I, Seanchan Owen, put forward that an idea which has premises or a framework is a theory and it is different then a belief.
Let us take the example of 'Santa Claus.’ If one has the premises that the time it would take to get into all the house in the world in one night would be impossible, the aerodynamic and power of reindeers makes them unable to fly, and the amount of presents that would be need for all the children in the world would not fitted into Santa’s sled, and the definition of Santa Clause is someone who can get these things to happen, then one can theorizes that there is no one who can do these tasks and there fore there is no Santa Clause. It would be correct to say, “I theorize that there is no Santa Claus,” and incorrect to say, “I believe that there is no Santa Claus.”
Let’s us take a quick look at the dictionary that is built into this macintosh and see what it puts forward as the meaning of these two words. (we can look at other dictionaries as the post continues, if you wish, but I put forward that this could be looked at as general usage.)
----------------------
theorize |ˈθēəˌrīz; ˈθi(ə)rˌīz|
verb [ intrans. ]
form a theory or set of theories about something : [as n. ] ( theorizing) they are more interested in obtaining results than in political theorizing.
• [ trans. ] create a theoretical premise or framework for (something) : women should be doing feminism rather than theorizing it.
-----------------------
and
-----------------------
believe |biˈlēv|
verb [ trans. ]
1 accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of : the superintendent believed Lancaster's story | [with clause ] Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
• accept the statement of (someone) as true : he didn't believe her or didn't want to know.
• [ intrans. ] have faith, esp. religious faith : there are those on the fringes of the Church who do not really believe.
• ( believe something of someone) feel sure that (someone) is capable of a particular action : I wouldn't have believed it of Lois—what an extraordinary woman!
2 [with clause ] hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose : I believe we've already met | things were not as bad as the experts believed | humu-humu are, I believe, shrimp fritters | ( believe someone/something to be) four men were believed to be trapped.
--------------------
We see here that ‘theorize’ has premises or frameworks and ‘believe’ is structured on feelings or acceptance or faith or the holding of an opinion.
There is no way to calculate which belief has a higher probability of being correct if there is nothing to compare but the 'belief' of the participants. Two people, each with a different belief system, will not be able to prove that the other is incorrect in their bilief by using bilief alown. There is no way to compare a belief with a theory to see which has a higher probability because there is no way to compare something which is structured on feelings or acceptance or faith or what opinion one holds with perceivable premises which are testable. One can only reach an understanding by comparing theories as to which has a higher probability of being correct by comparing the premises or the framework of the two theories.
It is posible to philosophically discuss God if all parties have theories with premises or frameworks in relation to what they are discussing.
And so I put forward that “the best philosophers” need to use the words ‘theory’ and ‘belief’ correctly. It will be hard to change our habit, but if we don’t do it, who will?
Most of what you _think_ is a theory is likely merely a belief. One could argue that Christology is a "framework" and therefore might meet muster for your definition of "theory," but I doubt that it would be what you intended.
ReplyDeleteYour attempt to propose definitions, as I recall saying before, does you a great disservice.
Stop wasting your time trying to manipulate terms and be more explicit about your own framework.
In my view, the "belief" vs. "theory" debate is a distraction.
The only way to be sure that you are not falling victim "believing" your own "theories," is to develop a more rigorous way of analyzing what you think, why you think it, how to weigh what you think, and how and when to change.
I don't believe in the years we've had this discussion, that you've ever bothered to do that.
Your are right, I do think that, ‘One could argue that Christology is a ‘ "framework" ‘ and therefore might meet muster for your (my) definition of “theory,”’ and I did intend that when I said, in my post, that, “It is possible to philosophically (Ooops, I meant to say ‘empirically’ instead of 'philosophically' here.) discuss God if all parties have theories with premises or frameworks in relation to what they are discussing.” Any framework or premise can be empirically analyzed. It maybe right or wrong, but it is still a theory and not a belief. Something that is based on a structured of feelings or acceptance or faith or the holding of an opinion is a belief and not a theory and can not be empirically analyzed even though it maybe right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhen I propose definitions and do myself “a great disservice,” I am in good company.
Secretes ( http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rickless/Phil100/Phil100-Socratic%20Definition.htm ),
David Hume (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?pageno=42&fk_files=1474569 )
Ludwig Wittgenstein ( http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5740 )
Just to name a few others who theorize that agreement on definitions is important.
You say that I am trying to manipulate 'terms' and yet, all I did was copy and paste the definition out of the computers dictionary. Perhaps you can show me how I am manipulating these 'terms?'
As to the second part of that sentence where you say, “be more explicit about your own framework.” I would appreciate any guidance you could give me. It is an instruction that probably should happen in another post, but I would enjoy and benefit from your input and will initiate that post, if you would like me to.
You have put forward that you think that clarifying the use of the words, 'belief' and 'theory' “is a distraction.” I can only imagine that the idea that the “debate” is distracting us from is what the premise of my post is. The premise of my post is that people are misusing the word “belief” for the word “theory.” This is very similar to David Hume’s statement about the misuse of the word 'idea' which Locke used for both 'ideas' and 'impressions.' David’s illustrated that impressions are different then ideas and so the definition of these words should be different. This had a fundamental influence on the understanding of the empirical method. In my humble way, I am trying to follow in David’s footsteps.
With your statement that “you (I) are falling victim (to) "believing" your (my) own "theories,"” you imply an interesting theoretical idea and that is that I am “believing” in my “theories” about definitions. I do not think that this is inconstant with the use I am putting forward for these words “belief” and “theory.” Let me use different word in the sentence to see if the idea holds. “I feel that my premise is empirically sound.” “I feel” equals the “belief” part of the sentence and “my premise is empirically sound.” is the theory. We are discussing the premise (theory) of this post and we are not discussing the feeling (belief) of confidence that I have about my premise.
As to the statement that I have not changed “in the years we’ve had this discussion,” I would like to put forward that I did change as far as my idea that Philosophy was the greatest thing since can beer and you were one of the instruments that helped bring about my change. Malcolm and Tait were also contributors to the monumental personal change that took place before your eyes, and Palme and I think Laura were wittiness. I wonder if you, after so many years of being on the other side of the discussion of the need for agreed upon definitions, might think about giving change a chance and work on getting agreement on the definitions of the words we use in the group.
But perhaps we should find out what the others of our group theorize about this issue of the definition and use of “belief” and “theory?”
Great comment! I dare say it's even better that the post itself!
ReplyDeleteOn the point of definitions: I certainly think that definitions are important. But we need not _agree_ on definitions, by offering them they just afford _you_ the opportunity to let us know what you mean when you use a word.
This is clearly a good thing to do. But offering a definition is merely a precursor to making a larger case about something.
So, the definitions are fine. But not sufficient. What do we do with the words. How do they impact how we make decisions.
So far the preceding comment is probably the best statement I have witnessed.
So:
How do you, apart from using different words, protect yourself from slipping from developing a theory to slipping into merely reinforcing a belief. Surely saying "I theorize" vs. "I believe" is not sufficient. If your response is limited to simply changing the word, without a means to confirm, then you are just _manipulating_ the words (like you manipulate a stereo, not like you manipulate the public)
I clearly agree that definitions are useful.
I clearly agree that theories are almost always more useful than beliefs.
You are still in jeopardy!
We should not believe what our senses are telling us.
This is my core objection (and it's so important that I will say it again):
You cannot rely on your own senses alone, as they are tainted by the beliefs that you hold (yet cannot even perceive).
How do you truly make sure that you have "theories" and not beliefs _masked_ as theories.
What's missing is a defense against self-deception.