Ok....so I don't want to be mean to cruel or anything but this is starting to look like a manic episode or ideological capture. I'm not sure which.
I can literally use deductive logic to show that your "operational definition" of belief is less useful than the standard dictionary definition. By the very claims of this near mish mash of nonsense....you should therefore drop your "operational definition" and adopt the standard dictionary definition.
Right? Here we go...
Let's look at that dictionary definition...
1. the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true: 2. something…
You'll want to look at the second definition, feel free to hit the link for "believe" and look at the examples for context.
This definition not only includes your "operational definition" but also every other type of belief someone might have! Amazing! It's a nearly infinitely larger set of beliefs than the definition you're proposing. If you want me to adopt your definition....I'd need a whole new noun and verb for beliefs that fall outside your definitional set.
What's the use of words? Obviously, the communication of meaning (this is why postmodernists end up failing) and the dictionary definition has far more meaning since it inherently describes a much larger categorical set than your definitional subset with less meaning.
Now, according to MDR you should drop your operational definition because it's inherently less useful by basic deductive logic. I can literally see it's lack of utility and needless complications.
After all....why in the world would I need to try and run every single belief I come across through some logical or scientific filter? That doesn't make any sense.
If I ask you what you had for breakfast....and you reply steak and eggs...I know that you believe it's true that you had steak and eggs for breakfast and furthermore, you probably believe steak and eggs is indeed a breakfast meal.
Can you imagine how wildly stupid it would be for me to reject that because you have no way of running that belief through the scientific method or some logical filter? If you were a compulsive liar or something I might be inclined to not believe you.
What's going on? Honestly. Have you ever been diagnosed for anything? I mean that with nothing but concern and sympathy. You made it this far in the post...answer a few questions for me...
1. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being so low you're at the end of your rope 3 being ok and 5 being the best you've ever felt....do a little gut check...and honestly tell me how you feel?
2. How long have you been feeling this way?
3. How long have you been hyperfixated on MDR and inventing your own definitions for the English language?
What does any of that tripe (and near ad-hom) have to do with the scope of the OP or the MDR Hypothesis, which
does address the concerns of the poster's OP and its scope?
Can't you stick with the topic at hand?
I'll repost the MDR Hypothesis, seeing as you demonstrate that you are incapable of addressing it, and the OP topic.
I'm outta here until you can calm down and get yourself focused.
The Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) Hypothesis:
1) Scientific thinking does not rest on personal opinions. Science really couldn't work that way .. it has to always be based on what can be objectively demonstrated, or else it ceases to be science, and starts to be something very different from science, and;
2) Whenever we see someone invoking a notion of
"reality" (or
"exists") in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind, and would be done very differently by a very different mind.
The purpose of these observations, among other things, is to show that:
1) the widespread idea that science actually uses a notion of mind-independent reality is dead flat wrong, and;
2) at times, a notion that science accesses a mind-independent type of reality, can actually be a
barrier to scientific progress, as has happened many times in the history of science.
Finally, it is worth noting what the MDR perspective is not saying:
1) no claim is made that reality is
"only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality
"is what reality actually is". Instead, the point is that the word
"reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions.
2) it is clear that most scientific models do not explicitly include our minds in the model. This is a standard type of idealization, constantly used in science, and is totally different from claiming that a model that does not explicitly
include a role of the mind, does not
require a role of the mind to interpret and use that model.
Beliefs can be detected by scientific thinker by applying the following distinction of 'a belief':
'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.