What I like about this discussion is that it challenges me to think about
my thinking about systems. As I do so I cannot help be reminded of
Senge's "Ladder of Inference" which makes some (I believe) useful
distinctions among concepts:
Actions
Beliefs
Conclusions
Assumptions
Meanings
Selected Data
Experiences/Observable "Data"
I would hate to see these distinctions lost because it would make it
harder to communicate with each other.
Much of what I read in this discussion about "beliefs" I interpret to be
actually about "assumptions." For example, when Winfried Dressler writes:
>The foundation of logic (law of identity, law of contradiction, law of
>excluded third for example) are beliefs
this goes counter to what I was taught in my logic and mathematics
classes. We referred to the unexamined starting points as "assumptions."
They were neither true nor untrue although, as Winfried says, it was
important that they be reasonable. Then the game of deduction could
proceed by saying, "If these assumptions hold true, then everything else
we deduce follows."
Of course, in everyday English, people use "belief" in many
undifferentiated ways. So, in everyday English, it is quite acceptable to
say that the law of identify (for example) is a "belief." People accept
it or "believe" it to be true.
However, when we are trying to be more scientific we must hold ourselves
to a more difficult-to-achieve standard of precision in the use of
language. And in technical language it has proved to be useful to
distinguish between "belief" and "assumption."
--"John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>