Where exactly are the strict scientific definitions you're using for Believe and Accept? Do you have a link?
I showed you the strict definitions I was using.

Good scientists look for ways they are wrong; people holding onto beliefs look for ways to back up why they’re right.

Both of those are epistemologies. One good, and one bad. But epistemologies are only ways to reach a belief. They aren't part of the belief itself. Much like the road isn't the destination. You're including in the definition of Belief, a pattern of behavior, a specific epistemology. But it doesn't have one. Not even in common vernacular. In some specific religious contexts it might, as you say. But Belief is used in vastly more contexts than religion. Someone who believes it won't rain, isn't obligated to hold that belief when they see dark storm clouds approaching. Or are you saying they they'll have to make excuses for why it won't rain? Else they didn't actualy Believe, and just Accepted that it wouldn't rain?

[–] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Like I said, I likely won't be able to change your mind because you're holding on to a belief of what that word means in regards to scientific acceptance. I don't expect you to go in search of how you're wrong because it seems like you're holding on to ways that make you feel right. Either way, I've said all I can. Good luck to you!

Here are some links:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/201810/what-actually-is-belief-and-why-is-it-so-hard-change

https://thisvsthat.io/belief-vs-science

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2254849

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So you can't actually support your position, only point out I'm supporting mine. That's... Interesting.

[–] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I did support mine, and never said you're not supporting yours, just that you misunderstand.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I didn't say you said I wasn't supporting mine. Now I'm not sure you've really read carefully anything I wrote.

And you simply keep asserting your idea. Ignoring most of my arguments, examples, and questions. For instance, when I asked for the actual specific definitions you claim you and science use, you didn't provide them. Instead you ignored the most basic request for evidence possible, and suggest I'm being dogmatic in my belief, instead of you. As I said, that's interesting.

[–] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I figured that was a typo because I wasn't pointing out that you were supporting your point. I did provide the links you asked for. I didn't even derail the conversation to point out that you think philosophy is a science. It's not, in a traditional sense. But it does highlight some fundamentals of why these concepts are difficult for you. You'll want to see or believe what you want, even if it's to intentionally miss the point apparently. Like I said, good luck to you.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 2 weeks ago

Ah! Admittedly I didn't look at the second two links. You gave no description of what they were. I simply looked at the first and assumed the others were in the same vein.

And I was essentially correct in thinking you included the epistemology in the definitions of Believe and Accept. You could have simply said as much. And with those definitions you are correct.

I also didn't realize Epistemology was considered an area of philosophy, not science. Thank you.

Now I see where you're coming from and I appreciate that. Thank you.