[lit-ideas] Re: Notting or not
- From: Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:57:13 -0600
Looking back at the original post, which I finally did, I see a different
question is posed. Is it the intent of the original question to ask
whether there is a difference between believing that x is not true and not
believing that x is true?
Julie Campbell
Julie's Music & Language Studio
1215 W. Worley
Columbia, MO 65203
573-881-6889
https://juliesmusicandlanguagestudio.musicteachershelper.com/
http://www.facebook.com/JuliesMusicLanguageStudio
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I want a definition of "believe" for the sake of this conversation. Or is
> the goal of the above conversation to define "believe" by equating it (or
> not) with cognitive knowing?
>
> "Belief" in common terms, at least, involves some psychological attitude
> that is typically distinguished from cognitive "knowing" by very virtue of
> subjective or psychological/psychiatric factors that are not purely
> cognitive.
>
> Perhaps the above dialogue is an argument about whether or not that is an
> accurate definition of "believe" or is, in fact, the way one will choose to
> use the word "believe".
>
> If the question then is that cognitive knowledge =
> psychologically/psychiatrically/emotionally impacted "belief" then it's not
> a matter of logic, it's a matter of definition, or behavioral science, or
> what have you.
>
> What am I missing here? I suspect that there's something about the nature
> of the original question that I don't understand.
>
> The phrase "choose to believe" has always troubled me, but largely because
> "believe" is a such freighted word.
>
> Julie Campbell
> Julie's Music & Language Studio
> 1215 W. Worley
> Columbia, MO 65203
> 573-881-6889
> https://juliesmusicandlanguagestudio.musicteachershelper.com/
> http://www.facebook.com/JuliesMusicLanguageStudio
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:53 AM, <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Some Notes on Noting, etc.
>>
>> I agree with McEvoy below.
>>
>> I would distinguish more than the scenarios provided by Phatic.
>>
>> i. Pierre notes that it is raining, and yet Pierre does not BELIEVE that
>> it is raining.
>> ii. Pierre notes that it is raining, and yet Pierre BELIEVES that it is
>> not raining.
>> iii. Since Pierre notes that it is raining, he should BELIEVE that it is
>> raining.
>>
>> Etc.
>>
>> It may be noted that 'note' is 'factive' (as the Kiparskys would put it):
>>
>> "I noted he was being sarcastic" seems to entail that "he was being
>> sarcastic".
>>
>> Etymology Online indeed notes that, 'probably', to "note" is cognate with
>> to 'know'.
>>
>> This would yield:
>>
>> iv. Pierre knows that it is raining yet he does not care to believe it.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> McEvoy seems right (and possibly is) about the non-equivalence of ~BEL
>> and
>> BEL~. Or not.
>>
>> One problem with Pierre is pointed out by Kripke. His example:
>>
>> v. Pierre believes that Londres is ugly.
>> vi. Pierre believes that London is pretty (i.e. not ugly).
>>
>> Pierre, in Kripke's convoluted example, fails to realise that London IS
>> Londres.
>>
>> Or not.
>>
>> The topic, more than Griceian (after Grice, who revelled in the nice
>> distinction of 'not-believe' and 'believe-not' in terms of implicature)
>> seems
>> Popperian. If we take 'note' as 'observe' (as we shouldn't), then Pierre,
>> upon
>> noting that it is raining should almost automatically form the belief
>> that
>> it is raining.
>>
>> (Pierre's noting (or observing) that p seems to refute -- or falsify --
>> his disbelief in p, or absence of belief in p. Or not).
>>
>> Thus, I agree with McEvoy that he (Pierre, not McEvoy) should "get out
>> more".
>>
>> In this connection, Pierre's Puzzle resembles Moore's:
>>
>> "I know it is raining, yet I won't believe it".
>>
>> --- If 'note' is used weakly to mean 'to have the hallucination', then, as
>> Geary notes, what Pierre notes is not a belief, but what Geary calls,
>> etymologically, an 'annotation'.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Speranza
>>
>> ----
>>
>> McEvoy:
>>
>> "Would it help to say this question is the same (given "Pierre notes
>> that
>> it is raining" is the same in both formulations and may be 'cancelled
>> out')
>> as asking whether "Pierre doesn't believe it's raining" is the same as
>> "Pierre believes that it's not raining"? And this is to ask whether "X
>> doesn't
>> believe p" is equivalent to "X believes non-p". And might it help to add
>> that, while in many cases these expressions may be interchangeable, we
>> might
>> draw a subtle distinction viz. when "X doesn't believe p" that doesn't
>> necessarily mean "X believes non-p" - for it may be "X doesn't believe p
>> or
>> non-p" i.e. even if X believes "p or non-p" must be true, X may not have
>> belief that p is actually true or that non-p is actually true. He may
>> believe
>> one of them must be true but have no belief as to which one is true. In
>> this
>> way "X doesn't believe p" is not equivalent to "X believes non-p" and nor
>> does it entail it. However, in many cases when "X doesn't believe p" that
>> is because "X believes non-p", and this may explain why the terms are
>> often
>> interchangeable. Btw, Pierre should get out more.
>>
>> Phatic:
>>
>> "Is there a (relevant) difference between "Pierre notes that it is
>> raining
>> and Pierre doesn't believe it's raining"
>> and "Pierre notes that it is raining and Pierre believes that it's not
>> raining."
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
