

@CyberHiker

And so, are you implying that you suspect that I am a theist troll?

Implying? Nah. No IMPLICATION at all.

@CyberHiker

…do you believe that I am on a mission to confuse you into making a false statement that I am then going to print it for all the world to see…

You? Confuse somebody HERE? Seriously?.. … (trying to catch breath)…

[Sheldon]

@CyberHiker

atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theism doctrine as the principle for public policy.

No it isn’t, atheism is solely the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. though individual atheists may hold all manner of beliefs of course, except for any belief in any deity obviously.

@CyberHiker

Get used to it, because in your lifetime that will be the semantic paradigm that you will encounter.

Again I am dubious, your penchant for making sweeping unevidenced claims is not very compelling argument.

@CyberHiker

There is an error in the dictionary definitions using the term “belief.”

Dictionary definitions simply reflect common usage or understanding. If you think word definitions are right or wrong beyond that, then you clearly don’t understand how words are used.

@CyberHiker

“Belief,” is unsettled science.

A belief is simply an acceptance that something is true. Science is a collection of methods that help us understand the natural physical world and universe. Your claim seems nonsensical. I believe that all living things evolved slowly from common ancestry, oddly enough this belief not only matches scientific fact, but is based on it. So no, belief is not "unsettled science. " Not all beliefs have equal merit, that is axiomatic.

@CyberHiker

we need a reliable ontology to settle the science of human abstraction of language, or communication.

Ontology is a branch of metaphysics, it has little to do with science per se. It belongs more to philosophy.

We cannot make any rule about evaluating arguments without a reliable ontology.

Another sweeping claim, is that a rule, what is it based on then one wonders? Again you seem to be toying with munchausen’s trilemma, philosophers love these unending dichotomies, can’t say I’m that enamoured myself. Logic seems to have managed to make rules about how arguments are evaluated, the principles of logic seem to be efficacious as well. Science certainly can evaluate claims and arguments about the natural physical world.

[Nyarlathotep]

@CyberHiker

And atheism is a political doctrine…

Hogwash!

[Cognostic]

@CyberHiker

I really hope you, brilliant atheists, do not mind if I take the position of an Eliminative Materialist in my arguments.

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism ) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind.

ADOPT the position all you like; it does not matter, you can not act on it. It is not a position you can both hold and function in the world with. Without a common sense understanding of traffic lights, you would not be able to cross the street. Your hypothesis has no practical function whatsoever. You may as well assert that we are all minds in vats. It does not fucking matter. There is still a REAL WORLD out there. You interact with this real world in real ways that have real consequences. No matter how idiotic your supposed belief system is, were you not able to set it aside and function in the ‘REAL WORLD’ you would be locked away in a little rubber room. You could not survive in the world while holding the position ("The ideas in my mind do not actually exist.) The position is as useless as a funnel hat on top of a Tin Man.