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.
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.
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.
We codify ideas in our minds.
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?