Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Standard of Belief

First of all, this thread is not about opinions (e.g. the sky is pretty, or this cake tastes good). It is completely logical that opinions differ from person to person.

This thread is about factual statements and the standards we use to determine whether or not to believe them.

How much evidence does it take for you to believe something as opposed to just thinking it is possible? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue" as opposed to "The sky may be blue or not; there is not enough evidence for me to believe one way or the other.")

How much evidence does it take for you to say that you know something? (e.g. "I know the sky is blue," or "I know the sky is not blue.")

How much evidence is required against something for you to not believe it is possible? Do you just have to believe the opposite? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue, so I think it is not possible that the sky is not blue.")

[Nick_A]

Hi Scott

How much evidence does it take for you to believe something as opposed to just thinking it is possible? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue" as opposed to "The sky may be blue or not; there is not enough evidence for me to believe one way or the other.")

Unchanging belief can only come through direct experience. In order to have direct experience it requires the experience to include the impartial intellectual, emotional, and sensory, connections with the external world. This means that if you consciously think, feel, and sense, the same thing simultaneously and without imagination, it can result in a real experience and hence a real belief.

How much evidence does it take for you to say that you know something? (e.g. "I know the sky is blue," or "I know the sky is not blue.")

It takes becoming aware of what others have said they know. If a certain group of people convince others that they know something then we are also seen to know something by agreeing with them. To know something doesn't require direct experience but rather agreeing with others that have learned to believe others. When sufficiently persuasive, these people are called "experts." They know a great deal but lack direct experience.

How much evidence is required against something for you to not believe it is possible? Do you just have to believe the opposite? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue, so I think it is not possible that the sky is not blue.")

I have to not believe what I haven't experienced. This doesn't require believing in the opposite but just the courage and inner freedom not to believe in "experts."

In the old days this was called trying to maintain an open mind in pursuit of higher "meaning". But it seems that by the dominance of the effects of "experts," the pursuit of "meaning" is less respected. I feel fortunate in having awakened to foolishness of idolatry in whatever form it takes allowing a greater respect for the pursuit of "meaning." beyond the dictates of "experts."

[Juice]

I agree with Nick. Some types of knowledge is attained by direct observation. I concur that the sky is blue at the time I observe that the sky is blue in the same way I concur that the sky is red when so observed or gray or yellow.

So as to the color of the sky I know that its color is determined by atmospheric conditions which are variable as such. I know that the sky is blue when conditions are so that causes the sky to be blue. I believe that the sky is blue in some parts of the world even when I don't directly observe this to be true all the time. And, I cannot determine if the sky is blue under the right atmospheric conditions at night.

To believe that something is true offers the opportunity to believe that something is not true.

I can only determine that something is true when I directly observe that something at the time it presents as true. As such any phenomenon is yet dependent on my interpretation of the phenomenon therefor it is only my interpretation of the phenomenon that is true and self dependent on each observer.

Other than that all other phenomenon presented as not directly observed can only be inferred as true by logical determination of reason and as such is dependent on self determination according to individual reason.

Any determined true statement can only be determined as an absolute truth when that statement has no opposite determined expression to negate it.

A true statement contains a false statement.

If I do not actively observe a blue sky as in if I was in an enclosed room then I can say "I know the sky is blue" is true just as well as if I say "I do not know the sky is blue" is true given the circumstance.

How much evidence is required against something for you to not believe it is possible?

This question is a nonsequitur since once evidence is presented to disprove a phenomenon then that phenomenon is then disproved. The question is whether or not the evidence is valid enough to disprove the phenomenon.

"God exists."
"Prove that God exists."
"Prove that God does not exist."

The question for these is determined by what criteria is necessary for each to prove or disprove each.

[athena]

Scott that is an excellent question, and Nick, I really like your answer.

Nick, you explanation made me think of all the things I suspected were so, although I had to no direct experience of them, such as ghost. I think it is common for the young to be much more interested in the occult than science. My father gave me a real wake up call; he told me I would benefit more from studying science than the occult. I remain in the middle, accepting possibilities he rejects, but I am no where near as superstitious as I was at age 18, and I am no longer interested in magic potions and spells.

I love mystical things though, such as the power of mathematical archetypes, and I think my father is wrong for not giving them more consideration. I have an old book about education that encourages a child to wonder about nature, and have a bit of a mystical approach to exploring our reality.

We should keep in mind, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. My God, what I know can be held in a thimble compared to all there is to know. In comparison, what I don't know is as a vast as the universe.

I am unsure of most everything, even my own experiences. I am aware that I have only my own point of view of what I experience, and for sure my sister does not agree with my point of view! You know, in our relationships, all the arguments because we our points of view about what happened are different.

I read "Beyond Culture" and my sense of reality was shattered, because I learned our culture sets limits on our consciousness, and we are blind to thinking with a different cultural perspective. I would give anything to see the world through the consciousness of Celt or Mayan or ancient Egyptian or Chinese, and than be able to compare that consciousness to my own. I regret, what I know, prevents me from thinking with a different consciousness.

[athena]

Juice's statement seems to relate to empirical proof of truth. I had a college professor who was forever getting on me for confusing my personal experience with empirical evidence of truth. My personal experience is not valid, without empirical evidence that supports my personal experience, and even that can not be trusted if I began to prove myself correct, instead of impartially asking what is so.

The definition of feminine is pretty awful, and there was a time we expected women to be feminine and their social and economic standing depended on how feminine they could be, so women made every effort to be the ideal of feminine which was distained as we went into women's liberation. My point is, holding something is so, without examining the forces that makes it so, can result in believing something that is evident, but at that same time is not exactly true. Men and women have changed, because the expectation of them has changed.

[ape]

Standard of Belief
How much evidence does it take for you to believe something as opposed to just thinking it is possible? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue" as opposed to "The sky may be blue or not; there is not enough evidence for me to believe one way or the other.")

Xlnt, Scott.
1 Thessalonians 5:
21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
It all depends on who and what.
For one, little to no evidence.
For another, lots to most evidence.
Prove all things depends on what level of proof each or any person requires.
Example:
John 20:19Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.
21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

How much evidence does it take for you to say that you know something? (e.g. "I know the sky is blue," or "I know the sky is not blue.")

Once again, it depends on who and what.
For one, little to lots of evidence.
For another, none to little evidence.
Example:
John 20:
26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27Then saith he to Thomas,
each hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My LORD and my God.
29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

How much evidence is required against something for you to not believe it is possible? Do you just have to believe the opposite? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue, so I think it is not possible that the sky is not blue.")

It all depends on who and what.
Example:
a. Acts 17:
10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (or not).
12Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
b. These persons needed more proof. Of course with the not-wanting-to know-attitude, no amt. of proof or disproof works:
Acts 13: 45But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Acts 26:
28Then Agrippa said unto Paul,
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

[nameless]

Standard of Belief

This thread is about factual statements and the standards we use to determine whether or not to believe them.

The problem is in the obsolete language of 'universals'.
"The sky is blue!" is a universal statement by the use of 'is'. That makes 'the sky', everywhere and at all times and for all observers always 'blue' (whatever exactly 'blue' means to you; robin's egg, turquoise, azure, atc...).
In the language of E-Prime, there would be no such linguistic and cognitive and logical error. Stating something as 'is' offends and discounts every other Perspective that perceives differently, leading to egoic and emotional argument and paradox. The problem isn't with the sky, it is with the egolanguage.
"The sky, right now, appears blue, to me!" is a statement of a very local and contextual 'reality' that cannot be disputed and generates no paradox.
It is not necessary to 'believe' or 'know' (emotional, egoic, irrational) anything when the correct language is used.
Believers 'believe', thinkers think.

'Critical thought' and 'belief' are diametrical opposites. The more of one, the less of the other.

'Believing' is generally interchangeable with 'knowing'. ('Both' egomotionally based rather than rationally based)

'Evidence' is in the eye of the beholder as is it's interpretation and evaluation.
For a 'believer', this = belief/knowing.
For a 'thinker, this relates to statistical probabilities and tentative (contextual) acceptance or not, on a huge gradient.

[Nick_A]

Scott that is an excellent question, and Nick, I really like your answer.

Nick, you explanation made me think of all the things I suspected were so, although I had to no direct experience of them, such as ghost. I think it is common for the young to be much more interested in the occult than science. My father gave me a real wake up call; he told me I would benefit more from studying science than the occult. I remain in the middle, accepting possibilities he rejects, but I am no where near as superstitious as I was at age 18, and I am no longer interested in magic potions and spells.

I love mystical things though, such as the power of mathematical archetypes, and I think my father is wrong for not giving them more consideration. I have an old book about education that encourages a child to wonder about nature, and have a bit of a mystical approach to exploring our reality.

We should keep in mind, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. My God, what I know can be held in a thimble compared to all there is to know. In comparison, what I don't know is as a vast as the universe.

I am unsure of most everything, even my own experiences. I am aware that I have only my own point of view of what I experience, and for sure my sister does not agree with my point of view! You know, in our relationships, all the arguments because we our points of view about what happened are different.

I read "Beyond Culture" and my sense of reality was shattered, because I learned our culture sets limits on our consciousness, and we are blind to thinking with a different cultural perspective. I would give anything to see the world through the consciousness of Celt or Mayan or ancient Egyptian or Chinese, and than be able to compare that consciousness to my own. I regret, what I know, prevents me from thinking with a different consciousness.

I agree Athena, We have a great deal of respect for belief related to head knowledge. For example I can believe that a chess poition contains a mate in two. It doesn't matter who objects since I can prove over the board that it is a mate in two.

Beliefs relating to human meaning and purpose requires consciously experiencing the external world with the whole of oursleves through our sensations, thoughts, and emotions. They all provide a a different and distinct appreciation of the external world. The body receives sensations. Associative thought analyses, and the emotions experience living quality. When taken together without imagination they produce a universal experience. Living as we do, out of balance and in imagination, assures limited sensory experience, lack of conscious thought, and ego based emotions. Together over time they produce the conditioned imagination that governs our personality.

Cultures are built on this imagination and perpetuates it for its own collective egoism. Even though I have not read "Beyond Culture," it seems to me that he describes the effect of what I know as the "Great Beast." Actually I intend to begin a thread on the Great Beast. Your input from "Beyond Culture" would be meaningful.

But the bottom line is that the individual loses their soul to the collective when it has lost contact with its higher origin. A person then becomes a "thing."

The questions that would open us to question rather then blindly believe or disbelieve are not encouraged by a secular society since they threaten the authority of the collective to supply meaning.

When I first read this excerpt if botherd me since I know it to be true. I had the feeling of so many young potential souls having their spirits killed by "experts." At least there are a few that understand and encourage where they can. It is just a shame that as secularism increases they are fewer in numbers and pushed underground so to speak.

http://www.conversations.org/issue.php?id=0&st=jerry_n

Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy [??] often translates the word, "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.

I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.

My students at State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.

RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

Take a kid away from video games for a moment and ask them what they would ask the smartest man in the world. They will avoid the question. It takes a while for someone to relax in front of such a basic question. Under these circumstances, ours is not to question but to adapt and believe within our cultural conditioning.

[athena]

Scott that is an excellent question, and Nick, I really like your answer.

Nick, you explanation made me think of all the things I suspected were so, although I had to no direct experience of them, such as ghost. I think it is common for the young to be much more interested in the occult than science. My father gave me a real wake up call; he told me I would benefit more from studying science than the occult. I remain in the middle, accepting possibilities he rejects, but I am no where near as superstitious as I was at age 18, and I am no longer interested in magic potions and spells.

I love mystical things though, such as the power of mathematical archetypes, and I think my father is wrong for not giving them more consideration. I have an old book about education that encourages a child to wonder about nature, and have a bit of a mystical approach to exploring our reality.

We should keep in mind, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. My God, what I know can be held in a thimble compared to all there is to know. In comparison, what I don't know is as a vast as the universe.

I am unsure of most everything, even my own experiences. I am aware that I have only my own point of view of what I experience, and for sure my sister does not agree with my point of view! You know, in our relationships, all the arguments because we our points of view about what happened are different.

I read "Beyond Culture" and my sense of reality was shattered, because I learned our culture sets limits on our consciousness, and we are blind to thinking with a different cultural perspective. I would give anything to see the world through the consciousness of Celt or Mayan or ancient Egyptian or Chinese, and than be able to compare that consciousness to my own. I regret, what I know, prevents me from thinking with a different consciousness.

I agree Athena, We have a great deal of respect for belief related to head knowledge. For example I can believe that a chess poition contains a mate in two. It doesn't matter who objects since I can prove over the board that it is a mate in two.

Beliefs relating to human meaning and purpose requires consciously experiencing the external world with the whole of oursleves through our sensations, thoughts, and emotions. They all provide a a different and distinct appreciation of the external world. The body receives sensations. Associative thought analyses, and the emotions experience living quality. When taken together without imagination they produce a universal experience. Living as we do, out of balance and in imagination, assures limited sensory experience, lack of conscious thought, and ego based emotions. Together over time they produce the conditioned imagination that governs our personality.

Cultures are built on this imagination and perpetuates it for its own collective egoism. Even though I have not read "Beyond Culture," it seems to me that he describes the effect of what I know as the "Great Beast." Actually I intend to begin a thread on the Great Beast. Your input from "Beyond Culture" would be meaningful.

But the bottom line is that the individual loses their soul to the collective when it has lost contact with its higher origin. A person then becomes a "thing."

The questions that would open us to question rather then blindly believe or disbelieve are not encouraged by a secular society since they threaten the authority of the collective to supply meaning.

When I first read this excerpt if botherd me since I know it to be true. I had the feeling of so many young potential souls having their spirits killed by "experts." At least there are a few that understand and encourage where they can. It is just a shame that as secularism increases they are fewer in numbers and pushed underground so to speak.

http://www.conversations.org/issue.php?id=0&st=jerry_n

Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy [??] often translates the word, "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.

I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.

My students at State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.

RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

Take a kid away from video games for a moment and ask them what they would ask the smartest man in the world. They will avoid the question. It takes a while for someone to relax in front of such a basic question. Under these circumstances, ours is not to question but to adapt and believe within our cultural conditioning.

I am afraid most adults would not be able to answer that question. I am impressed by the petty and trivial things adults talk about it. If it were not for the internet, I would die of intellectual starvation.

Human conversation is generally about connecting with each other is such a away that requires very little thinking. It seems my grown son and daughter intentionally avoid thinking, and encourage their children to do the same. Their father was so opposed to thinking, he piled my books in the yard and was about to burn them when I drove home. One man told if I want a man in my life, I have to give up my books. It is nuts to expect teenagers to ponder the big questions when the adults avoid thinking. Even our newspapers are trivial and sensational, and require little education or thought.

Cultures are built on this imagination and perpetuates it for its own collective egoism.

I think that is a profound statement and the real cause of wars. Here is a test, when we invaded Iraq, how many people went on the Internet and to their libraries to get information about Iraq, and learned such things as Europe fought to get control of Baghdad in two world wars? Now how many people supported the war, because the media told us it was the right thing to do? Sorry, if this is off subject, but I think some of us have to do a lot of research before we think we know something, and that most people are content to believe what they are told.

[kennethamy]

Standard of Belief

First of all, this thread is not about opinions (e.g. the sky is pretty, or this cake tastes good). It is completely logical that opinions differ from person to person.

This thread is about factual statements and the standards we use to determine whether or not to believe them.

How much evidence does it take for you to believe something as opposed to just thinking it is possible? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue" as opposed to "The sky may be blue or not; there is not enough evidence for me to believe one way or the other.")

How much evidence does it take for you to say that you know something? (e.g. "I know the sky is blue," or "I know the sky is not blue.")

How much evidence is required against something for you to not believe it is possible? Do you just have to believe the opposite? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue, so I think it is not possible that the sky is not blue.")

It need take no evidence at all for someone to believe something. People often believe on no evidence at all, or even, against the evidence. Sometimes, this kind of belief is called, faith.

How much evidence it takes to know something is a contextual question, and it depends on what you are claiming to know. In addition, it depends on the stakes involved. For instance, it would take more evidence for a jury to convict someone of murder, than it would to convict a person of a petty crime, since a conviction of murder involves much more serious consequences than does a conviction on, say, a speeding ticket.

[athena]

Excellent argument, that the need to prove something increases with the consequences of the decision. And thank you for pointing out the difference between faith based and empirical information.

I am very disturb by Pat Robinson using his Evangelical tv show to influence political decisions. He is saying everyone who needs medical care can get it. This is a faith based opinion, not one supported by facts about individual needs. A city might have a charity for medical needs, but the need is greater than the ability to meet the need. My point is, saying there are charities is factually true, but saying anyone can access help is not factually true, so he is speaking factually, but the facts are not fully accurate, and the consequences are people are dying for lack of medical care and children are not getting glasses and hearing aids and corrective surgery, etc, and people who put their faith in Pat Robinson are opposing Obama's efforts to improve our national health care system. The consequences are life and death and the development of children and their futures, and faith based ideas of truth are holding thousands at risk. Hum, may be communicating the difference to Pat Robinson would make a difference? Thank you for making us aware of the difference between faith based truths and empirical truths.

[boagie]

Scott,

The only way to know is through subjective experience, an extension of this is the collective subjective experience but this involves trust in the rational of the group. Sensory perception is truth, while it may not always be true to its object, it is always true to it being your experience, the rest is speculation.

How much might be better considered as to what intensity the experience. Knowledge of sensation is truth, apparent reality is truth--for all practical purposes. It is also egocentric however, for each individual you might say is the centre of their own universe, but there are many such centres of the universe. I realize this is suppose to about the qualificatons and/or limitations of factual statements but subjective experience is the only true means of authentication.

[athena]

Standard of Belief

This thread is about factual statements and the standards we use to determine whether or not to believe them.

The problem is in the obsolete language of 'universals'.
"The sky is blue!" is a universal statement by the use of 'is'. That makes 'the sky', everywhere and at all times and for all observers always 'blue' (whatever exactly 'blue' means to you; robin's egg, turquoise, azure, atc...).
In the language of E-Prime, there would be no such linguistic and cognitive and logical error. Stating something as 'is' offends and discounts every other Perspective that perceives differently, leading to egoic and emotional argument and paradox. The problem isn't with the sky, it is with the egolanguage.
"The sky, right now, appears blue, to me!" is a statement of a very local and contextual 'reality' that cannot be disputed and generates no paradox.
It is not necessary to 'believe' or 'know' (emotional, egoic, irrational) anything when the correct language is used.
Believers 'believe', thinkers think.

'Critical thought' and 'belief' are diametrical opposites. The more of one, the less of the other.

'Believing' is generally interchangeable with 'knowing'. ('Both' egomotionally based rather than rationally based)

'Evidence' is in the eye of the beholder as is it's interpretation and evaluation.
For a 'believer', this = belief/knowing.
For a 'thinker, this relates to statistical probabilities and tentative (contextual) acceptance or not, on a huge gradient.

I am thrilled with your explanation of our language problem! You have given me much insight into my relationship problems. People can get so angry with me because of what I have said, when it is clear to me, we can not speak all truth at one time, but only little pieces of it. Often a truth includes its opposite, so reality is not this or that, but this and that. I need to work on that language thing. I hope you will help me with it.

[ape]

Often a truth includes its opposite, so reality is not this or that, but this and that. I need to work on that language thing. I hope you will help me with it.

Yes!
Always reality includes its opposite and at least 359 degrees of opposites!:)
So Reality is not either this or that,
but
Reality is BOTH 'both and' AND 'either or' AND 'not only ---but also.'!:)
Example:
That is not only a river, but it is also a flower.
I am not only white and female but also black and male!:)

[Algol]

Scott,

In your opinion, must the evidence which proves something true be empirical and analytical in all cases? It seems to be from looking at your posts. If I am mistaken, can you give an example of something you believe to be true that does not use analytics? (Not passing judgement on you; just curious)