Belief means holding something to be true in philosophy

[Dawud]

There are some on this forum who use the term belief to imply doubt but contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge.

In the philosophy thread would it be better to use this philosophical protocol or to use belief as meaning "holding doubt about something".

Lots of people claim not to have belief in what they know - can we drop this more sloppy usage in the forum.

[pocaracas]

Why do you wish to make people believe in something and everything?
Why do you wish to broaden the meaning of a particular word so much that it interferes with the domain of another well defined word?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know that I'd use the word belief to mean "holding doubt about something", personally. I imagine that some just might doubt some thing that they believe - but we have plenty just here on these boards that obviously don't have any doubt about anything that they believe.

I understand why the term is used in the manner that it is between two philosophers, for example, but beyond their back and forths- that particular reading loses teeth.

[Ben Davis]

There are some on this forum who use the term belief to imply doubt but contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

Nope. You're misunderstanding the contemporary view the 'knowledge' is a subset of 'belief' commonly called 'justified-true belief'. This is a response to Descartes and allows philosophers to separate perceptual reality from the existential doubts (when agreed in definitions).

Consequently everything else you wrote is wrong.

Lots of people claim not to have belief in what they know - can we drop this more sloppy usage in the forum.

Well, I won't because it's not sloppy, it's granular and precise when applied to preceptual reality and justified-true belief. You just misunderstand its use.

[Dawud]

There are some on this forum who use the term belief to imply doubt but contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

Nope. You're misunderstanding the contemporary view the 'knowledge' is a subset of 'belief' commonly called 'justified-true belief'. This is a response to Descartes and allows philosophers to separate perceptual reality from the existential doubts (when agreed in definitions).

Consequently everything else you wrote is wrong.

Lots of people claim not to have belief in what they know - can we drop this more sloppy usage in the forum.

Well, I won't because it's not sloppy, it's granular and precise when applied to preceptual reality and justified-true belief. You just misunderstand its use.

To be fair, it is a quotation from one of the most authoritative and up to date encyclopaedias of philosophy in the English speaking world.

Your assertion that its wrong doesn't make you wrong - it just highlights your difference from academic philosophers in the English speaking world.

It's a difference Im happy to accept on this forum though - I'm just explaining that it is my humble background in academic philosophy that led me to use these standard definitions.

Stanford OEP btw

(A fantastic free resource that I suggest you make use of at some point!)

[Angrboda]

Analytic philosophy is dead.

[Dawud]

Yes - luckily SOEP is not an "analytical site" but is an encyclopaedia of philosophy as a whole and covers ancient philosophy also....

The analytical-Continental divide was quite artificial and I feel more like snobbery...

---

Analytic philosophy is dead.

Was this a rejection if Stanford OEP btw?