Beliefs regarding common things, should there be many, or should there be only one?

[Pattern-chaser]

Arguments can lead towards discovering truth. But they can lead people towards believing in false things just because the liar was good in debating.

That depends on whether argument is co-operative or adversarial. The latter can be 'won' by a skilled debater; the former cannot.

[Sushan]

I think the issue lies with our minds. Our minds tend to form hypotheses and guesses on its own, and when we think over and over about them they simply become beliefs. And we find it difficult to shed off these beliefs even if they are proven wrong with enough objective evidence.

To me it does not appear that beliefs are a necessary result of self-conditiong through repeatedly thinking certain thoughts because even though thoughts may rearise due to being repeatedly thought I do not necessarily believe my thoughts to be or represent truth or reality.

It is good if we can hold fair ideas about our own thoughts. But when they re-arise and we think upon them, eventually they become more familiar to us, and we build resistance against different ideas, unknowingly to ourselves. When such a phenomena ooccurs in a group of people, such ththoughts can become beliefs, and with the necessary fuel they can last for eons.

That appears rather speculative. Also, the meaning of "resistance against ideas" isn't clear: it may cover "actively fighthing against" and/or "being upset about" or merely "not being mentally affected by [i.e. being equanimous towards]".
It appears natural to accept some ideas but to ignore other ideas because it appears natural to build up a conceptual framing for expressing one's experiences. To me it seems that I would not even be able to verbally express myself without a conceptual framing. However the point here is "belief" and thus the point is whether one necessarily needs to believe the ideas one accepts to be or represent truth or reality which I have negated above.

Accepting or rejecting ideas or concepts can be done mentally. But it is a choice that one makes whether to actively reject it or to have a personal disliking towards it without wording it. I think that has something to do with personality as well. There is no necessity in believing anything. There are people who still disagree with the fact that our earth is a sphere, and I do not see they facing any issues while carrying on their lives with regard to that belief.

[Sushan]

The metaphysical belongs in the realm of belief and therefore contains a subjective element. Thus various folks will have various beliefs by definition. One single belief is the goal of organized religion. But as we all know, even if everyone subscribed to organized religion, there are numerous religions. So no, not possible.

Yes. And in addition, within no time any religion develops sub groups, and we see this in every major religion in the world. So, we are unable to agree upon even an organized belief. Despite everything the religion says the followers tend to develop their own thoughts and beliefs, diversifying even the organized, single minded beliefs. Everything is subjective ay the end of the day.

Everything metaphysical definitely contains an element of subjectivity. The perception of everything is subjective, that is different from everything is subjective.

Metaphysics usually goes hand in hand with abstract thinking. You see what you see and believe what you perceive, and nothing more. So it is almost always subjective, either to individuals or to groups. When groups are involved they can evolve into beliefs.

[Sushan]

Arguments can lead towards discovering truth. But they can lead people towards believing in false things just because the liar was good in debating.

That depends on whether argument is co-operative or adversarial. The latter can be 'won' by a skilled debater; the former cannot.

Well, I think even the latter can be won by a less skilled debater if he/she uses correct facts with enough evidence. And we usually see that in law enforcements. It is true that all the court cases are not won by the correct side, but they are not won purely on the skill of debating.

[Pattern-chaser]

Arguments can lead towards discovering truth. But they can lead people towards believing in false things just because the liar was good in debating.

That depends on whether argument is co-operative or adversarial. The latter can be 'won' by a skilled debater; the former cannot.

Well, I think even the latter can be won by a less skilled debater if he/she uses correct facts with enough evidence. And we usually see that in law enforcements. It is true that all the court cases are not won by the correct side, but they are not won purely on the skill of debating.

And yet we have to accept that sometimes, arguments are 'won' by debating 'skill', even in the presence of factual evidence to the contrary.

[LuckyR]

Arguments can lead towards discovering truth. But they can lead people towards believing in false things just because the liar was good in debating.

That depends on whether argument is co-operative or adversarial. The latter can be 'won' by a skilled debater; the former cannot.

Well, I think even the latter can be won by a less skilled debater if he/she uses correct facts with enough evidence. And we usually see that in law enforcements. It is true that all the court cases are not won by the correct side, but they are not won purely on the skill of debating.

And yet we have to accept that sometimes, arguments are 'won' by debating 'skill', even in the presence of factual evidence to the contrary.

The entire legal profession is based on this reality.

[mrdim]

It seems to me that democracy is an effective value to follow in societies that are free and productive, at least in theory anyway.

Repeating thoughts and disbelieving old thoughts does indeed become a problem, but in the sciences the methods used are often repeated in different ways and variations in order to ascertain the facts about the world we live in: a sort of never ending process that entails the specialisation of knowledge. This specialisation is what drives science forward so that we gain at least some kind of 'appreciation' of the universe and the world we inhabit.

In order to be even more factual than we already are about the universe, could the key here, be that we ought to be more reliant upon idealism, where knowledge and reality exists in the mind to dictate what occurs in the universe, or even that reality exists in the mind of God?

A thought can sometimes be expressed as an object, and an object expressed as a thought, so the same is true for idealism. Reality, when we are niave about it, can be expressed in countless number of ways.

The best thing is to think of it all as a growing capacity and not a regimented faculty of mind/matter.

We can grow with the universe, and I think that we can develop our understanding of limitations that can be nurtured to develop new products of our existence.

As we do not know the true nature of time, the universe may have knowable limitations, that, when manipulated in non-linear time, will transform into a whole new world of permutations and expressions.

[Sushan]

Arguments can lead towards discovering truth. But they can lead people towards believing in false things just because the liar was good in debating.

That depends on whether argument is co-operative or adversarial. The latter can be 'won' by a skilled debater; the former cannot.

Well, I think even the latter can be won by a less skilled debater if he/she uses correct facts with enough evidence. And we usually see that in law enforcements. It is true that all the court cases are not won by the correct side, but they are not won purely on the skill of debating.

And yet we have to accept that sometimes, arguments are 'won' by debating 'skill', even in the presence of factual evidence to the contrary.

I agree, and we have to agree that it is technically as well as ethically wrong. The facts are facts. There are skilled debaters who can even twist the facts, and they win sometimes. But the result will be ethically and morally wrong.

[Sushan]

That depends on whether argument is co-operative or adversarial. The latter can be 'won' by a skilled debater; the former cannot.

Well, I think even the latter can be won by a less skilled debater if he/she uses correct facts with enough evidence. And we usually see that in law enforcements. It is true that all the court cases are not won by the correct side, but they are not won purely on the skill of debating.

And yet we have to accept that sometimes, arguments are 'won' by debating 'skill', even in the presence of factual evidence to the contrary.

The entire legal profession is based on this reality.

I think I have to agree with you, though the lawyers may not openly admit it

[Pattern-chaser]

And yet we have to accept that sometimes, arguments are 'won' by debating 'skill', even in the presence of factual evidence to the contrary.

I agree, and we have to agree that it is technically as well as ethically wrong. The facts are facts. There are skilled debaters who can even twist the facts, and they win sometimes. But the result will be ethically and morally wrong...

...and yet the verdict will stand, and another innocent American (?) will go to gaol for a Very Long Time.

I find it difficult to see any positive recommendation for adversarial argument, that we usually call "debate".

[AlekiNderitu]

Truth is always objective. Events only unfold one way. Our perception of it may be subjective varying from one individual to another but truth is objective. However, in physics reality is based off perception. Without an observer it is just a probabilistic haze. Observation brings it down to one possibility. So would flawed observation mean truth is based off an observer's point of view? I guess it all boils down to the old philosophical question. If a tree falls in the forest with no one around, does it make a sound?

[Pattern-chaser]

Truth is always objective. Events only unfold one way. Our perception of it may be subjective varying from one individual to another but truth is objective.

I'm not sure it's that simple. But I have a question:

Truth may (or may not) be objective, but "objective" is inaccessible. Thus, what you say reduces to something that we believe to be true, but cannot demonstrate. My question is, what point is there is asserting the objectivity of truth when that supposed objectivity cannot be demonstrated, tested or even observed?

However, in physics reality is based off perception. Without an observer it is just a probabilistic haze. Observation brings it down to one possibility. So would flawed observation mean truth is based off an observer's point of view?

No, I think it might mean that flawed observations, acted upon, will surely lead to flawed conclusions?

[LuckyR]

Well, I think even the latter can be won by a less skilled debater if he/she uses correct facts with enough evidence. And we usually see that in law enforcements. It is true that all the court cases are not won by the correct side, but they are not won purely on the skill of debating.

And yet we have to accept that sometimes, arguments are 'won' by debating 'skill', even in the presence of factual evidence to the contrary.

The entire legal profession is based on this reality.

I think I have to agree with you, though the lawyers may not openly admit it

I think they like to brag that they can convince anyone of anything.

Let alone the advertising industry.