3 ms·

I can't say I wholly agree, although I support the motive. Using the word "understanding" where I think "belief" is a more accurate term is wordplay to maintain

I can't say I wholly agree, although I support the motive. Using the word "understanding" where I think "belief" is a more accurate term is wordplay to maintain a specific worldview. "results" and "better" seemingly avoid precision.

nobody9999 5y ago
>I can't say I wholly agree, although I support the motive. Using the word "understanding" where I think "belief" is a more accurate term is wordplay to maintain a specific worldview. "results" and "better" seemingly avoid precision. Fair enough. I am uncertain as to which "specific worldview" you think I wish to maintain. If you'd expand on that, It would be appreciated.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > I am uncertain as to which "specific worldview" you think I wish to maintain. belief: 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists 2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. You are taking the position that you know something while at the same time you are acknowledging that it might be wrong because science often reveals that we have insufficient models or tenets for some understandings. This fits as belief. You probably think it's a detriment to use a term you associate with spiritualism, so you avoid it. The best way to describe this behavior of denial is that it's baked into your worldview (think supermario bros, not the earth). Thinking that answers that science have provided are more valid (for some value of valid) than other belief means that your belief in science can't be belief and it certainly isn't "faith" (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.)...oh I guess it is. Not sure why people think this does anything but confuse discussions about reality when treating the religion of science differently because it is a practice and tenets born of humans rather than a flying spaghetti monster (which we are quickly outgrowing). It's the SAME THING from a different source and just as likely to be used for evil (eugenics, political messaging, smoking doctor ads, etc).

nobody9999 5y ago

>I can't say I wholly agree, although I support the motive. Using the word "understanding" where I think "belief" is a more accurate term is wordplay to maintain a specific worldview. "results" and "better" seemingly avoid precision. Fair enough. I am uncertain as to which "specific worldview" you think I wish to maintain. If you'd expand on that, It would be appreciated.

Supermancho 5y ago
> I am uncertain as to which "specific worldview" you think I wish to maintain. belief: 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists 2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. You are taking the position that you know something while at the same time you are acknowledging that it might be wrong because science often reveals that we have insufficient models or tenets for some understandings. This fits as belief. You probably think it's a detriment to use a term you associate with spiritualism, so you avoid it. The best way to describe this behavior of denial is that it's baked into your worldview (think supermario bros, not the earth). Thinking that answers that science have provided are more valid (for some value of valid) than other belief means that your belief in science can't be belief and it certainly isn't "faith" (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.)...oh I guess it is. Not sure why people think this does anything but confuse discussions about reality when treating the religion of science differently because it is a practice and tenets born of humans rather than a flying spaghetti monster (which we are quickly outgrowing). It's the SAME THING from a different source and just as likely to be used for evil (eugenics, political messaging, smoking doctor ads, etc).