[extropy-chat] Should we drop the "believe" word/concept/behaviour

[JDP]

Hi Brett,

As promised, here's my answer to your 30 KB message. As there are
several aspects to this discussion, I adress them separetely.

1) One of your points (I think it is the main one in your view) is
that we should avoid using the word "belief" when conveying
transhumanist ideas into society, to avoid that listeners assume these
are beliefs of the same kind as beliefs in God or other beliefs
without good justification, and therefore dismiss them too easily
("that's your belief, you're entitled to it, my belief is different,
I'm entitled to it, end of story", with unsaid subtext: "I'll update
my belief when your belief becomes the norm, so far mine is the norm
so you're the freak and I'm the good person").

I mostly agree with this. My (small) reservation is that it still
depends on situations. Even restricting oneself to tactical
considerations, in some situations, stating your belief qua belief may
be useful, and not exclusive from argument. Be that as it may, I don't
really have an important contention here, and I think your point is
worthwile.

2) You extend this point by saying that self-attribution of "belief"
is actually sub-standard as far as rational discussion goes, whatever
the context.

I think this is basically true, too. In a scientific argument, stating
your belief qua belief is really off-topic. We don't care. We want to
see the evidence, your hypotheses, your theory.

On this list (which is scientifically oriented though not a strict
scientific context), in fact, "belief" is seldom self-attributed as
such. When the word is used, it is usually only to diminish the
strength of an assertion, meaning "but I'm not sure" (whether because
one has not investigated this in detail, or because it is impossible
to know with certainty).

(Of course, now that you jump at every one using this word, some may
start using it more just to let you know they are not impressed. But
that's just a local effect in time, and it will stop when you stop.)

I contend that belief *is* self-attributed on the list, however,
though not qua belief. One good example is in bets. When someone bets
about something, he expresses one's belief, though not using the word.
He doesn't "contend", he doesn't "accept", he doesn't "provisionnally
judge" or "hypothesize", he bets on it because he *believes* that it
holds, i.e. he has some confidence (the amount of which is revealed by
the bet) that some fact holds / will hold. More on this in point 5
below.

3) You further extend your point by saying that there is a virtue of
intellectual personal hygiene, so to speak, in giving up on the
"belief" word and concept, as one learns to label better one's stance
in one's head, and why one is contending, accepting, judging
something. Instead of mixing all these important nuances, and the
reasons we have to think something holds, in one single concept
"belief", we learn to question what our exact stance is and what it is
based on.

I agree on this, too, though I need to say that whether your argument
is of benefit to someone depends on one's thinking habits and thinking
history. Obviously, this realization has been of important benefit to
yourself, which made you very sensitive to its usefulness.

4) While making your political point, and extending it in the ways
outlined above with vibrant enthusiasm, you also say a lof of things
which, I contend, are plain wrong.

You seem to judge(*) that you don't *believe* yourself. This, I
contend, is wrong (fortunately for you, as you wouldn't be functional
otherwise). See point 5 below.

Also, you repeated many times that using "belief" is to be an unclear
thinker. Wrong again. If one knows what one is doing, one can on the
contrary be an extremely clear thinker and use the word "belief", even
for attributing beliefs to self. Of course, see point 2 above; if you
assert your belief qua belief when arguments are expected, then you
are propably not a "clear thinker".

5) There is such a thing as a well established and very useful concept
<belief>, naturally expressed by the word "belief", to which
correspond an attitude, belief, which is itself healthy and important
in human (and animal, depending on your exact account of what belief
is) behaviour.

Believing that X holds (again) means that you have some confidence
that X holds. It implies that you will base your behaviour on this (if
you are rational; actually <rationality> and <belief> are part of the
same conceptual package, so rationality is assumed when one attributes
belief). It implies that you are, to take a trivial example, willing
to bet on this.

One of the very important differences between believing and
"contending", "hypothesizing", "provisionally accepting", is that the
first is not dependent on your will, while the others are.

One can hypothesize or "provisionnally accept" anything, for the sake of
discussion and investigation. One can also contend something for the fun
of it, or just to have people show one the reasons why one should drop
this contention.

But one cannot choose to believe. Belief just results from one's
efforts to grasp the truth, whatever one's standards in the
investigation are. It is the final personal result of one's
investigation, the one which will make the link between the
investigatino and one's behaviour.

I remember being at a cocktail party somewhere when I was a student,
and the wife of some professor told me, "oh, so do we really know now
the function of the brain?" Apparently she thought the function of the
brain was a big mystery. That this mass of grey stuff hyper-protected
with a sphere of bone was still of unknown use.

The function of the brain is to direct behaviour based on information
about the environment (and the body) so that the behaviour be
adaptative.

Hypothesizing and provisonnally accepting are tools for knowledge
development. They are not the end goal, the end is the establishment
of sound beliefs on which to base one's behaviour. That's why we have
a brain. Others synonyms you suggested describe social practices, like
"contending". In no way do they coincide with the <believing> concept
and can replace it.

So, while I grant some of your points (some worthwile, some more
obvious), I think that we should in no way abandon the <belief>
concept (nor the "belief" word which is the best choice to express
such concept), as it matches a legitimate and fundamental attitude in
life. Removing the central concept will not result in a thinking that
is more clear, but on the contrary, it will result in paradoxes and a
conceptual mess, when what you need is that precise concept.


This is it, I think it adresses most of the things in your last long
message and your other messages on the topic.


Jacques


PS: To illustrate both some of the content points and some of my
reluctancy to reply, here are some specific comments on particular
bits in your message.


Brett Paatsch wrote (12.11.2003/23:11):

> what I do when you think I am believing like
> you - is simply not the case- not anymore - one can grow
> out of believing.


By now you will hopefully have understood that in my view, there's no
point "growing out of believing". This is not an interesting prospect.
It's illusory and undesirable. While I agree on some of your points
(see 1, 2, and 3 above), you obviously say something here that is
plain wrong to me.


> > Also, I will kindly ask you not to modify my quotes, as
> > quotes are, well, quotes. Feel free to comment however 
> > you like, but please leave  what I said as I said it.
> 
> I will not remove what you say, but you have a habit of
> using the word "you" when a kind reading of your meaning
> suggests you are talking loosely and meant the word one.
> A less kind reading leaves you imputing a bunch of things
> to me (as the likely referent of your word "you"), that I don't
> want to leave unchallenged. I can't be bothered denying
> imputations that you make without even meaning to


I think this is quite pedantic, and by the way it is even wrong. In
"one"-statements, "one" is formally a variable bound by universal
quantification. If it's true for "one", then it's true for you, so I
do imply the "you"-form contrary to what you say, and if you disprove
the "you"-form you have disproved the "one"-form.


> [Brett]
> >  >.. I want is to get your agreement that (a) belief is a word
> >  >that is harmful (at least sometimes would probably do -and
> >  >I think you and I are at that point already - by your comment
> >  >below #2).
> 
> > Agreed.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> >  Like any word/concept in some propositions and situations. So 
> > you should really reframe your initial advice not as linked to a 
> > particular word, but as: when expressing transhumanist ideas to new 
> > people, do not insist on the confidence you have in your visions, but 
> > provide evidence and facts that will influence people's judgments(*).
> 
> That is not the point I am trying to make. Mere ambiguities are not 
> the problem I am trying to highlight. The political and communication
> problems I am concerned with addressing arises as a result of the use
> of the word believe (especially "I believe") not as a result of the general
> ambiguity of some words of which the believe word is just an instance. 
> 
> >  > (b) belief is a word that can *always* be replaced
> >  >by you with no loss of ability to communicate should you so
> >  >choose. (I don't see that you agree with this point yet).
>  
> > Any word can always be replaced by a synonym or a synonymous
> > phrase. 
> 
> This is important it means you know you do have the choice in the
> belief case in particular.  
> 
> > The important point here is that we cannot, and should not,
> > dispense with the <believe> concept.
>  
> That is not the important point here. But if we can as you say, and its
> harmful in some circumstances (as you acknowledge) why not do
> without it altogether?


This is what I had in mind when I said elsewhere that some of your
arguing was embarrassingly bad.

I just said (though you tried to make it less clear by splitting my
quote) that a- my agreement about "the word 'belief' sometimes being
harmful" applied to EVERY WORD, and that b- EVERY WORD could be
replaced by a synonym.

Do you think then that for any word you care to mention, I will accept
to stop using that word and always replace it by synonyms?

Of course not. The fact that a word can be used at time in a harmful
way is not a sufficient reason to dispense with this word. An idiot
can uselessly kill someone with a knife, but I will keep using knifes
to cut my zucchini if you don't mind. I know I COULD prepare my
zucchini with cutters, razor blades, or maybe forks, or even spoons.
But I prefer to use knifes, which are the right tool for doing this.


> >  > Even if you get the desired outcome from Harvey
> >  >using "believe" that wouldn't mean that you had 
> > > chosen well not to use another word like 'see' or
> > > 'perceive'. Because in using those words instead 
> > > you would not be propagating the believing meme
> > > and getting you and hypothetical Harvey over-comfortable
> > > with a way of speaking that might one day trip you and 
> > > him or both of you up. And I think you have
> >  >agreed that sometime the belief-word can trip folks
> > > up.
> 
> > What I think is true here, is that you may be better off asking
> > your security expert some kind of justification, rather than
> > treating him like an oracle. But this is because the trust in his
> > abilities, rigor, vigilance, honesty, etc., is limited. It is not
> > useful otherwise. And using "believe" or "perceive" doesn't
> > change anything, you have to ask him a report instead of
> > just asking him his conclusion.
> 
> This is all off topic as far as I am concerned. I didn't advocate
> treating the security expert like an oracle. There is no prospect
> I would. 


By saying "treat him as an oracle", I meant, only asking him his final
word about it, instead of asking a full report.

The point is that if I only want his final word, it is correct to ask
him his belief, not his "contention", or his "hypothesis". I want to
know what he would bet his own money on. Like when a patient asks the
doctor: would YOU take this medicine?


> >  Belief is the way propositions make people do things.
> > It is the vital connection between propositions and 
> > people. No belief, no behaviour.
> 
> Bollocks. Children act in the world before they learn words
> of any sort including the word belief.


I was referring to the belief "thing" (the behaviour), not the use of
the word "belief".

Explicit sincere verbal self-attribution of belief qua belief may be a
sufficient condition for belief, but it's not a necessary condition.

If I play a trick with a ball and several glasses and I say "where's
the ball", and the child point to glass #2, then the child believes
the ball is in glass #2. The fact that he knows the word "belief" or
not is irrelevant.

Now, even the child situation is not relevant, as the main argument is
not about children, but about adults using language. Never mind. This
is why I made a complete, separate answer at the beginning, instead of
getting lost in irrelevant stuff.