[extropy-chat] Politics and possessing the right ISM

[Brett Paatsch]

Mike writes:
> --- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
> > Ja, but all I mean when I say "I believe" is that
> > I *think* this comment or notion is true, but I might
> > be wrong and so I am open to further evidence and
> > reasoning to the contrary.  Hmmm, perhaps you have
> > a point there Brett, for this definition of "I believe"
> > is almost exactly opposite to the religious definition
> > of "I believe".
> 
> A product of modern rationality. "Belief" is taken as a less
> valid, an unverified, guess or leap of faith, i.e. a working
> hypothesis but not  to be taken as a rule and open to further
> evidence and cross examination, as opposed to "knowing".

Thats dangerous thinking Mike. I accept that that is how you
see or hear the word *belief* because you are a rationalist.
But that doesn't mean that it how most people "hear" it.

They "hear" it in the sense that has meaning for them, not in
the sense that has best meaning for you. 

> 
> Perhaps there needs to be a distinctive term differentiating testable
> beliefs versus untestable beliefs (perhaps 'guess' vs 'hope'???)

Big mistake. There is nothing a rational person needs to use the
word *believe* for. [Except to talk about the word as a meme
and a danger] There are *heaps* of alternatives that a rational
person can use. Look in any dictionary or thesarus.  

It is a big mistake to keep using belief or to try and modify it, or
sort out good beliefs from bad beliefs because that just suggests it
sometimes maps to a valid referent. It doesn't. It doesn't because
the person *using* it cannot be sure that others *hearing* it will get the
meaning that it was intended to have when they used it. And belief
is always a word that is weilded with strong emotive weigth attached
in precisely those places where clear thinking would do us most good
and the lack of it can do us most harm. ie. In government (where policy
is formed) and in the courts where we may find ourselves judged by
our "peers" who are by overwhelming majority "believers" in bulldust.
It is far better to not use the word at all and thereby not encourage it.
We have other words for our valid referents we should use them and
leave the believe word to the bunnies we want to see label themselves
with their language.  

I would love to live in a world where politicians would dare not use
the words "I believe" because they would be hooted down for substiution
a prejudice for a judgement. A spin trick for proper analysis. We are not
even close to that yet though. Indeed it is my contention that we may be
killed by the prevalence of the belief meme in our parliaments, and in our
courts. We may be literally "believed" to death. 

Regards,
Brett