Brian,

Definition of the "facts of life": The mechanics of procreation hidden
during childhood and revealed by parents at adulthood.

Thanks for adding more perspectives on the word "belief" and for the
new painting for the homepage. Check it out folks:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/autismlist/

Tom

--- Brian Henson <bhenson@...> wrote:

> Another, albeit semantic, issue that is connected with this
> discussion about belief is the difference, however overt or subtle,
> between the concept of "believing" something (or someone) as opposed
> to the concept of "believing in" something (or someone).
>
> When a person asks me if I "believe in" something or someone, I am
> lost as to what they mean, or to what they are referring. I ask
> them, often, in return (to express my distain for the original
> question): "Do you believe in this floor? (pointing to the floor
> beneath our feet), or, "Do you believe in gravity?" What, again,
> does it mean to believe in anything, even "science"? Is it
> imperative that a person believe in "truth", bar nothing? What if I
> told someone that I believed in autism--what would their response
> be? Do diabetics "believe in" diabetes? Do capitalists "believe in"
> capitalism?
>
> The questions could go on,...and on..., but the point is that
> believing in anything is an extremely vague means of politicizing
> anything, and according to some "experts" (whom I don't always
> believe), humans are just "political creatures" when it comes to
> distinguishing us from other species. Does anyone on this list
> [Autismlist] believe in the "facts" of life (whatever they might be)?
>
> --- In autismlist@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Smith" <qim@...> wrote:
> >
> > An important point succinctly stated:
> >
> > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "bowmanthebard"
> > <bowman@> wrote:
> >
> > Am I alone in being annoyed and exasperated by increasing misuse of
> > the word 'belief' in the middlebrow media?
> >
> > For example, today's New York Times reports that
> >
> > this year, for three days beginning Friday,
> > the topic on the table is evolution, an issue
> > perched on the ever more contentious front
> > between science and belief.
> > [...]
> > scientists and believers from around the
> > world, on all sides of an extraordinarily
> > charged debate, are watching the meeting
> > carefully.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/world/europe/02vatican.html?
> > _r=1&oref=slogin
> >
> > To "believe" something is to be committed to its truth. So we are
> ALL
> > believers. Even "instrumentalists" who think science is nothing
> more
> > than an instrument for prediction are committed to the supposed
> truth
> > of science being nothing more than an instrument. They are
> believers
> > in instrumentalism.
> >
> > Increasingly, the word 'belief' is being used to mean religious
> > faith. I think the reason is plain: if you are committed to the
> truth
> > of anything, you might be mistaken. To admit to being a believer in
> > anything (and we are all believers) is to acknowledge that you
> might
> > be wrong. But nowadays, science is associated -- wrongly,
> > ignorantly -
> > - with certainty. To be "scientific" is to be certain, which means
> > we "scientific" thinkers must pretend we are not believers.
> >
> > How silly and stupid. How woefully misinformed.
> >
> > Jeremy Bowman
> >
> > --- End forwarded message ---
> >
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com