How does one protect themselves from slipping from developing a theory into reinforcing a belief.

Since we have agreement on the definition of ‘belief’ and ‘theory,’ let us start a new related subject. How does one protect themselfs from slipping from developing a theory into reinforcing a belief.

Now that we know that when someone says that they ‘believe’ that X is ‘true,’ that there is no reason to use the empirical method in discussing their ‘believes.’ It would be unfair to both parties. By saying that one ‘believe’ that X is true, one is saying that they have no empirical data which can be evaluated for X. They do have feelings about X or they accept X or have faith in X or the hold the opinion that X is ‘true,’ but they have no data that can be compared with the other person. All opposing ‘beliefs’ have an equal probability of being ‘true’ or ‘false’ because they have nothing to compare between the beliefs. Believing something does not make it ‘true’ or ‘false,’ but it does mean that there is no belief has any more probability than any other belief.

If someone says that they ‘theorize’ that something is true, it opens up the possibility of mutual exploration into the idea with the use of the empirical/scientific method. By saying that they have a ‘theory’ they imply that they have premises and/or a framework which can be explored using empirical tools. Opposing ‘theories’ will have different levels of probability based on the empirical/scientific method. Theorizing something does not make it ‘true’ or ‘false,’ but it does mean that the data can show that one theory can be more probable then any other theories.

So, the question of this post is, how does one protect them selfs from slipping from developing a theory to merely reinforcing a belief when one uses the empirical/scientific method.

Let me again use the built in macintosh dictionary:

-------------------
Empirical method
Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with the experimental method.
-------------------------
empirical
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
-----------------------------
scientific method
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
------------------------------

One way one can protect them selfs from slipping from developing a theory to reinforcing a belief is to have empirical/scientific discussions where one explore the probability of empirical/scientific data and to continually get more data.

If one uses the empirical data that one has acquired up to the time of evaluation, one can propose that X is more probable then Y.

But now, let us talk about the gorila that is in the room. ‘Certainty.’

---------------------------
certainty
firm conviction that something is the case
---------------------------

the quest for certainty leads one to the “logical problems with induction” presented by David Hume, Karl Popper and others. Hume wrote: “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.”

In an infinit univers there is an infinit amount of data and the very last bit of data at the very end of infinity might be a ‘black swan’ which could disprove all previous observations. With this in mind, one must admit that there will be no certainty until all the data in the univers has been acquired.

But is knowledge an “on” or “off’ switch? Is empirical/scientific theory/knowledge an all or nothing deal? When they discovered that there were black swans it disproved the statement that ”all swans are white,” but it didn’t disprove that there are white swans. And even though humanity may find data that there are no “white swans,” the probability is very small.

A posible illustration of the rheostat of understanding could be ignorance, belief, hypothesis, theory, certainty and I would put forward that the farther one moves along this line of understanding, the more functionally one can interact with the world. (This maybe the start of another post.)

And so, in conclusion, I would like to say that even though empirical/scientific knowledge is not a certainty it is more functional then any method that we know of at this time and by continually reexamining our data we can keep ourselves from slipping from developing a theory into reinforcing a belief.