I've been working on this a long time. I'm satisfied it's incontrovertible, but I'm testing it -- thus the reason for this post.

Based on actual usage of the word and the function of the concept in real-world situations -- from individual thought to personal relationships all the way up to the largest, most powerful institutions in the world -- this syllogism seems to hold true. I'd love you to attack it.

Premises:
[1] Epistemically, belief and thought are identical.
[2] Preexisting attachment to an idea motivates a rhetorical shift from “I think” to “I believe,” implying a degree of veracity the idea lacks.
[3] This implication produces unwarranted confidence.
[4] Insisting on an idea’s truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant is irrational.

Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Because the gap between “I think” and “I believe” seems to be hallucinatory.

You cannot create captive groups, cliques, cults, companies, “societies”, governments, nations, philosophies, or religions with just “I think”.

If so, all those bastions of "civilized" authority and coercion turn out to be figments of psychotic (disconnected from reality), hallucinatory minds which invented psychotic, hallucinatory narratives.

I’m not kidding or exaggerating even a little bit.

This would be great news for those of us who want a truly human world. Big pill to swallow, though.

48 minutes ago, Millard J Melnyk said:

I've been working on this a long time. I'm satisfied it's incontrovertible, but I'm testing it -- thus the reason for this post.

Based on actual usage of the word and the function of the concept in real-world situations -- from individual thought to personal relationships all the way up to the largest, most powerful institutions in the world -- this syllogism seems to hold true. I'd love you to attack it.

Premises:
[1] Epistemically, belief and thought are identical.
[2] Preexisting attachment to an idea motivates a rhetorical shift from “I think” to “I believe,” implying a degree of veracity the idea lacks.
[3] This implication produces unwarranted confidence.
[4] Insisting on an idea’s truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant is irrational.

Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Because the gap between “I think” and “I believe” seems to be hallucinatory.

You cannot create captive groups, cliques, cults, companies, “societies”, governments, nations, philosophies, or religions with just “I think”.

If so, all those bastions of "civilized" authority and coercion turn out to be figments of psychotic (disconnected from reality), hallucinatory minds which invented psychotic, hallucinatory narratives.

I’m not kidding or exaggerating even a little bit.

This would be great news for those of us who want a truly human world. Big pill to swallow, though.

It seems to me this is making rather a meal of something simple. Surely there is a natural progression in degree of certainty from "I think" to I believe" , and then to "I know", is there not? "I believe" to me implies sufficient certainty to base decisions on, while bearing in mind there is still some risk of being mistaken. This is a completely normal state of affairs, which probably applies to a large part of what we do as human beings. If we were to wait for complete certainty we would be paralysed with indecision.

Given that we live, perforce, in a world of shades of grey, I do not see it is as irrational to base decisions on a high probability of being right rather than waiting for complete certainty.

1 hour ago, Millard J Melnyk said:

Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational.

I think you need a more strict definition of 'belief'.

If, by belief, you mean thought that is not validated by fact, then, by its very definition, that thought is not the result of rational thinking, i.e. irrational.

3 hours ago, Millard J Melnyk said:

Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Because the gap between “I think” and “I believe” seems to be hallucinatory.

You cannot create captive groups, cliques, cults, companies, “societies”, governments, nations, philosophies, or religions with just “I think”.

If so, all those bastions of "civilized" authority and coercion turn out to be figments of psychotic (disconnected from reality), hallucinatory minds which invented psychotic, hallucinatory narratives.

I’m not kidding or exaggerating even a little bit.

This would be great news for those of us who want a truly human world. Big pill to swallow, though.

Will it rain tomorrow ?

What ever happened to "My best guess" ?

This whole idea is a nonsensical wast of time in my opinion.

7 hours ago, Millard J Melnyk said:

Premises:
[1] Epistemically, belief and thought are identical.

Then allow me to attack your very first premise. How is it I can think of things I don't believe exist? Isn't that the difference between imagination and reality (whatever subjective definition one wishes to give those terms)?

16 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Then allow me to attack your very first premise. How is it I can think of things I don't believe exist? Isn't that the difference between imagination and reality (whatever subjective definition one wishes to give those terms)?

TBH I thought the first premise such a nonstarter I quit reading the OP. Excuse me while I go climb my Escher staircase and feed the dragon.