TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
As with everything, it depends on to what degree you disbelieve. If you disbelieve someone that tells you the sky is blue and water is wet, then the definition is not in conflict with the dictionary definition.
I should add in a minor correction of what I said here:
MikeH106 wrote:
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. defines 'delusion' as "not believing what other people say."
The definition as given by the corporation is, "believing that what others say is not true," which is not quite the same as "not believing what other people say." Nevertheless, it
is a duplicitous redefinition and, because it is stated in the form of a generality, it
is in conflict with the Merriam-Webster definition. For all that needs to be the case is that what other people say
not be true, and the disbeliever is not necessarily delusional.
Now, one can rework this to say that any act of
concluding without proof that what others say is not true is an instance of fallacious reasoning and therefore a 'false belief.' However, there are two aberrations in this definition:
- The Merriam-Webster definition requires a certain tenacity in holding the false belief against counterweighting evidence. However, momentary false beliefs can be easily corrected by admitting that one was wrong.
- Beliefs in the falsity of the fallacious reasoning of others would itself constitute a justified, true belief, which makes such a definition self-refuting.
What I see here is the threat of pomposity against today's brightest minds.
_________________
Sixteen
essays so far.
Like a drop of blood in a tank of flesh-eating piranhas, a new idea never fails to arouse the wrath of herd prejudice.