(January 30, 2013 at 10:21 pm)genkaus Wrote:(January 30, 2013 at 9:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: You may believe it, but with nothing to guide you either way, it is not a clever position... Unless you're betting on it...then you'd want it to be true.
What if you don't believe that she's blonde? Does that mean that you automatically believe that she's not blonde?
Yes, it does.
(January 30, 2013 at 9:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Belief is a funny thing...has to start with some proposition, and then you may believe it or not.
Let's say some friend of yours comes to you and says "pocaracas' mum is blonde".you have no way of knowing if he knows my mum or not, so you either believe him, or you don't.
If you believe him, you believe that my mum is blonde. If you don't believe him, it simply means you realize he has no way of knowing that and he's probably messing with you... You don't believe the proposition that my mum is blonde and this says nothing about your belief in the proposition that she's not blonde.
You simply do not believe, period.
Its simpler than that actually. If I don't believe my friend, then I don't believe your mum is blonde. I am capable of accepting that I don't have a way of knowing and that my belief regarding it can be easily changed by the slightest amount of evidence presented, all the while realizing that even without evidence, whether I believe my friend or not, I am professing a belief.
(January 30, 2013 at 9:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If no one proposes to you that my mum is blonde, you may still come up with that idea by yourself... But what would prompt you into coming up with such an idea? Most likely, some information like you knowing that I'm blonde...which you could get from some photo. Then you'd plug in your knowledge of genetics (even if just empirical) and determine how likely it is for my mum to be as blonde as I am...if you find it likely, then it makes sense for you to believe that she's blonde.if you find it unlikely, it makes sense that you'd believe that she's not blonde. If you find that the likelihood of her being blonde is the same or very close to the likelihood of her not being blonde, then you're back at the no info either way position... And one where belief either way is not very smart.
You seem to be of the opinion that in absence of any evidence professing any belief is not "smart" - why is that?
Why? Because you'd be a gullible person, if you believe any proposition presented to you, or, if you believe the opposite, you'd be an anti-social.
What you seem to fail to notice is that I specify the absence of information regarding the truth value of the proposition.
We all have acquired some awareness of the world around us in our lifetimes and that has provided us with information on a broad range of themes. The proposition that my mum is blonde would be automatically judged by all the information you have available, at least about the global proportion of blondes vs non-blondes; or the previously established (by you) trustworthiness of your friend that proposes it.
Based on such (sometimes sparse) information, you make a judgement and that is why you state that if you do not believe something, that is because you have some information which hints the opposite of the proposition.
Now, let's go to the ultimate example: belief in god's existence.
What sort of information do I have that proposes some god's existence? people's testimony, some of it written.
The trustworthiness of these persons, to me, is sketchy.
What information do I have of the opposite proposition (there is no god)? only the absence of any divine intervention (as testified by the proponents of the "god exists" proposition) within my life's experience.... compounded with other testimonies stating the same absence.
This absence, to you, may be enough to claim your belief that there is no god.
To me, it just enforces the default position, which arises from the absence of the proposition itself.
If no one in my lifetime had ever mentioned any divine entities, how would I believe them not to exist? How would I believe them to exist?
In the 1700's, people were unaware of the existence of black holes. Did they believe black holes not to exist? Did they believe black holes to exist?
Or they were in the default position: i don't know?
Then someone came up with the idea of a black hole, based on Einstein's space-time curvature due to gravity. To the people that understood Einsteins theory, black holes made sense, so they believed they could exist (even if no one had observed one yet). The common people had no such knowledge of the theory, so they didn't have enough information to form an educated opinion on the subject.... they did form opinions, none the less...
Some didn't believe they could exist (their experience of the world didn't accommodate that notion), some believed based only on the fact that the scientists were trustworthy (appeal to authority), some remained unaware, others unable to form an opinion...
Now that you know that black holes are real, you'd say the ones that believed the scientists were the smart lot.... but imagine no one had yet observed the effects of a black hole.
Which of those groups would have been smart? Is it smart to accept the saying of a group of people, just because you acknowledge them to be some authority? Is it smart to dismiss those people's proposition and promptly accept the opposite? Or is it smart to remain in doubt until some more information comes to light about said proposition?
As it turns out, the predicted signature x-ray radiation has been detected as coming from a few candidate black hole positions, so the notion that black holes exist has gained some evidence in its favor. This makes me believe that black holes exist.
No such information exists about gods, so all I have available is other people's testimony and my lack of experience of whatever they testify.
