Can We Live Without Beliefs?

[Consul]

Belief isn't knowledge, it's one way to react to knowledge.

I rather think "belief" applies to a lack of knowledge. Or perhaps, in your words, belief is a way of reacting to a lack of knowledge? The latter seems a lot closer to the mark, IMO.

If knowledge is justified true belief, then knowledge is a kind of belief. "x believes that p" doesn't imply "x knows that p", but it doesn't imply "x doesn't know that p" either.

[Pattern-chaser]

Belief isn't knowledge, it's one way to react to knowledge.

I rather think "belief" applies to a lack of knowledge. Or perhaps, in your words, belief is a way of reacting to a lack of knowledge? The latter seems a lot closer to the mark, IMO.

If knowledge is justified true belief, then knowledge is a kind of belief. "x believes that p" doesn't imply "x knows that p", but it doesn't imply "x doesn't know that p" either.

Yes, "believe" is when we think it's true; "know" is when we're sure. So the milder term, believe, also applies to that which we know. But not vice versa, of course.

[Consul]

If knowledge is justified true belief, then knowledge is a kind of belief. "x believes that p" doesn't imply "x knows that p", but it doesn't imply "x doesn't know that p" either.

Yes, "believe" is when we think it's true; "know" is when we're sure. So the milder term, believe, also applies to that which we know. But not vice versa, of course.

First-person knowledge-claims entail subjective certainty. It would be very odd to say "I know it, but I'm not sure". However, it is questionable that knowledge entails subjective certainty. It doesn't sound equally odd to me to say "He knows it, but he isn't sure".

QUOTE>
"Many modern philosophers have asserted that if A knows that p it is entailed that A is certain or sure that p. An example is A. J. Ayer in The Problem of Knowledge (Chapter One, Section (v)). But there exists a strong argument against the existence of an entailment between knowledge and certainty, first put forward in print, to my knowledge, by A. D. Woozley in a paper 'Knowing and not Knowing' (Woozley 1952). He calls attention to a not uncommon type of case where we attribute knowledge in the absence of certainty. His example may be called 'The Case of the Unconfident Examinee'.

Suppose that an examinee gives fumbling, unconfident, but always correct answers to a series of questions. He is not sure that his answers are the true ones. But might we not credit him with knowing that the answers are correct ? We might say to such an examinee: 'You see, you knew the answers all the time.' And such encouragement need not be mere encouragement.

I think that this case is conclusive. …

Nevertheless, it is important to notice, as Woozley and others have, that there is some conceptual link between knowledge and certainty. Suppose that A asserts that he knows that p. On pain of uttering something paradoxical, he cannot go on to deny that he is certain that p is true:

I know that p is true, but it is not the case that I am certain that p is true.

is a paradoxical sentence."

(Armstrong, D. M. Belief, Truth and Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. pp. 141-2)
<QUOTE

[Consul]

If the eliminative materialists about propositional attitudes such as beliefs are right, we all live without beliefs, because there aren't really any. According to them, propositional attitudes are false posits of unscientific "folk psychology".

[Samana Johann]

If the eliminative materialists about propositional attitudes such as beliefs are right, we all live without beliefs, because there aren't really any. According to them, propositional attitudes are false posits of unscientific "folk psychology".

Hear-saying make good householder believe this and that. Peceptions, yet what ever action he does, his life all the way, is based simply on believe. Even pushing the "submit" button here is just out of believe that it will be displayed, will be read, will be usefull... and thousands of other really unfounded further believes (to gain certain happiness by it, release, ease.)
No life, being, without believe. Good and beyond being, if determined toward right believe, or the opposite pair.

[Barkun]

No because belief is a compound physiological process that mind harnesses to make decisions on substance such as this text you are reading. You believe you should have read it, so your mind did. Belief is a facet of physical will, since we exist in a determined system where every action is a choice, we must have some counter perspective of segmented action states. We must be able to change course during course, and this is done through belief. If we couldn't change course during course by believing in other courses, we'd be restricted to one course and it would be entirely uncomfortable, perhaps against any good engineering which would make life illegal.

[Consul]

No life, being, without believe.

There is no doubt that our belief talk exists, but do beliefs exist? How do we know? The big epistemological problem is that if beliefs exist, they are nonexperiential mental states which are directly accessible neither to introspection nor to sensory perception. (Note that occurrent sentences of inner speech of the form "I believe that…" are part of the stream of your experience, but such belief-sentences aren't beliefs but at most experiential expressions or manifestations of nonexperiential beliefs!)

[Pattern-chaser]

...do beliefs exist?

It's my understanding that beliefs are things that we think are true, but (if we are honest with ourselves) we have to admit that they might not be (true). This in contrast to that which we know, that we are confident is true.

So do we have beliefs? Yes, of course we do, unless someone wishes to champion the idea that there are people who know enough to live their lives without needing to employ belief? It seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it?

[Consul]

It's my understanding that beliefs are things that we think are true, but (if we are honest with ourselves) we have to admit that they might not be (true). This in contrast to that which we know, that we are confident is true.

So no animal can have beliefs unless it has the concept of truth?

[Barkun]

Belief is for trust affirmation. If you believe something then you trust it is true, or false, with or without certainty. In the face of fierce criticism and scrutiny, sometimes dialogue falls down to beliefs. Though it is better to be certain humans often struggle with certainty, so much so it can be considered natural.

In some cases belief is purely a faith propagate which we use to continue scientific process, until we are certain, it's not always set in stone.

Should beliefs have scientific merit? No. Should we treat beliefs as a compliment to scientific process? Yes. Any belief is surely unfinished science, and thus not science.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's my understanding that beliefs are things that we think are true, but (if we are honest with ourselves) we have to admit that they might not be (true). This in contrast to that which we know, that we are confident is true.

So no animal can have beliefs unless it has the concept of truth?

Hmm. Not sure. I think first we would need to establish, or explicitly assume, that animals can have beliefs and/or knowledge?

[Samana Johann]

No life, being, without believe.

There is no doubt that our belief talk exists, but do beliefs exist? How do we know? The big epistemological problem is that if beliefs exist, they are nonexperiential mental states which are directly accessible neither to introspection nor to sensory perception. (Note that occurrent sentences of inner speech of the form "I believe that…" are part of the stream of your experience, but such belief-sentences aren't beliefs but at most experiential expressions or manifestations of nonexperiential beliefs!)

Good householder,
Believe is always connected with desire, with not at peace yet, with search for satisfaction: eg. not knowing as it realy "is". As long there is ignorance, not knowing, there is always 'just' believe (confidence, faith) toward one's desired.

Once there has been reached the end of not knowing, the end of desire, such lies beyond be-ing, beyond becoming, birth, aging, sickness and death.

It's important to understand that one not freed yet, always relays just on believe and that right believe, believe toward a way out of believe, leads to real secure, release.

[Barkun]

Beliefs are more normal than one might think; they're not maladaptive as some claim, completely to the contrary; when expressed as if they are total truth, one is false, but if thought rationally and expressed truthfully, they are a completely beneficent way to communicate about and conduct science.

When someone tells you something, there's a truth-value to the statement. In the case of not knowing, all you can do is believe that it is true or false - though it can be an erroneous thought pattern believing in either temporarily is necessary to discovering the correct answer, necessary to the scientific process regarding potentially true or false information. The alternative is to believe in neither or don't believe, in which case, you are not using your mind in a way that's engaging with that person, or constructing any type of pre-thought. Either is fine, but it's situational, sometimes it's better to believe, sometimes it would be blind belief and is thus a automatic digression that may or may not be beneficent.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, belief is not ideal, for an ideal world, that is, but in the real world, to real humans, belief is unavoidably necessary, whether we like it — most of us probably don't, given a choice (which we are not) — or not.