Why must Rachel keeps associating evolution with "belief"? Ack! "Belief" is something you hold to be true without having evidence. And there's tons of evidence for evolution- no belief is needed!
yeah... there's a distinction btwn belief and faith. and in the philosophical field of epistemology (which is the study of theories of knowledge) truth is defined as "justified, true belief".
I'm going by the unabridged definition, which is useful in such cases. Think about how many times we've been told that our "belief" in science is just that.
By casting off the word, we get to move on to the crux of the argument.
Then Dawkins hasn't put much thought into the actual unabridged definition of the words believe/belief. By careful choice of words, we make things much less confusing.
I see the utility of the distinction your making... :-) but facts are believed, too. so "belief" needn't be outright disparaged, even tho it is sometimes used with that connotation.
I think we're recycling the debate, using different words. Which is exactly why i think the words believe/belief should be henceforth avoided in science.
Are facts believed? I say that going by the unabridged definition of "belief", then no, facts aren't "believed". "Facts" are data we accept as valid based upon evidence, or often, the reputation of those proffering the evidence (IE., peer reviewed journals).
Journalism is often accepted as a fact source. Fox News notwithstanding. :-)
This guy is a real good historical author. I read his book " Evolution, the history of an idea" , and now I'm on "Sumer for the Gods" -- great books
TheObnubilators 2 years ago
Why must Rachel keeps associating evolution with "belief"? Ack! "Belief" is something you hold to be true without having evidence. And there's tons of evidence for evolution- no belief is needed!
SaganAppreciationSoc 3 years ago 2
I think she sees it in a neutral context, like me. After all, Dawkins defines reason as belief with evidence.
Freshmanwave 3 years ago
yeah... there's a distinction btwn belief and faith. and in the philosophical field of epistemology (which is the study of theories of knowledge) truth is defined as "justified, true belief".
Peace to All.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin.
baronmorris 3 years ago
I'm going by the unabridged definition, which is useful in such cases. Think about how many times we've been told that our "belief" in science is just that.
By casting off the word, we get to move on to the crux of the argument.
SaganAppreciationSoc 3 years ago
Then Dawkins hasn't put much thought into the actual unabridged definition of the words believe/belief. By careful choice of words, we make things much less confusing.
SaganAppreciationSoc 3 years ago
I see the utility of the distinction your making... :-) but facts are believed, too. so "belief" needn't be outright disparaged, even tho it is sometimes used with that connotation.
Peace.
baronmorris 3 years ago
I think we're recycling the debate, using different words. Which is exactly why i think the words believe/belief should be henceforth avoided in science.
Are facts believed? I say that going by the unabridged definition of "belief", then no, facts aren't "believed". "Facts" are data we accept as valid based upon evidence, or often, the reputation of those proffering the evidence (IE., peer reviewed journals).
Journalism is often accepted as a fact source. Fox News notwithstanding. :-)
SaganAppreciationSoc 3 years ago