Follow me. If a man who has been said to be delusional, is found to be correct, what happens then? Can his credibility be restored to him? How about the time period across which it was decided his story was incredible? What seperates delusion from accepted reality, anyway? Who decided what was acceptable reality? How did they know?

a man who has been said to be delusional, is found to be correct, what happens then

That means they found him delusional and their tests prove that he was in that condition so they were correct in letting him know that , yes, he was delusional.

It's happened before, hasn't it? Wasn't Gallileo killed for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun? Turned out he was right!

I'm sorry. I was speaking of his delusions being proven correct. Yes the giant Hamster was devouring Liverpool, after all.

JDawg-Exactly. Now, bring it to today. He hasn't been killed for heresy, however.

Reminds me of this tune..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U319VzSqEU&feature=related

Follow me. If a man who has been said to be delusional, is found to be correct, what happens then? Can his credibility be restored to him? How about the time period across which it was decided his story was incredible? What seperates delusion from accepted reality, anyway? Who decided what was acceptable reality? How did they know?
This happens. People are judged delusional and then it turns out they were correct.

So does he get anything for his mental pain and suffering? The credibility-is it of enough value that he gains something? Or do they get,"Whups, sorry about that." and that's all?

So does he get anything for his mental pain and suffering? The credibility-is it of enough value that he gains something? Or do they get,"Whups, sorry about that." and that's all?I think there could be situations where one could sue. One definitely gets an 'I told you so.' In some professional situations it could mean raises and power over competitors. Often however one must be simply satisfied with being right after all.

It's happened before, hasn't it? Wasn't Gallileo killed for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun? Turned out he was right!

Galileo wasn't killed, he was held under house arrest and his main crime was being a jerk and making fun of the Pope. He actually got treated with kid gloves all things considered.

Wasn't Gallileo killed for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun? Turned out he was right!

And, you're wrong.

Here's some advice for you from the horses mouth, so to speak. ;)

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
- GALILEO GALILEI

Q-fascinating, you can quote him, yet you forgo the use of yours all the time. How odd.

Q-fascinating, you can quote him, yet you forgo the use of yours all the time. How odd.

Did you create this thread with the hopes that some day you might be found to be correct about something?

Nope, just planning for the future. :D

Who judged the delusional man in the first place? You always need to be willing to admit that, when someone you have judged delusional or insane is proven to have been correct in some relevant and significant aspect of his delusion, then the entire judgement needs to be re-evaluated. You also have to realize that it may be *you* who is delusional and so your judgment suspect from the get go, or you may *both* be delusional and you are deluded in thinking he is not deluded.

There should be a word for thinking certain things cannot exist when in fact they do.

And a word for when you do not notice things that other correctly do.

Delusion can technically cover both of these, but generally we think of delusions as thinking something is real that is not.

Delusion is the holding of a claim as truth in the light of contradictory evidence.
If I hold up a pen and say "this is a cup of water" - and genuinely think it is a cup of water... I would be delusional.
The problem with delusion and the claim of existence - is that one can generally NOT provide evidence of non-existence - other than through proving the logical-impossibility of that thing's existence.

To believe that God exists is not delusional, on the basis that no evidence to the contrary has been provided. The fact is that NO evidence has been provided that rationally supports existence or non-existence.

Belief in the existence of a logically-possible God is irrational due to the lack of evidence.
Belief in the non-existence of a logically-possible God is also irrational due to the lack of evidence.

But delusional?


If the original claim, thought delusional by the masses, is proven correct, then they must surely re-examine their reasoning for the claim of delusional... was there really contradictory evidence to the original claim?
Was Galileo genuinely thought delusional or just heretical?

If someone is genuinely delusional about a claim, then by definition their claim is NOT correct - due to the contradictory evidence.

However, if someone is merely irrational in their claim, they can still be proven correct - as irrationality is merely taking the evidence at hand and leaping outside of it (into realms where no evidence has been provided) to form a judgement.

A broken watch is right twice a day.

Dellusional is not about the correctness of any particular statement, it is about how you arrive at and verify your understanding of your reality.

If you think aliens are beaming radio waves with information about your surroundings into your glasses, if you happen to to be correct about what you see you are lucky, but still delusional.

OK, first of all the helio centric view is no more correct than the geo centric view. We actually orbit each other and any point can be arbitrarily declared the "center" and all obits described from it. In particular the helio centric view of the universe is no more right then the geo centric view of the universe. However, because the sun dominates the other smaller masses it is possible to use it as a center without having to worry about epicycles, which makes things nice and easy to draw.

Also the Copernican model is just wrong. We don't orbit the sun in a circle (its an ellipse) and at the time of Galileo, it lack sufficient evidence for the case he made for it.

Finally, for the first trial Galileo had significant support inside the church including several prominent Jesuits and a pope that favored him. The first time he was brought up it wasn't because of the substance of what he said, it was because he was presenting it as fact without empirical proof, which he recanted and went on his merry way continuing to spread the faith.

The second time he was brought up it had less to do with him promoting his theories as facts again and everything to do with a book he published with cutting satire making fun of the new pope, who was not his friend. Even still his friends in the church got him off with house arrest in a day when he could easily be tortured to death for such an offense.

Delusion is the holding of a claim as truth in the light of contradictory evidence.In practice 'delusional' has a lot to do with consensus. Evidence, in this case, would also have a lot to do with consensus. If one experiences something that goes against consensus opinion and 'evidence' accepted by consensus, one can be considered delusional. This can turn out to be incorrect, since, of course, consensus can turn out to be incorrect.

If someone is genuinely delusional about a claim, then by definition their claim is NOT correct - due to the contradictory evidence. At that point, hopefully, everyone would agree that the person was not really delusional, after all.

Though there could be the case where someone was delusional AND happened to be correct.

The Native American who saw 'white people' on the beach two years before 'white people' could have been there.

Dellusional is not about the correctness of any particular statement, it is about how you arrive at and verify your understanding of your reality.

If you think aliens are beaming radio waves with information about your surroundings into your glasses, if you happen to to be correct about what you see you are lucky, but still delusional.What you refer to is NOT delusion, but irrationality.

If I start with evidence A and arrive at conclusion X, if the evidence A does not support X then the conclusion is irrational. X might be correct, but the thought process is irrational (i.e. the evidence does not support the claim).

Delusion is different: If I reach a conclusion X (through whatever means) but there exists evidence that is contrary to this conclusion such that it makes X false, then to hold on to conclusion X is delusional.

The two may go hand in hand in many cases, but they are different.
With mere irrationality there is the chance that you are correct.
With delusion there isn't - as there exists evidence to the contrary of your claim.


In colloquial terms, yes, delusion could mean mere fanciful claim, unsupported by evidence. But this is not strictly delusion - just irrationality. If you then hold onto this claim when contrary evidence arises, then you would be delusional.

In practice 'delusional' has a lot to do with consensus. Evidence, in this case, would also have a lot to do with consensus. If one experiences something that goes against consensus opinion and 'evidence' accepted by consensus, one can be considered delusional. This can turn out to be incorrect, since, of course, consensus can turn out to be incorrect.And this would have a lot to do with the logical fallacy of appeal to consensus: just because the majority make a claim (e.g. theism) doesn't make it correct. And the irrationality of the consensus view makes their diagnosis of delusional also irrational if that is their basis for the diagnosis (i.e. goes against consensus).

Perhaps I am trying to be to formal with the term "delusional" - but I often see it banded about incorrectly, and usually people merely mean "irrational".

The Native American who saw 'white people' on the beach two years before 'white people' could have been there.Again, not delusional, unless there was evidence provided to the contrary of the claim.
In the case of "existence" (e.g. existence of 'white people') it is often very hard to prove delusion due to the inability to provide evidence for non-existence.
At best one can say "possibly delusional" - and then it goes to consensus view, which can often be irrationally held by the majority.

And this would have a lot to do with the logical fallacy of appeal to consensus: just because the majority make a claim (e.g. theism) doesn't make it correct. I see it more as a practical issue. A psychiatrist is going to make their determinations, generally, that someone is delusional, if they are asserting something that goes against current scientific standards and or the psychiatrists common sense. Both of these standards can, of course, be incorrect. So while you may be write in some ideal way, in day to day life, people definitely uses consensus, either that of experts or of society at large, to determine if someone is delusional.

And the irrationality of the consensus view makes their diagnosis of delusional also irrational if that is their basis for the diagnosis (i.e. goes against consensus). I agree. Consensus can be delusional. And this happens both in relation to the positions held by scientists and those held by the religious and also lay people of indeterminate category working from consensus.

Perhaps I am trying to be to formal with the term "delusional" - but I often see it banded about incorrectly, and usually people merely mean "irrational".

Again, not delusional, unless there was evidence provided to the contrary of the claim.
Perhaps in some ideal world, but not in this one. The fact is that people will be diagnosed as delusional even in the absence of evidence against their claims.

I am definitely not confusing the word with 'irrational'. In fact you can be judged delusional and be quite rational. You, perhaps, have experience that the 'judges' - expert or otherwise - do not have. You may have encountered a phenomenon hitherto unknown. You may have correctly interpreted your experienced and for good reasons and be judged delusional.

In the case of "existence" (e.g. existence of 'white people') it is often very hard to prove delusion due to the inability to provide evidence for non-existence.
At best one can say "possibly delusional" - and then it goes to consensus view, which can often be irrationally held by the majority. I wish the world was like this.

I mean, in a sense, I agree with you. But I see your viewpoint as both excellent AND not really describing the general way the word is used, even by experts.

I will stand by you in the protests for reformation on the issue. I think caution should be used in relation to the labeling of someone as delusional. One should have evidence, of course, that their belief is not correct. But in addition one should realize that sometimes what has seemed like evidence has turned out not to be. What has seemed obvious proof has turned out not to be.

In most cases the judgment should be rather tentative and seen as practical in this or that context.

So a delusion that a giant hamster was eating Liverpool would not be a true delusion until it was proven that there was no giant hamster eating Liverpool?

So a delusion that a giant hamster was eating Liverpool would not be a true delusion until it was proven that there was no giant hamster eating Liverpool?Well, you can get Sarkus' take on that. For me the word is not about objectivity. It is a practical term - often used impractically - where humans judge the states and beliefs of others. So generally it is a subjective term, often used by dominant groups to define individuals they disagree with. It can be used by less dominant groups and by invdividuals, but the dominant group can more easily ignore the 'diagnosis'.

So, delusion means incorrect, but with a negative connotation.

Yeah, pretty much.
I mean Sarkus is saying that it means you are incorrect and you maintain your incorrectness in the face of evidence.
But this, to me, simply postpones or broadens the 'incorrectness'. You are incorrect about what is evidence, about what the evidence shows, etc.
And one persons evidence may not be evidence for someone else.
And evidence has been shown to be, actually, not evidence later.
So there has to be, practically, an appeal to consensus or expert opinion.
And that's why I think it is a word that should be used with great caution, especially because it, nowadays, has overtone of mental health diagnosis.

So a delusion that a giant hamster was eating Liverpool would not be a true delusion until it was proven that there was no giant hamster eating Liverpool?

If a delusion is an erroneous belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, then you would have to believe the giant hamster was in fact eating Liverpool, until you decide to see Liverpool for yourself and it is still there, unfettered and sans hamster grande.

Of course, you could become the giant hamster yourself and be self-deluded. :)

If the delusional man was correct then he was never delusional.

So a delusion that a giant hamster was eating Liverpool would not be a true delusion until it was proven that there was no giant hamster eating Liverpool?If you had no evidence to the contrary, and believed that Liverpool really was being eaten by a giant hamster... then this is merely a belief/claim (however odd it may seem).
However, as soon as evidence to the contrary is provided, if the claim is maintained then it is a delusional claim.

Until then I would guess it would be just an highly-irrational claim. Unless you could provide rational evidence to support the existence of the Hamster of Mass Destruction. :)

Sarkus-Sniffy posts occasionally. What other evidence do you need?

However, as soon as evidence to the contrary is provided, if the claim is maintained then it is a delusional claim.


See now I think the discussions in other threads of the election show delusions. People keep writing as if the US was a democracy. You have an election where one gets to choose between two candidates who have corporate approval and could not possibly reach broad enough public awareness without corporate funding. (and, ironically, you had two candidates who are not only related to each but are related to Bush. In act the pool of approved 'candidates' is rather small genetically, for all the hoo hah around race in this election.)

What you refer to is NOT delusion, but irrationality.

Only if you are a psychologist discussing the psychological definition.

I was not aware that there was another definition?

Is delusion not the maintaining of a false belief? How can you show a belief to be false without evidence to the contrary?

It's not the maintaining of a belief that is merely contrary to the consensus. That is a misunderstanding of the term delusion.

So if I am missing another definition, please show me before I dig myself in to a hole somewhere. :) Thanks.

I was not aware that there was another definition?

Is delusion not the maintaining of a false belief? How can you show a belief to be false without evidence to the contrary?

It's not the maintaining of a belief that is merely contrary to the consensus. That is a misunderstanding of the term delusion.

So if I am missing another definition, please show me before I dig myself in to a hole somewhere. :) Thanks.
I hope swarm also responds.
Consensus is always involved. One you get to the 'maintaining' part of the delusion testing - where the person is presented with evidence - what is considered evidence will also be consensus based. The person accused of being deluded can have evidence also. Who decides which is the real evidence?

Well, the truth is both 'sides' decide, but the term delusion tends to be aimed by those whose methodology and evidence is consensus supported - at least within whatever subculture we are talking about.

It may turn out later that the 'deluded' person was both correct and their evidence was in fact stronger. Sometimes this is because of changes in consensus knowledge base or technology.

Unless you want the definition of delusion to include what methodologies will be used to ascertain proper evidence, the use of the word in a general context is really dependent on consensus notions of what is true and how one ascertains it.

And this is practically speaking how the term is used in the world.

I hope swarm also responds.
Consensus is always involved. One you get to the 'maintaining' part of the delusion testing - where the person is presented with evidence - what is considered evidence will also be consensus based. The person accused of being deluded can have evidence also. Who decides which is the real evidence?

Well, the truth is both 'sides' decide, but the term delusion tends to be aimed by those whose methodology and evidence is consensus supported - at least within whatever subculture we are talking about.

It may turn out later that the 'deluded' person was both correct and their evidence was in fact stronger. Sometimes this is because of changes in consensus knowledge base or technology.

Unless you want the definition of delusion to include what methodologies will be used to ascertain proper evidence, the use of the word in a general context is really dependent on consensus notions of what is true and how one ascertains it.

And this is practically speaking how the term is used in the world.You are still confusing irrationality and delusion.

Delusions need to be shown to be false - i.e. no chance of correct.
If it can not be shown to be false then it is at worst an irrational claim that does not follow weight of evidence.

For example, the claim that God exists is merely irrational rather than delusional... while there is no evidence to support the claim, there is also no evidence to support the falsity of the delusion.

If there is merely a weight of evidence on either side, then consensus generally determines the pervading belief, but it can not determine delusion. It can determine rationality of a claim or not - but not delusion.

If you have evidence that supports a claim - evidence that rationally supports it - then you can not be deluded.
The delusion only comes where there is evidence that shows your claim to be false and you stick to your original claim. Not merely "unlikely" or "irrational" but actually false - i.e. no chance of being correct.


Most delusions are therefore rather simple to spot - belief that X is happening when it isn't, that Z occurred when it didn't. And in each case the delusion can be shown to be false - not just irrational or unlikely - but false.

If you can not show the claim to be false, it can not be a delusion to hold on to that claim.

Well, let's take the example of an illness. A woman goes to the doctor saying she is ill. She describes her symptoms as primarily tiredness and apathy. But she 'knows' she is sick. She is given a range of tests. All come back negative. The woman is referred to a psychiatrist who confirms the GP's diagnosis that the woman is depressed. Her belief that she is sick is considered a delusion. We have expert analysis and diagnosis and an array of negative test results. The woman's evidence is her experience of her own body. It is explained to her that depression affects the body. She says she would know the difference.

A few years later technology and research have undergone some changes. The woman is found to have Epstein Barr virus in her blood. Anti-viral treatments alleviate much of her symptoms.

I would guess you will say the doctors should have been more cautious and should never have viewed her belief as delusion. 1) nevertheless this is the way things happen and 2) in this case her own personal experience was rational evidence FOR HER.

Personal experience is generally not considered evidence. There are practical reasons for this: it is very hard to build up consensus from private experience. HOWEVER private experience is rational evidence for the experiencer in many cases. Just as it is hard to accept as evidence for other parties, it is also hard to know if it is rational by these same parties. They lack access. A practical solution for how a society builds up knowledge about the world should not be used as a tool to make private experience irrational if it is unsupported by consensus types of evidence.

I see a generalized lack of humility around this issue.


If you have evidence that supports a claim - evidence that rationally supports it - then you can not be deluded.
This is not correct. Say you have a person who claims to have been attacked by an intruder in the night. As evidence she shows scratches along her inner thighs and bruises.
This is evidence of an attack.
It could turn out that these were self-inflicted wounds.
It could turn out to be evidence of an intruder - who is caught with her dna under his nail during an attack on another woman.

There should be a word for thinking certain things cannot exist when in fact they do.
And a word for when you do not notice things that other correctly do.

On both counts: "poor expertise in the understanding of reality" or "stupid".
The word "stupid" has a bad reputation, but it certainly also has its uses.


Delusion can technically cover both of these, but generally we think of delusions as thinking something is real that is not.

I think the relevant issue here is twofold, but basically about the same thing:
1. how a person presents their conviction that something exists when everyone else around them thinks it does not,
2. how a person presents their conviction that something does not exist when everyone else around them thinks it does.

In other words - if you have an extraordinary claim to make, be careful how you go about presenting it to others and how you try to convince others of it. It's not so much about what the objective truth is in a particular instance, but much more about who is trying to convince whom in what way and in what circumstances.

If people already think that you are stupid, then presenting them with an extraordinary claim isn't likely going to result in them believing you. Instead, you have to first win them over so that they change their opinion about you, and only after they have done that, do you present your extraordinary claim. There is still no guarantee, though, because once you get the reputation of being stupid, this is generally very hard to shake.

It's all about politics and strategy.

Well, let's take the example of an illness. A woman goes to the doctor saying she is ill. She describes her symptoms as primarily tiredness and apathy. But she 'knows' she is sick. She is given a range of tests. All come back negative. The woman is referred to a psychiatrist who confirms the GP's diagnosis that the woman is depressed. Her belief that she is sick is considered a delusion. We have expert analysis and diagnosis and an array of negative test results. The woman's evidence is her experience of her own body. It is explained to her that depression affects the body. She says she would know the difference.

A few years later technology and research have undergone some changes. The woman is found to have Epstein Barr virus in her blood. Anti-viral treatments alleviate much of her symptoms.

I would guess you will say the doctors should have been more cautious and should never have viewed her belief as delusion. 1) nevertheless this is the way things happen and 2) in this case her own personal experience was rational evidence FOR HER.

Personal experience is generally not considered evidence. There are practical reasons for this: it is very hard to build up consensus from private experience. HOWEVER private experience is rational evidence for the experiencer in many cases. Just as it is hard to accept as evidence for other parties, it is also hard to know if it is rational by these same parties. They lack access. A practical solution for how a society builds up knowledge about the world should not be used as a tool to make private experience irrational if it is unsupported by consensus types of evidence.

I see a generalized lack of humility around this issue.

This is a good example.

As we noted elsewhere, some methodologies and systems of beliefs do not have it in them to explain everything, at least not within a foreseeable time - hence scenarios like the one above happen.

As a counterexample, take traditional Eastern medicine: the condition would be explained as an imbalance of elements or something like that, a treatment prescribed, but no guarantee given that it will lead to full recovery, and the case of failing to recover understood as old karma that cannot be counteracted and simply must be endured.

But all in all: The person would not be considered delusional or lying, their private experience would not be denied.


For many people, living with an illness is actually easier than being considered stupid, delusional, a liar.

Well, let's take the example of an illness. A woman goes to the doctor saying she is ill. She describes her symptoms as primarily tiredness and apathy. But she 'knows' she is sick. She is given a range of tests. All come back negative. The woman is referred to a psychiatrist who confirms the GP's diagnosis that the woman is depressed. Her belief that she is sick is considered a delusion. We have expert analysis and diagnosis and an array of negative test results. The woman's evidence is her experience of her own body. It is explained to her that depression affects the body. She says she would know the difference.And where, in all of this, is evidence to support the claim of depression, and also, more importantly, the evidence that falsifies the claim by the woman of illness? There isn't any. At best they can provide negative results for certain illnesses. It is therefore not a delusion that the woman has when claiming to be otherwise ill.
She might be considered irrational - i.e. preferring to choose her own diagnosis over the weight of evidence for another, but this is not being deluded - as there is no evidence that falsifies the woman's claim.

I would guess you will say the doctors should have been more cautious and should never have viewed her belief as delusion. 1) nevertheless this is the way things happen and 2) in this case her own personal experience was rational evidence FOR HER.I don't deny this happens, but the doctors would be incorrect if they judged her delusional. She clearly wasn't - and it was the judgement that was incorrect, not the fact that a delusional person was found to be correct.

The label of delusion, bestowed upon you by someone else, is merely their own assessment of your condition.

To put it another way... a person labelled delusional can be found to be not delusional. But a truly delusional claim can NOT be found to be correct.

This is not correct. Say you have a person who claims to have been attacked by an intruder in the night. As evidence she shows scratches along her inner thighs and bruises.
This is evidence of an attack.
It could turn out that these were self-inflicted wounds.
It could turn out to be evidence of an intruder - who is caught with her dna under his nail during an attack on another woman.I agree with your analysis as far as it goes, but it is irrelevant, as it does not go far enough...

You can not be delusional if you know the answer and choose to claim a different one. This is called "lying". Hopefully we're agreed that someone who deliberately tells a lie is not delusional, as they genuinely know the truth but choose not to tell it.

Assuming the woman is not lying, then any conclusion she reaches will be either rational or irrational, based on the evidence she has. One can make a judgement on her rationality by following the evidence.

It is only when she is confronted with evidence that falsifies her claim, and she refuses to accept it (or mentally can not) that she is delusional.

If she accepts the evidence that falsifies her claim, she was merely wrong.

If no evidence can be provided that falsifies her claim, she is at worst irrational.

irrational, then? What defines irrationality?

Galileo wasn't killed, he was held under house arrest and his main crime was being a jerk and making fun of the Pope.

Correct.
Also, it was Copernicus who said that.
Gallileo just agreed with him.

irrational, then? What defines irrationality?Other than a dictionary? :D

Irrationality is not following evidence logically.

If I have a die and roll it and you can either call "1" or "not-1" as what you believe it will land on, it would be irrational to claim it was going to turn up on 1, and rational to believe it would be "not-1" - due to probability of each outcome (1/6 cf. 5/6).

If it turned up on 3 then it would be delusional to genuinely claim it landed on 1.

I was not aware that there was another definition?

Random House Unabridged Dictionary
3. a false belief or opinion

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
2. A false belief or opinion

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
2. a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea
3. the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
3. That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief.

Usage: These words both imply some deception practiced upon the mind. Delusion is deception from want of knowledge; illusion is deception from morbid imagination. An illusion is a false show, a mere cheat on the fancy or senses. It is, in other words, some idea or image presented to the bodily or mental vision which does not exist in reality. A delusion is a false judgment, usually affecting the real concerns of life. Or, in other words, it is an erroneous view of something which exists indeed, but has by no means the qualities or attributes ascribed to it. Thus we speak of the illusions of fancy, the illusions of hope, illusive prospects, illusive appearances, etc. In like manner, we speak of the delusions of stockjobbing, the delusions of honorable men, delusive appearances in trade, of being deluded by a seeming excellence. "A fanatic, either religious or political, is the subject of strong delusions; while the term illusion is applied solely to the visions of an uncontrolled imagination, the chimerical ideas of one blinded by hope, passion, or credulity, or lastly, to spectral and other ocular deceptions, to which the word delusion is never applied." --Whately.

See also Delude:

Random House Unabridged Dictionary
1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
1. To deceive the mind or judgment of

I don't deny this happens, but the doctors would be incorrect if they judged her delusional. She clearly wasn't - and it was the judgement that was incorrect, not the fact that a delusional person was found to be correct.

The label of delusion, bestowed upon you by someone else, is merely their own assessment of your condition.

To put it another way... a person labelled delusional can be found to be not delusional. But a truly delusional claim can NOT be found to be correct.

Sure - but the thing is that in the reality of everyday life, people do not behave so strictly all the time, and as soon as a person gets a bad reputation - even if it is for false reasons - is extremely difficult to lose.

What is the point of having a sound philosophical or scientific argument - when it doesn't help you against your bad reputation?

Once you have a bad reputation, chances are you won't accomplish much in relation to other people, no matter how scientifically or philosophically sound your arguments may be.



Assuming the woman is not lying, then any conclusion she reaches will be either rational or irrational, based on the evidence she has. One can make a judgement on her rationality by following the evidence.

It is only when she is confronted with evidence that falsifies her claim, and she refuses to accept it (or mentally can not) that she is delusional.

If she accepts the evidence that falsifies her claim, she was merely wrong.

If no evidence can be provided that falsifies her claim, she is at worst irrational.

There are often more ways to interpret evidence. Versatility of interpretations of evidence is yet another problem, requiring further evidence or axiomatic agreement.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary
3. a false belief or opinion

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
2. A false belief or opinion

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
2. a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea
3. the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
3. That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief.You sort of make my point for me: in each of these there is the matter of the belief being false.

How can a belief that is FALSE be shown to be TRUE?

Irrational beliefs can be shown to be true, because irrational beliefs are merely those that do not follow the evidence logically.

But how can something that is FALSE also be TRUE?

Delusions require the belief to be FALSE. If you can not falsify the belief... how then can the believer be delusional for holding it?

You sort of make my point for me: in each of these there is the matter of the belief being false.

You were using this def. so far as I could tell: Psychiatry: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

My usage doesn't depend on the false belief being held in spite of invalidating evidence or as a symptom of mental illness.

For a belief to be non delusional by my understanding it must both be true, i.e. it must accurately reflect reality, and it must have been arrived at via valid methods. So if you think god told you the sun is hot you are still delusional even though the sun is hot.

In short a belief must be both true and valid for it not to be delusional.

OK, first of all the helio centric view is no more correct than the geo centric view. We actually orbit each other and any point can be arbitrarily declared the "center" and all obits described from it. In particular the helio centric view of the universe is no more right then the geo centric view of the universe. However, because the sun dominates the other smaller masses it is possible to use it as a center without having to worry about epicycles, which makes things nice and easy to draw.

Also the Copernican model is just wrong. We don't orbit the sun in a circle (its an ellipse) and at the time of Galileo, it lack sufficient evidence for the case he made for it.

Finally, for the first trial Galileo had significant support inside the church including several prominent Jesuits and a pope that favored him. The first time he was brought up it wasn't because of the substance of what he said, it was because he was presenting it as fact without empirical proof, which he recanted and went on his merry way continuing to spread the faith.

The second time he was brought up it had less to do with him promoting his theories as facts again and everything to do with a book he published with cutting satire making fun of the new pope, who was not his friend. Even still his friends in the church got him off with house arrest in a day when he could easily be tortured to death for such an offense.

Correct you are but the only resolution to such a paradox is the objective language of mathematics. The reason why all points can be arbitrarily and equally be declared the center is because Infinity is a constant non constant like a liquid state of transition. Ironically Infinity is a finite measure and all measure like the speed of c. Both particle and particle wave.