Yes, if it's an opinion that makes sense. Like how I don't share (believe in) Christian beliefs, yet I do not believe in Christian beliefs being false just because I do not share them.

The former is almost an admittance that X may be false or true, depending on belief. Whereas the latter is a definitive statement about X being totally false, in your opinion. It's down to the placement of 'belief', as in one case it is referring to X, and in the other it is referring to you.

Oh, and if you replace X with 'it' you end up with two totally different statements, so there's that too.

Quote from: Sprungli on February 08, 2015, 04:50:20 PM

Like how I don't share (believe in) Christian beliefs, yet I do not believe in Christian beliefs being false just because I do not share them.

Yes, you do. You necessarily do. Not believing something implies you believe it's falsehood. Otherwise you'd believe it.

Not believing is something that implies I have my doubts, not that I believe it is false. Not believing implies I believe there is the possibility of it's falsehood, that's why there is a difference between someone saying they know something and someone saying they believe something. Believing implies that you think X is most likely, whereas knowing implies you think that X is certain

Quote from: Sprungli on February 08, 2015, 05:05:52 PM

Not believing is something that implies I have my doubts, not that I believe it is false. Not believing implies I believe there is the possibility of it's falsehood, that's why there is a difference between someone saying they know something and someone saying they believe something. Believing implies that you think X is most likely, whereas knowing implies you think that X is certain

You can't make that parition; there is no epistemic middle-ground here.

You either believe some proposition is true or false, and varying degrees of probability or certainty within that are just fluff.

You are incorrect, it has been proven that the human mind does not think in ways of true or false, there is always a middle ground. That is of course what makes programming AIs so challenging and what makes the process of making moral decisions so difficult.

Quote from: Sprungli on February 08, 2015, 05:11:17 PM

You are incorrect, it has been proven that the human mind does not think in ways of true or false

[citation needed]

Yeah, no. I have philosophy to do by the morning, i'm not going to waste any more time here

Quote from: Sprungli on February 08, 2015, 05:53:53 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 08, 2015, 05:13:43 PM

Quote from: Sprungli on February 08, 2015, 05:11:17 PM

You are incorrect, it has been proven that the human mind does not think in ways of true or false

[citation needed]

Yeah, no. I have philosophy to do by the morning, i'm not going to waste any more time here

What the fuck? Don't make claims like that if you aren't going to provide links for them.

I shouldn't need to, why would I provide a link to a universally accepted, basic fact of life? I'm not publishing a scientific paper or writing a book on a philosophical concept, i'm talking to a dude on the internet in a sub-forum currently comprised of two fucking people.

Quote from: Sprungli on February 08, 2015, 06:06:48 PM

I shouldn't need to, why would I provide a link to a universally accepted, basic fact of life?

I must have missed the memo which let us all know that people don't deal with propositions on a true-false basis. . .

So, yeah, either provide some evidence or rescind your claim.

Is killing people moral?

Yes or no.

No buts, no explanations, no exceptions. Except that is simply not possible, there is always a grey area, i'm not going to look for a scientific paper because I have the entirety of life as my example. Of course you can deal with questions on a true/false basis, when there is a factually correct answer that does not rely on human judgement or perception...

No buts, no explanations, no exceptions.

Well first of all nothing I said even vaguely supports the idea that I think there are no exceptions to certain answers; you've just expressed an incredibly poor proposition.

Hell, it wasn't even a proposition,  it was a question. If you were to present a proposition which is well-formed (Killing people is always morally wrong) then there's quite a clear capacity for us to give it the epistemic label of true or false.

The fact that we can poke holes in incredibly poorly thought out propositions does literally nothing to the true-false dichotomy. Asserting, to any probability or degree, that a proposition is not acceptable entails its negation.