Using a sliding scale probabilistic belief system (instead of a dichotomous "I believe" vs "I don't believe" facilitates regular if not constant updating and comparison of strength of belief. Lots of little incremental, easy updates -- not some HUGE a BIG decision like atheist or believer.
If one is making BIG belief decisions, its a lot of work. Many may cut to the chase -- and say "ah, f it -- this is how I feel, I'll go with that instead of hard evaluation". That is an example, IMO, where belief appeal and choice of evaluation method can precede and trump rational systematic analysis -- leading to rationalizations. If however, the evaluation process is simple, day by day, incremental, e.g., "ah,thats some new info -- makes my (probabilistic) belief a bit stronger" -- then this reduces the liklihood of the cheaper process-- appeal, circumventing systematic evaluation and rationalizations process. The two factors that should drive choice of evaluation depth are (IMO): i) the importance of the belief / decision, and ii) the time/resources available to investigate it. Not a priori appeal. ' If something is not very important to you, a shorter, less deep evaluation protocol is appropriate. Same if you have little time to spend on it. Big important issues (to you) -- and for which you have the time, attention and sometimes money to investigate more deeply, deserve deeper,more systematic investigations. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "But there is a huge vast sliding scale > of probabilistic hierarchy and ranking of beliefs and disbeliefs." > > Excellent addition to the discussion New, probability ranking. That > is closer to how we really live with our belief disbelief continuum. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > For me,when I adopt a belief, I don't need a proof. Its therefore > > > okay, if I'm 'wrong'. > > ... > > > > > > It seems that the main point of a rationalist atheist is, that he will > > > not believe what cannot be proven. So his rationale is that he will > > > only adopt a belief, if there is a proof. > > > > There is quite a bit of territory in between these two views. Its > > called Probabalistically Qualified Belief (PQB). The extremes of the > > two views above (and I think you are not at extreme) is that one will > > believe anything with no proof (close to a walking ru ?) aka BA > > (believe anything), and a RA (Rational Atheist). Conditions for either > > are rarely met. > > > > A strict RA, if needing 100% proof, will never believe in much of > > anything. Science is never proved -- theories are confirmed with some > > degree of probabilistic accuracy. And since Godel, logic has its > > limits to absolutely prove things. > > > > And a BA (or TB), has some degree of evidence or logic for most > > beliefs. It just may they believe things with 3% confirmation (and > > sometimes 80% counter confirmation). That is not something I do (but > > perhaps did to a degree in TMO years) > > > > A PQB doesn't know or believe or disbelieve anything with certainty. > > But the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is assessed with a far > > higher probability than space aliens landing on the White House lawn > > tomorrow. Or a RU flying to Ottumwa. > > > > I/a PQG believes and disbelieves absolutely nothing. Anything is > > possible, nothing is certain. But there is a huge vast sliding scale > > of probabilistic hierarchy and ranking of beliefs and disbeliefs. > > >
