| ← Older revision | Revision as of 01:53, 31 August 2011 |
| Line 129: | Line 129: |
| | :I have added two quotations to [[Citations:intersex]]; I am not certain which adjective sense they use. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 08:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | | :I have added two quotations to [[Citations:intersex]]; I am not certain which adjective sense they use. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 08:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| - | == [[believe]] == | + | == <s>[[believe]]</s> == |
| | | | |
| | Is sense 2 (''(transitive) To accept as true without empirical evidence.'') really just {{term|believe in}} or is it used this way without {{term|in}} transitively? Either way the usex is wrong. - {{User:TheDaveRoss/sig}} 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC) | | Is sense 2 (''(transitive) To accept as true without empirical evidence.'') really just {{term|believe in}} or is it used this way without {{term|in}} transitively? Either way the usex is wrong. - {{User:TheDaveRoss/sig}} 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
| Line 146: | Line 146: |
| | :::: I don't think it's redundant. The wording of the rfv'd sense allows for belief based on proof without evidence to back it up. Presumably this would be deductive proof, and if discipline were applied the proof might be subject to peer review. However, I don't see any hint that objectivity is required. So all it requires is that the believer is convinced by said deductive argument. The question should not be whether proof without empirical evidence is possible, but rather whether someone could be convinced by such a proof. [[User:Pingku|Pingku]] 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) | | :::: I don't think it's redundant. The wording of the rfv'd sense allows for belief based on proof without evidence to back it up. Presumably this would be deductive proof, and if discipline were applied the proof might be subject to peer review. However, I don't see any hint that objectivity is required. So all it requires is that the believer is convinced by said deductive argument. The question should not be whether proof without empirical evidence is possible, but rather whether someone could be convinced by such a proof. [[User:Pingku|Pingku]] 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) |
| | :::::The "without empirical evidence" bit is the problem. Do we require a different definition for "with empirical evidence"? Empirical evidence is POV in this case. You might say (hypothetically) that my belief in God is without empirical evidence, I might say that the Earth, the Moon the stars, these are all examples of empirical evidence. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 12:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | | :::::The "without empirical evidence" bit is the problem. Do we require a different definition for "with empirical evidence"? Empirical evidence is POV in this case. You might say (hypothetically) that my belief in God is without empirical evidence, I might say that the Earth, the Moon the stars, these are all examples of empirical evidence. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 12:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC) |
| | + | |
| | + | :'''Struck'''. I merged the senses / deleted the second sense (as Mglovesfun suggested). [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| | == [[MFC]] == | | == [[MFC]] == |
沒有留言:
張貼留言