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

[Brett Paatsch]

Hi Jacques,

I think the domain space of our disagreement has reduced to
the point where to post the answer I have prepared to your
last post in this thread might actually diminish rather than assist
the political point I was trying to make. It seems that you are
now capable of articulating my point of view almost as well as
I could have hoped. All that remains to be seen is what you will
do politically. 

I therefore propose to shelve the reply I've prepared until such
time as I think you are using the word belief habitually and 
reflexively rather than deliberately. If you capitalise the word
when you think its valid either in protest or to signify that
you are using it deliberately then I won't bother trying to 
persuade *you* any further. 

If you want my response (its ready now but not polished) I will
of course post it to you. Serafino posted a number of links
which I've been reading behind. The debate you and I have
had is one that has been had elsewhere. Philosophically it can 
go (imo) quite a bit deeper on both sides. No amount of 
philosophical discussion though is going to prove the *political*
point I was trying to make. The tool of philosophy is inadequate
to prove political truth although I think it can be adequate to
show some types of error. I think that it is true that there can be
no good policy based on the philosophical notion of three sided
squares for instance. 

The best way to get at the political truth (the utility) of my 
assertion is to "suck it" (empirically) "and see" personally. 

My thesis or assertion is: That critical thinkers who experiment
with forgoing the use of believing in their expressions (i.e.verbal
and written communications) and in their internal dialog will find
over time that making that change will differentially and
preferentially empower them *personally* with respect to those
that don't. It will work as a competitive advantage for those that
try it.  It will help and differentially empower those who use it over
those that don't even in the debates on this list. It won't make 
everyone smarter than Robert or Eugen I am *not* saying that. 
I am saying that it will make everyone better able to win debates
and be effective politically against their otherwise equal that does
not do it. 

Anyone can find the truth of my thesis or assertion, I contend, by
trying it. They can't otherwise.  It is as simple as that. 

Thanks for your efforts.

Regards,
Brett