Is there a difference between "I do not believe X" and "I believe X is false"?

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 05:56:57 AM

Is there really a significant epistemological difference, here? Because I actually can't see it.

Mr. Psychologist · February 08, 2015, 07:24:50 AM

Hmm, well if it was believe in then perhaps but they are fairly similar.

I don't believe what you are saying
I believe what you are saying is false

I guess one is slightly more accusatory, but other than that I'm not seeing any big differences >.>

Turkey · February 08, 2015, 07:54:10 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 05:56:57 AM

epistemological

Meta's word of the week.

OT: I dunno, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference except in certainty of the belief.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 07:56:13 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 08, 2015, 07:54:10 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 05:56:57 AM
epistemological

Meta's word of the week.

OT: I dunno, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference except in certainty of the belief.

This really is an issue for me because I hear atheists say it all the time (see: Armoured Skeptic on Youtube). Whether or not you assert the falsehood of an entity or assert a lack of belief of an entity. . . It seems the same to me.

It's fucking with my head.

Turkey · February 08, 2015, 08:27:28 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 07:56:13 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 08, 2015, 07:54:10 AM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 05:56:57 AM
epistemological

Meta's word of the week.

OT: I dunno, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference except in certainty of the belief.
This really is an issue for me because I hear atheists say it all the time (see: Armoured Skeptic on Youtube). Whether or not you assert the falsehood of an entity or assert a lack of belief of an entity. . . It seems the same to me.

It's fucking with my head.

Goji would point out the importance of linguistics here. There's definitely a difference in intent between the two statements.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 08:31:02 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 08, 2015, 08:27:28 AM

There's definitely a difference in intent between the two statements.

Sure, but I want to know if it qualifies different burdens of proof in any way.

Dustin · February 08, 2015, 10:19:21 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 11:03:24 AM

I think you already made a thread about this.

"I do not believe in X" is passive disbelief, whereas "I believe X is false" implies active disbelief.

Saying it passively is the equivalent of tacking on "in my opinion" when you make a subjective statement. It's just a way to placate sensitive people, which... Fuck that.

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 11:04:51 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 08:31:02 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 08, 2015, 08:27:28 AM
There's definitely a difference in intent between the two statements.
Sure, but I want to know if it qualifies different burdens of proof in any way.

I wouldn't say so.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 11:06:15 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 08, 2015, 11:03:24 AM

I think you already made a thread about this.

"I do not believe in X" is passive disbelief, whereas "I believe X is false" implies active disbelief.

Saying is passively is the equivalent of tacking on "in my opinion" when you make a subjective statement. It's just a way to placate sensitive people, which... Fuck that.

So it's actually just a null semantic issue, as opposed to a real epistemic one?

g💚jira · February 08, 2015, 11:10:07 AM

Would you say that X != True => X == False? It seems kind of tautological to me. Not True == False, and that's an axiom of propositional logic.

Logically? I can't see any real meaningful distinction. Linguistically? If someone is using the phrase "I believe" to make a proposition in a formal debate, you know you're in for a wild ride already.

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 11:10:45 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 11:06:15 AM

So it's actually just a null semantic issue, as opposed to a real epistemic one?

As long as it can be agreed that one cannot "prove a negative", yeah.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: gogojirajira on February 08, 2015, 11:10:07 AM

you know you're in for a wild ride already.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 11:15:38 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 08, 2015, 11:10:45 AM

As long as it can be agreed that one cannot "prove a negative", yeah.

It can't. Of course you can.

So long as prove = evidence to a suitable degree. Since nothing is absolutely provable.

g💚jira · February 08, 2015, 11:18:04 AM

Though technically, one could say that the first statement implies "I do not have any decent reason to think X is True" as opposed to "X is False." The first one wouldn't be a resolute claim requiring substantiation [hell it's a value judgement no less- and not the right kind].

Man, screw linguistics. Can't we all just think in math?

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 11:19:07 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 11:15:38 AM

It can't. Of course you can.

So long as prove = evidence to a suitable degree. Since nothing is absolutely provable.

Nothing's absolutely suitable, either.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 11:20:16 AM

Quote from: gogojirajira on February 08, 2015, 11:18:04 AM

Though technically, one could say that the first statement implies "I do not have any decent reason to think X is True"

Which must result in its negation nonetheless.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 11:21:12 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 08, 2015, 11:19:07 AM

Nothing's absolutely suitable, either.

That sort of scepticism gets you nowhere.

People who have different degrees of suitability regarding the "truth" of something are just called stupid when they cross a certain threshold.

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 12:27:36 PM

I'm having trouble seeing how one can "prove" a negative, anyway. You use terms like "reasonable doubt," which is a good term, but the point of the adage is not to imply that anything else is provable--just that, fundamentally, there is nothing I can do (for example) to make a religious person concede to atheism just by using pure logic alone--Nothing. Which is unfortunate, but it's reality.

So instead of trying to show why there is no god by using logic, we just say, "you can't prove a negative"--because not only can't you prove a negative--it would be a waste of time to even attempt to do so. It's far easier for people to prove the existence of something rather than the nonexistence of something.

You're going to be hard-pressed to find proof that I don't have an invisible velociraptor in my garage, for example, but...
all I have to do to prove that I have eyes is post a picture of my eyes. You can say, "photoshop," but I mean... again, that's the function of the phrase, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

tl;dr
we're pretty much saying the same shit, just in different ways
i like my way better, so neener neener

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 12:30:55 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 08, 2015, 12:27:36 PM

I'm having trouble seeing how one can "prove" a negative, anyway.

It's literally just a linguistic trick; "God exists" is the same as "God doesn't not exist". Negative assertions still have propositional content, and can be shown through absence of evidence despite attempted observation. "There is no milk in the bowl".

Quote

You're going to be hard-pressed to find proof that I don't have an invisible velociraptor in my garage, for example, but...

I set up infra-red cameras in your garage and record, look for claw marks, et cetera.

Now, you can redefine this velociraptor to the point where it has no empirical characteristics, and it becomes literally meaningless anyway.

w/e · February 08, 2015, 01:46:58 PM

Scenario matters in this case, y'know.

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 04:10:34 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 12:30:55 PM

It's literally just a linguistic trick; "God exists" is the same as "God doesn't not exist". Negative assertions still have propositional content, and can be shown through absence of evidence despite attempted observation. "There is no milk in the bowl".

I... don't like that. I see what you're saying, but it doesn't really work, because... I mean... When you say, "God doesn't not exist" (converting a poitive assertion into a negative assertion), when you boil the phrase down to its roots, you still get "god exists." You still have yourself a positive affirmation of the existence of god, and that is still subject to the burden of proof.

How do you linguistically assert something's nonexistence without using negative terminology? "God exists not?" That's just... flipping the words around. When you boil the phrase down, you still have yourself a negative assertion on the existence of god. You can't boil it down further than "god doesn't exist." See what I mean?

Quote

Now, you can redefine this velociraptor to the point where it has no empirical characteristics, and it becomes literally meaningless anyway.

Meaningless to you, anyway. I might also claim to be the only one who can see it.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 04:17:00 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 08, 2015, 04:10:34 PM

I might also claim to be the only one who can see it.

So I perform neurological tests and record the activity in your brain to see if there's any apparent stimulus.

If there isn't, you're a liar. If there is, we put you in an asylum.

Not just meaningless to me, either, propositions without empirical content are epistemically void; they have zero functionality.

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 04:20:10 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 04:17:00 PM

If there is, we put you in an asylum.

And that's the argument? I'm not sure you're entirely seeing my point here.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 04:21:16 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 08, 2015, 04:20:10 PM

I'm not sure you're entirely seeing my point here.

I'm not entirely sure what it is, to be honest.

The negation of a positive assertion necessarily entails some sort of negative evidence.

Genghis Khan · February 08, 2015, 04:32:33 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 08, 2015, 04:20:10 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 04:17:00 PM
If there is, we put you in an asylum.
And that's the argument? I'm not sure you're entirely seeing my point here.

No one ever does.

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 04:36:12 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 04:21:16 PM

The negation of a positive assertion necessarily entails some sort of negative evidence.

Assuming that's right... I don't think it is, and I've never met any such concession, but assuming you're right, what would the negative evidence be for a deist god, if one denies the existence of any deist gods? I don't see that necessarily following.

More Than Mortal · February 08, 2015, 04:38:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 08, 2015, 04:36:12 PM

what would the negative evidence be for a deist god, if one denies the existence of any deist gods?

Depends upon the nature of the deist gods in question. However, the complete absence of evidence for any empirical proposition relating to the potential existence of said deist gods would be the negative evidence.

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 04:42:37 PM

I guess I don't disagree, but something about it just rubs me the wrong way.

Verbatim · February 08, 2015, 04:47:13 PM

It's as if my own lack of faith in it is evidence for its lack of veracity. lol