Believing that not-p vs. not believing that p -?

What is the difference between these two:

believing that not-p

and

not believing that p

- ?


Please discuss.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One is known (believed).
One is doubted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Believing that not-p" is a subset of "not believing that p".

For example:
A rock does not believe P. Does this mean that the rock believes not-P? No.
But a person who believes not-P must also not believe P.

Hence believing not-P is a subset of not believing P.
Or in other words, not all those that do not believe that P also have the belief that not-P.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought it was fairly obvious. Take the example of extraterrestrial life...

I have seen no evidence that there is other life in the universe - however the universe is a big place.

So, do I believe there is other life out there? No. However I do believe it is possible.
So, do I believe there is no life out there? Well, no. I've already stated that it is possible - but I would have to see evidence. The jury is still out.

 

But what other option is available within not believing that p?

 

I agree with both Sarkus and gmilam.

'Not believing P' applies to everyone who has never heard of P or who has formed no definite opinion about it. And as Sarkus points out, it also applies to the 99.999...% of the universe that doesn't have any beliefs at all.

'Believing not-P' implies that the believer is the kind of entity that can hold beliefs, that it has some awareness of P, and that it has reached a definite negative conclusion about it.

 

Not believing that p or not-p.

Just because you aren't eating cake doesn't mean that you must be eating something else... you might just not be eating.

 

Yup.

 

But this is not possible for all situations; in some situations, neutrality is impossible.

For example, a person either makes a decision, or doesn't make it, there is no inbetween.

 

What if you don't make it?

 

In the eating a cake example, the options are:
1. eating a cake, 2. eating anything else, 3. not eating at all.

In the decision-making example, the options are:
1. a person makes the decision, 2. a person doesn't make the decision.
The option of "not being in the decision-making process at all" is the same as 2.

 

It's more like:
1. I subscribe to your claim
2. I do not subscribe to your claim
3. I subscribe to another claim

 

2 and 3 are the same.

 

You can't be serious.. :bugeye:

 

If you do not subscribe to my claim, you subscribe to some other claim.

The correct trio would be:

1. I subscribe to your claim
2. I subscribe to another claim
3. I subscribe to nobody's claim

We could, however, discuss whether 3 is even possible.

 

No, look at what Signal's saying.

Under certain circumstances there are only two choices and not making the choice is the same making the choice to not do it.

Will I go to the beach today?
Yes.
No.
Other.
Regardless of what the "other" is I don't go to the beach. Hence, it's a "no".

 

Nonsense.
How is not subscribing to your claim the same as subscribing to another claim (about the same subject of course)?

Not in this case. We all know what this is really about.

 

Do we?

 

I believe so

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Really? So you have a definitive answer as to the extraterrestrial question? There is no room for insufficient information?