You could believe things which others see as nonsense, but because you don't prioritise them you don't apply scepticism to them.
-
-
Replying to @pogsurf
No. If I believe in things without evidence, I am not a sceptic. Whether I prioritise them or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
But you said you hadn't applied scepticism to everything you believed. Some things you just take on trust.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pogsurf
Difference between 'believing in' & believing in the sense of taking on trust. I think it very probable my husband loves me.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @pogsurf
So I cld say 'I believe my husband loves me' but this not the same as 'believing in.'I believe in my husband coz evidence he exists
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @pogsurf
Or perhaps u're thinking of my saying I believe things my friends tell me coz I just assume they're true.If so,I see ur point a bit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @pogsurf
But in practice, truth claims do need to be significant to warrant scepticism and there is a consensus on what is significant.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @pogsurf
There's a consensus. Only certain claims become significant. I doubt that you seriously think every shopping trip must be proved.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Context is vital here. If you wanted to prove someone's a shoplifter then maybe you do have to prove every shopping trip.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, exactly. In cases of suspicion of crimes, we require evidence.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.