I guess I don't really care much for philosophical discourse when it gets into the argument of who might be right or who might be wrong and who thinks so. I can't see much use in it unless a person wants to question his or her own belief system.

If your belief system is working for you, why would you want to spend time questioning it? There is probably not a single person who is right about everything.

A brief summary thus far in an attempt to get back on track...

--

Given that knowledge claims require language, and language presupposes thought/belief about the universe and oursleves, it only follows that thought/belief about the universe and ourselves comes first - prior to the ability to doubt whether or not this or that is true. This is also an observable phenomena. We see this at work within very young children who are in the midst of acquiring the ability to explain the world around them. Keeping in mind that explanation and natural language is not even possible without a social aspect, we can see the fundamental role that thought/belief has in natural language. Therefore, we can also know that anyone who speaks a natural language holds belief.

This ought also keep our discussion on what constitutes being belief a little more focused. Firstly, belief cannot require language for it's initial formation as above. Secondly, it cannot depend upon doubt, because all doubt is ground upon pre-existing belief. Doubting X is doubting that X is true. Because doubt is necessarily grounded upon pre-existing thought/belief(we'll call this Y), it only follows that Y, in some way, cannot be reconciled with X. If X is true, then Y cannot be. If Y is true, then X cannot be. That is the ontology of doubt. It is because we already hold that Y is true, that we can even doubt X. This brings to light the law of non-contradiction that helps to govern all thought/belief.

One cannot think/believe that X is both true and false simultaneously. Therefore, to say that I believe X but X is false is nonsense. It can be stated, but it cannot be justified/explained without facing an inherent self-contradiction. It also completely removes the very ability to assess mistakes in thought/belief. If there is no ability to properly assess the difference between true and false belief, then they are all equal. Truth is basically rendered meaningless in the mind of those who attempt this. However, we cannot learn anything if that is the way things are. Learning anything presupposes truth. We do learn things. We cannot lie if that is the way things are. Lying presupposes truth. We do lie. Learning and lying both require a much larger backdrop of truth. Therefore, that is not the way things are. We cannot believe X and simultaneously know that X is false. If one believes that X is false then they believe that they know how/why it is false - they know/believe Y. If that is the case, then one cannot believe that X is true because they know/believe that Y is and the two conflict with one another.

>>>Therefore, to say that I believe X but X is false is nonsense.<<<

Yes, but who said that?

For another thread.

then we're clear on that at least.

Another thread is a great idea.

jrbogie,

Earlier you stated that sometimes you draw erroneous conclusions. How does that work without false belief?

my conclusions are not beliefs. that's why i call them conclusions. simple really.

I agree that conclusions and beliefs are not the same thing. I'm not attached to my beliefs, and even less attached to my conclusions. These things are not permanent states.

yep, jeannie. i keep repeating that i form conclusions, never beliefs.

To state X is to believe that X is true.

Belief is a temporary state and it is not always certainty. That is my current opinion. It could change.

nope. to state x is to state x.

Belief does not require absolute certainty.

Utterly meaningless tautology.

That objection is an expression of doubting that what I wrote was true. What ground the doubt. What good reason can you offer for claiming that stating X does not presuppose believing that X is true? Keep in mind that I'm employing charity here. I mean, assuming an honest claimant. Lies presuppose a backdrop of truth and belief as well.

I'm glad we agree on that.

As long as one recognizes the fact that certainty is had in some degree, there are no problems. The 'absolutist' jargon is nonsense. There are cases in which we could not be any more certain, just as there are cases in which we are not at all certain how accurate our understanding is. Certainty, on my view, is a measure of confidence in one's own understanding of the case at hand.

For instance, jrbogie seems to hold a significant amount of certainty that he believes nothing. His notion of belief, however, limits belief to only that which is taken upon faith and faith alone. If we suppose that that kind of belief can only be had through language, then we have a problem accounting for pre-linguistic belief. Such belief is taken upon faith as well, namely our own trusting in our innately had perceptual and cognitive faculty. We are born believing that we see things as they are. It is this fact that denies his claim.

There is no knowledge of the world and/or ourselves that is void of belief. That kind of knowledge begins at belief, and necessarily contains it. That kind of knowledge is most commonly held as either justified belief, or justified true belief. The former usually holds that in order to be justified it must be true, so true is superfluous. I am a proponent of JTB.

I'm attempting to understand how it is that one can equate experience and knowledge. Experience is all we have in life, and because we know that we can arrive at false beliefs/conclusions about it, we also know that experience alone cannot account for knowledge of itself.