User:Ohiojoe

This text doesn't belong in the Wikipedia name space, so I moved it here. Thanks Bumm13 01:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Belief is defined as an assent to a proposition. The Belief Model herein will attempt to differentiate between justified belief and unjustified belief.

The process of judging the validity of a belief from the external viewer involves assessing the epistemology of the one professing the belief.

An example of a flawed epistemology would be:

Premise: All puppies are dogs. Conclusion: Therefore, all dogs are puppies.

Since we needn&#8217;t process complex thoughts to determine that all puppies are dogs, but not all dogs are puppies, most of us can recognize immediately that the epistemology is flawed. No further investigation or analysis is needed to categorize the conclusion that &#8220;all dogs are puppies&#8221; is borne from flawed epistemology.

That one was easy. Now we will use something that is not so readily apparent as being flawed, but as equally and justifiably categorized as being flawed epistemology.

Premise: All Zeegs are Glupes. Premise: Therefore, all Glupes are Zeegs.

Since we do not know what Zeegs or Glupes are, we cannot immediately see the conclusion is false, as we could with puppies and dogs. Yet, they are the same statement, epistemologically speaking. This understanding of how the Zeegs/Glupes and puppies/dogs premise/conclusions are identical in their epistemology escapes many laymen because of the obvious flaw with the puppies and the dogs compared with the unknowable nature of the Zeegs and the Glupes.

So what we can certainly state about the Zeegs and the Glupes, even though we cannot know the actual truth or falsehood of the matter, is that the conclusion is borne from a flawed epistemology. Again, the conclusion about Zeegs and Glupes could be true, but with the information available, stating that the conclusion is indeed true is not appropriate and flawed.

Now, a person&#8217;s belief is almost always based upon an epistemology (the means one used to ascertain the evidence for or against the object or idea). Generally, humans have a belief or lack of belief in something based upon past experience or education (including simply what they may have been told from family elders). Since humans do not make a practice of filtering their beliefs through a premise/conclusion diagram, we often hold beliefs based upon flawed epistemology. For example, many people believed that there was once a rash of razor blades put into Halloween candy, which prompted some community hospitals to donate time to x-ray Halloween candy for kids after trick-pr-treating. While it is true that some hospitals did provide this service, and much hype was made on local stations across the U.S. prompting parents to monitor their children&#8217;s Halloween candy, there was not once incident every reported of a razor blade or deliberate poisoning in a trick-or-treater&#8217;s candy. For those of us who believed this took place, we believed it &#8220;because we were told it happened&#8221; by family or friends, or inferred it happened based on the media hype. Nonetheless, this is just one of millions of examples of how we believed something based on flawed epistemology.

There is another motivation of basing one&#8217;s belief on flawed epistemology and that is when emotion drives us to want to believe concept A over concept B. An example of this is when a mother refuses to believe her 19-year-old son is guilty of robbery and murder, despite the forensic evidence implicating him. Yes, she could be right that he is innocent, but she is not basing her belief on evidence or the lack thereof, and simply espousing the belief because she does not want to emotionally deal with the alternative. This is widely known as psychological &#8220;denial&#8221;. This grieving mother may never even attempt to grasp at ridiculous claims and pseudo-science to attempt to exonerate her son, and simply say to herself over and over that he is innocent. Her belief is based on flawed epistemology if her emotion is what is directing her belief. If she offers no other evidence, it is safe to conclude that she has not adequately provided data to support her son&#8217;s innocence. Furthermore, if you were to begin to show her why her son is likely guilty, you would find her &#8216;shutting down&#8217; and avoiding your line of statements and/or questions if they were beginning to expose her flawed epistemology. The subconscious resistance to facing the alternative is extremely powerful, and no amount of logic or reason will persuade her to re-evaluate her flawed position without her willingness to relinquish her grasp on the flawed conclusion.

Belief is based upon one&#8217;s epistemology, whether involuntary as in the Halloween candy belief, or voluntary, as in the grieving mother&#8217;s case.

Our society is built around certain social norms. When someone we know and with whom we have no animosities smiles and says &#8220;Hi&#8221; to us, we know it is appropriate to wave back.