I believe that 2+2=4

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Something I see regularly in this subforum, and that annoys me, is people claiming that something is true but that they don't believe it.

The word "believe" means "think to be true". It does *not* mean "think to be true without due evidence", "think to be true for reasons of faith", "think to be true but admit some uncertainty about", or any of the other usages people seem to try to force onto it.

Now, admittedly, it is usually used in contexts where there is some uncertainy, but that's by no means a necessity.

"I believe that 2+2=4" is mildly unidiomatic, but it's certainly true.

The converse, "I do not believe that 2+2=4", is certainly false (in passing, note the difference between "I do not believe that 2+2=4" and the strictly stronger claim "I believe that 2+2=4 is false", but both statements are untrue in this case)

[Boojatta]

1. Do you really mean that?

Or do you just mean that you believe there is a valid deduction of 2+2=4 from a particular set theory?

In a previous discussion, you denied believing that any particular axioms of set theory are true. You defined "true" to mean "can be deduced from ZF."

[JDPriestly]

2. In the law, a witness can attest to something or declare

something based on personal knowledge, which means you were present and observed the events to which you attest or based on information and belief, meaning that you are basing your statement on something you have been told or heard about but not personally witnessed. So, I personally use belief to identify a statement that I may think is true but which is not based on evidence.

Actually, "I believe" does mean that you think something is true but you don't have evidence to support it.

[Boojatta]

4. Suppose that, a minute ago, I thoroughly shook twenty pennies in an ordinary

bottle large enough for them to be thoroughly mixed. Suppose that I just emptied the jar and the pennies fell on the floor. If you accept these suppositions, then do you believe that they did not all land with heads face up?

[JDPriestly]

11. You are talking about a guess, not a belief.

A belief is based on some information. You have not provided enough information to allow me to form a belief.

[Boojatta]

18. Do you believe that the next US Presidential election will not

be won by the nominee of the Libertarian Party or is that merely a guess and not a belief?

[JDPriestly]

19. I believe that and the basis for my belief is my

many years of experience observing the results of presidential elections. It is a belief. It is not knowledge. I would not swear to this belief under penalty of perjury. It is a belief in the vernacular sense of he word. I believe that my colleague will show up in the office around 8:30 a.m. because he habitually shows up at that time. I don't guess it. I have a basis for thinking that he will show up at that time. I don't know that he will because I haven't seen it happen.

In the vernacular, we use "believe" almost to mean a well informed guess, a guess based on past experience or on a promise from someone, on something we consider pretty reliable but not certain.

[xchrom]

3. believe

be·lieve
Pronunciation:
\b?-?l®•v\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
be·lieved; be·liev·ing
Etymology:
Middle English beleven, from Old English bel®•fan, from be- + ly¯fan, l®•fan to allow, believe; akin to Old High German gilouben to believe, Old English l®•of dear — more at love
Date:
before 12th century

intransitive verb
1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>
transitive verb
1 a: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon>
— be·liev·er noun
— not believe : to be astounded at <I couldn't believe my luck>


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/believe

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. As I see it, you have that reversed.

2+2=4. That remains, whether I believe it or not. It is not my belief that makes it so; it just is.

The statement "I believe that 2+2=4 is false" can be a perfectly true statement without affecting the reality of 2+2=4.

Belief is not reality. Belief is not dependent upon reality. Belief is often diametrically opposed to reality. If belief and reality happen to agree, it is because of the believer's respect for reality, not because of the strength of his belief.

I don't so much see people claiming someting is true but that they don't believe it - rather, I see people believing, whether it is true or not, as if their belief makes it so.

[lvx35]

7. I think your missing the OPs point.

If you take it up from 2+2=4 to something more complicated...I believe that the cardinality of the real numbers is aleph-one. IS it true whether I believe it or not? That's exactly the thing, there is contraversy, nobody knows 100%. Backing it up is complex. But if the facts you've seen make you believe that's what it is. And everythhing is like that, that's why the word "believe" is an important part of our language: You can talk about reality vs. belief all you want, so long as you acknowledge that nobody KNOWS reality except through experiences and beliefs.

[TZ]

9. What do you mean nobody knows 100%?

Have you been to some alternate reality where 2+2=5? I know that my heart beats and my blood circulates independent of what I think and believe. Reality can indeed be measured and it is everyday, in biology chemistry, physics labs...You are talking about PERCEPTION. But we can measure physical factors just fine. Or perhaps you think science won't work tomorrow unless we wish really really hard that it does (like tinkerbell?)

[lvx35]

10. Have you even thought about what that means?

You are talking about numbers existing in reality. We know that 2+2=4 because we can observe it, but there is a great deal of things we can't observe, or haven't personally observed and we use the word "believe".
And belief is a big thing, with numbers for instance. Picture a real number with an infinite decimal place, like pi. But unlike pi, this number is not computable, meaning we can't write a finite computer program to enumerate the digits in its decimal part. (they are essential random) Does this number exist? We can never represent it physically, we have no direct evidence of it. Yet math doesn't work if we don't assume numbers like this exist. So we choose to *believe* that they exist. Belief is an important part of what we do.

[cyborg_jim]

15. Maths Jumble

Does this number exist? We can never represent it physically, we have no direct evidence of it. Yet math doesn't work if we don't assume numbers like this exist. So we choose to *believe* that they exist.

Er not quite.

"Numbers" in "the real world" don't exist in the same way as matter or energy exists. They are a description of the organisation of energy.

If you say, "I see two apples," what you are really saying is that you identify two separate physical energy configurations as being similar in some way. They are completely distinct in physicality but you ignore that difference to create a unified description - allowing counting as per the natural numbers.

When it comes to things like the irrational numbers, reals and so forth these are really symbols manipulations concerning infinite representations. They don't need to "exist" any more than "two" needs to exist in order for there to be "two" apples. They're just rules that lead to certain mathematical consequences.

Like the consequence that numbers that cannot be finitely computed must be random - that's just what's left over. Belief or non-belief is unnecessary - the consequences flow from the definitions.

[skepticscott]

21. We can prove that transcendental numbers exist

and in fact we can prove that there are infinitely many more of them than there are rational numbers, without having to name a single one.

[Dr. Strange]

27. 2 + 2 = 5

Off topic (sort of), but here's some Radiohead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lstDdzedgcE

[RC]

6. Why does this thread remind me of an indeterminable number of Dancing Angels?

[sailor65]

8. Could this be the reason?

Webster:
verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
"Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully."

[Silent3]

12. Nothing more than a matter of technical vs. colloquial usage

In common colloquial usage, "believe" can simply mean "think to be true", with or without evidence.

When you get into a philosophical or religious discussion, you need to shift to using more precise, more technical meanings of words if you hope to gain any clarity, if you want to converse without having people shouting past each other, not even realizing they're barely discussing the same topic. In such a discussion, it makes sense to use "believe" specifically for the concept of thinking something to be true without evidence to support that belief.

The converse, "I do not believe that 2+2=4", is certainly false...

No, it's not certainly false. It's quite possible for a person to hold an incorrect belief, or fail to believe in something which is nevertheless true.

You might also be trying to make a distinction between belief and knowledge by saying something like, "I do not believe that 2+2=4, I KNOW that 2+2=4", in order to remove simple facts about addition from matters of belief, instead treating those facts as matters of knowledge. This could be a perfectly reasonable statement if you lay out a clear distinction between the concepts of belief and knowledge, in such a way as to avoid an endless recursion around the idea of whether thinking one possesses knowledge is itself a matter of belief.

[Jim__]

13. Do you have an example of this?

I mean an example of someone claiming that something is true but that they don't believe it. It sounds like some form of the liar's paradox.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. Yes, lots

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=162058&mesg_id=162087 is the one that sparked me off to post this.

[knitter4democracy]

14. I find it interesting you picked math.

Higher mathematics assumes certain things exist, equations are true that cannot be proven in a step-by-step proof, and that imaginary numbers are real. What an interesting choice for arguing about the semantics of the word "believe."

[cyborg_jim]

17. Imaginary numbers are real?

No, they're imaginary, not real.

(Not that either have any substance).

equations are true that cannot be proven in a step-by-step proof,

Strictly speaking that cannot be the case - proofs are inherently step-by-step.

[knitter4democracy]

20. But there are equations and rules that they can't prove. right?

Granted, I only got as far as Calc II in college, but I distinctly remember the prof talking about some things people haven't been able to prove and yet know them to be true.

Imaginary numbers are still used in equations, making them as real as any other number marked on the page. I still find that odd.

[cyborg_jim]

22. He was probably referring to Incompleteness

But it is strictly the case that if you cannot prove something to be true then you cannot know it is true. That is the epistemology of mathematics.

Imaginary numbers are still used in equations, making them as real as any other number marked on the page. I still find that odd.

Yes but my point is that the "realness" of any other number marked on the page is imaginary.

It is as easy to say that there is a defined value to the square root of minus one as it is to say there is no defined value.

[knitter4democracy]

23. I wish you'd been my math teacher.

What you said makes sense to me. My math teachers were all visual people, and I'm a word person, and they never could explain it that well to me. Eventually, I'd catch on, but I sure felt stupid while I was getting there.

[cyborg_jim]

24. It's just symbols and rules really

Too much thought about "the real world" gets in the way.

[Random_Australian]

25. I disagree. It's annoying to pick out what is what, so we use faith to mean

faith and belief to mean either faith or evidence.

Of course, I must admit that the main reason we can't have a word for "believe, based on the evidence" is because it will become so misused that it will end up meaning both. Especially in a religion section.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. How is that a disagreement?

You seem to be arguing that belief doesn't imply faith or absence of evidence, which was the point of my post.

[Random_Australian]

29. Sorry, you were saying nearly exactly the opposite of what I thought you were.

Ah well, to err is human; to listen when people point out your mistakes is useful.

[crawfish]

28. 2+2=5

For very large values of 2...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Or a sufficiently small value of 5?

NT

[crawfish]

31. I like the way you think.

:D

[CryptoLeptic]

32. I finally understand!

I finally understand this thread...everyone is high! lol!