punished for beliefs in public school?

[Curious George]

Truth isn't an assumption. Especially not an assumption about falsehood.

I don't believe i said it was.

I explained why I would not leave out true from the definition. This is because of the assumption that knowledge is true. Not because truth is an assumption.

If however you are starting that knowledge is true, and therefore it is not an assumption that knowledge is true but something else? I would ask what is it then?

 

[Curious George]

I would assume that children would not be as interested as more mature people.

Lol, you assume that a child having a child initiated conversation was trying to communicate disinterest by saying "I don't believe in God?"

That is a stretch. I suppose not impossible but I am skeptical of such. I think it infinitely more likely that the child was saying God is not real. The same as a child would be communicating when they said "I don't believe in Santa" or "leprechauns" or "monsters" etc.

 

[Willamena]

I don't believe i said it was.

I explained why I would not leave out true from the definition. This is because of the assumption that knowledge is true. Not because truth is an assumption.

If however you are starting that knowledge is true, and therefore it is not an assumption that knowledge is true but something else? I would ask what is it then?

I realised that, so I deleted it.

Knowledge is true, not an assumption of truth. It's nothing else.

 

[Curious George]

Popper's views on knowledge are in 3 parts which are interconnected. It is difficult to explain properly to a vague question. If the claim of knowledge is based on science than it is not knowledge but a representation of reality. If it something internal like say an emotion then you have a valid claim of knowledge. If it is something learned it varies based on the source. If it is from science it is not knowledge, like evolution for example. If it something from say engineering then it is knowledge. In Popper's view all science in the end is inductive. This creates a situation in which everyone ask themselves a few questions. Is "my knowledge" internal or external? Is it representative or not.

nt.

This seems very different from your earlier explanation. Earlier you explained that all claims to knowledge were ultimately falsifiable under poppers explanation. Now only external are?

 

[Curious George]

I realised that, so I deleted it.

Knowledge is true, not an assumption of truth. It's nothing else.

Yes I am discussing the proposition knowledge is true. I am saying this is an assumption. Not that knowledge is an assumption of truth.

 

[Willamena]

Yes I am discussing the proposition knowledge is true. I am saying this is an assumption. Not that knowledge is an assumption of truth.

What's the difference? Propositional knowledge is knowledge, or at least it should be.
(Sorry if I miss the mark, I'm racing to catch up on the thread.)

 

[leibowde84]

Lol, you assume that a child having a child initiated conversation was trying to communicate disinterest by saying "I don't believe in God?"

That is a stretch. I suppose not impossible but I am skeptical of such. I think it infinitely more likely that the child was saying God is not real. The same as a child would be communicating when they said "I don't believe in Santa" or "leprechauns" or "monsters" etc.

My point from the onset is that there is no reason to make the assumption. What do you gain by assuming that the kid was not only explaining his lack of belief in God, but also an active belief that the concept of God is impossible as an existing reality? Why not leave it as a lack of belief until explicitly stated otherwise?

 

[Willamena]

So you admit what was once a belief, no longer is a belief once it reaches factual status as it is now knowledge and no longer a belief.

Beliefs factually can change into knowledge.

But also, what was once knowledge can change into belief once its falsehood is revealed. It can revert.

Your WHOLE point amounts to every conscious thought is a belief and your wrong.

And just because some people can believe knowledge because they don't know it is knowledge, does not mean by any credible manner all knowledge is a belief.

Facts are not beliefs, because some people don't accept them and choose to believe. 2 is not a belief when adding 1 + 1 it is factual knowledge unless your 2 years old and are ignorant to all life.

Every conscious thought is a belief as long as it's viewed as a conscious thought. It's when we forget or dismiss conscious thought that it can be identified as truth, because to associate it with conscious thought is to associate it with a reflection.

 

[leibowde84]

Dictionary is for the layman, not the philosopher, it uses the term as is commonly used in everyday speech, not in relevant opinion, correct usage, or necessarily well thought-out usage.

Can you support this claim? That the dictionary is useless in pretty much all useful discussion? Seems outrageous. So, forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

 

[Curious George]

My point from the onset is that there is no reason to make the assumption. What do you gain by assuming that the kid was not only explaining his lack of belief in God, but also an active belief that the concept of God is impossible as an existing reality? Why not leave it as a lack of belief until explicitly stated otherwise?

Why not? Because it is not likely that is what the kid was saying. But, I did leave it that the kid was just rejecting the premise God exists. Even though I think the kid believes god doesn't exist.

The kid cannot be an implicit atheist. He knows about God and has the capacity to believe. This would make the kid at most a weak explicit atheist. Weak explicit atheist reject a belief in God. This means that they believe the proposition God exists is not true.

The kid wasn't punished because of ignorance or inability. The kid, if all alleged is true and there are no other mitigating circumstances, was punished because he believes what others believe is not true.

Why try to force in the possibility of implicit atheism when such a possibility does not exist?

 

[Curious George]

That the dictionary is useless in pretty much all useful discussion?

That is not the claim. Forgive me if I don't take the time to explain a claim I did not make. If you would like me to support my actual claim I can do that.

 

[Willamena]

No it is not acceptance of truth, it would have evolved into knowledge at that point. Belief is simply thinking something is the way it is, without knowledge of the truth by definition.

Your first part is correct, belief is assumption, and knowledge is not.




Not at all. I don't believe in 2 in any sense. I don't believe in facts.

The dispute is obviously not about the words belief or knowledge, but acceptance.

Acceptance of truth means thinking that something is the way it is.

 

[Curious George]

My point from the onset is that there is no reason to make the assumption.

Yes there is reason. He was seven. He said I don't believe in God. He knows what he is talking about. He knows his position. He has a position. He has the ability to form belief. These are reasons that diminish the possibility that this kid was just a vacuum. Sorry that you would like to view him as one, but it is not likely. I will go with the likely, reasoned approach.

 

[leibowde84]

Why not? Because it is not likely that is what the kid was saying. But, I did leave it that the kid was just rejecting the premise God exists. Even though I think the kid believes god doesn't exist.

The kid cannot be an implicit atheist. He knows about God and has the capacity to believe. This would make the kid at most a weak explicit atheist. Weak explicit atheist reject a belief in God. This means that they believe the proposition God exists is not true.

The kid wasn't punished because of ignorance or inability. The kid, if all alleged is true and there are no other mitigating circumstances, was punished because he believes what others believe is not true.

Why try to force in the possibility of implicit atheism when such a possibility does not exist?

I never said that the kid was an implicit atheist. Where did that come from? I just said that he (explicitly) claimed to lack a belief in God, and that's it. You are injecting the premise that a lack of belief in God, if noted explicitly, necessarily also expresses an active belief that the concept of God is an impossibility. I disagree with it. "Implicit atheism" was not referred to until you brought it up in your last comment.

 

[Curious George]

I never said that the kid was an implicit atheist. Where did that come from? I just said that he (explicitly) claimed to lack a belief in God, and that's it. You are injecting the premise that a lack of belief in God, if noted explicitly, necessarily also expresses an active belief that the concept of God is an impossibility. I disagree with it. "Implicit atheism" was not referred to until you brought it up in your last comment.

No, not an impossibility. That is never what I have said. Only that a person who rejects gods existence does not see God exists as a true proposition.

 

[Curious George]

I never said that the kid was an implicit atheist. Where did that come from? I just said that he (explicitly) claimed to lack a belief in God, and that's it. You are injecting the premise that a lack of belief in God, if noted explicitly, necessarily also expresses an active belief that the concept of God is an impossibility. I disagree with it. "Implicit atheism" was not referred to until you brought it up in your last comment.

The rejection of a proposition is to see it as not true. If the child did not believe the proposition God exists was not true, then the only option left would be implicit atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

That is not the claim. Forgive me if I don't take the time to explain a claim I did not make. If you would like me to support my actual claim I can do that.

Oh. I apologize. I honestly thought that was your point. That for some reason dictionary definitions are uselss in the vast majority of intellectual discussions.

But, yes, please provide your supporting evidence. And, please clarify your point, if you don't mind. I am interested to hear where I was wrong. I sincerely do appreciate it.

 

[leibowde84]

The rejection of a proposition is to see it as not true. If the child did not believe the proposition God exists was not true, then the only option left would be implicit atheism.

There is a third option. That's the whole point. Not holding a position either way. What do you have to support your claim that "true" and "false" are the only options. I feel like the inadequacy of the definition of God and what God is limited to, the subjective implications of any belief, and the present (obvious) ramafacations of each position preclude this from being the case. In other words, it's too complicated to limit it to "true" and "false" when discussing BELIEFS. Remember ... we are not discussion 1+1=2. We are discussing the holding of the BELIEF that 1+1=2. Inherent subjectivity is necessary to every aspect of this discussion.

 

[leibowde84]

No, not an impossibility. That is never what I have said. Only that a person who rejects gods existence does not see God exists as a true proposition.

And some who say that, also find there to be insufficient evidence to claim belief in the opposite. I mean, many atheists claim to avoid belief.

 

[Shad]

This seems very different from your earlier explanation. Earlier you explained that all claims to knowledge were ultimately falsifiable under poppers explanation. Now only external are?

The framework of knowledge we had been using was centered around knowledge of reality as a representation between the subject and that which is observed. Also we are talking about justifications thus external reasons to hold a view. This is always falsifiable since our tools and senses are limited. We can have a high probability supporting a representation not 100% certainty. An internal, mental state, is something we can express but never represent as objective knowledge. It is not relational between a subject and that which observed. Thus mental states become subjective knowledge which can only be contained within 1 of the 3 worlds. You nor I can get into minds not our own to verify these mental states.

So it depends if you view your own mental states as knowledge. Do you know you exist or do you believe you exist? Do you know what your own thoughts are or do you believe you do? Do you know your thoughts are your own or do you believe the thoughts are? Keep in mind a belief can be wrong. So if you believe you are acknowledging there is a possibility that your thoughts are produced by someone or something else. Self becomes an illusion. Matrix or brain in a jar.

It would be easier to explain Popper's model.

World 1 is reality, what exists, ultimate truth, etc. It exists regardless of beliefs, claims or self. For example H2O as an atomic structure, this is a reality. World 1 creates World 2 by necessity. If there is no reality there is no person or self.

World 2 is perception, self, mental states, mental processes, consciousness, beliefs, etc. Emotions are mental states. The knowledge of self is personal/subjective knowledge rather than objective knowledge. We can not confirm self by any objective standard. World 2 attempts to understand World 1 which creates World 3. We create hypothesis within World 2 which represent World 1. Science, philosophy, religion, etc are all products of World 2.

World 3 is comprised of representations of communication methods for ideas produced by World 2 representing World 1. The language we are using, the form of the communication, the references used are all forms of communication. We are using World 3 more than World 1 or 2 at the moment

The test/observe line is falsifiability tests and evidence. Ideas which are unfalsifiable as contained in Word 2. Ideas which have a higher degree of probability and have not been falsified yet. These forms into knowledge which is contained in World 3. For example Evolution would be objective knowledge. However objective knowledge is never absolute since it doe not use strict deductive logic.

There are a few points I have skipped covering the links between the worlds. If you are interested I can cover these later. However I think a few of these methods can be deducted easily if you think about the relational stances between worlds along with my bike example and what knowing how to ride a bike entails.