You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The concept of "belief" howsoever used (for the supernatural, Plato's "JTB" misconception, etc) is a mistake. So if you don't want the focus on ideas, but personalities - very well. But it's still not belief. It's *knowing* some business person is a good business person.
Wait, what's the definitional distinction, here? "Knowing with some degree of uncertainty" does not seem to me fundamentally distinct from how most people interpret "believe."
Yes. That's the common understanding (I'd say misconception). But *knowledge* has a physical substrate. It has uncertainty and can be false - indeed we should expect it to be so. But belief? There's no such way to physically instantiate it apart from knowledge.
So, following Popper's logic - all we have is knowledge or its absence. There's no place for belief. Given all knowledge is uncertain - whatever one calls belief is either actual knowledge or (in religious senses) something like "hope" and in other cases merely "wild guessing".
This is super tangential but I would have thought there is no such thing as "belief" on Bayesian/probabilistic theories of knowledge as well? If one believes in everything with a probability above a certain threshold one thereby necessarily believes inconsistent things.
Do Bayesians care about logical inconsistencies? If A and Not A are both allowed to have nonzero credences, then Bayesians don’t seem to view inconsistencies as a problem.
One point @DavidDeutschOxf has made is that scientists often work on theories they think are false, but still the best available. So, they don’t *believe* their theories.
In the context of believing in a person, you might think they’ll fail, but are still worth supporting.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
