On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:08:32 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 10:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But if you listen to it and say "Ah, that's Partida #1 by J. S. Bach",
>> you don't have to believe it is, because you know it is.
> 
> You're just using the word "belief" to mean what I'd mean by "belief but
> not certainty."  I don't think becoming certain of something means you
> stop believing it; quite the opposite. I don't think believing something
> that turns out to be true means you've stopped believing it either.
> 
> If I open my eyes and say "I believe the sun is up already", and then I
> get out of bed and open the curtain and it's all bright and blue sky
> out, would you really say "I no longer believe the sun is up"?

No, because I no longer need to assert a belief that the sun is up.  I 
know it's up - that's a testable and provable state.

It becomes unnecessary to believe it, but that it becomes unnecessary 
doesn't mean it is necessary to state explicitly that the belief is 
unnecessary.

But if I were to describe the change in state, it would be "I no longer 
need to believe that the sun is up - I know it is."

IOW, it's not that finding out causes disbelief, it removes the need for 
belief because it's demonstrably true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message