Paul Hughes, I strongly suspect that you and Crocker are using entirely different definitions of the word "belief". You're defining it as an assertion that is believed with 100% probability and is probably emotionally supported. Crocker is defining it as a probabilistic assertion, which probability is *not* necessarily 50% or greater, but which *is* more likely (to within, say, an order of magnitude) than any alternate assertions.
That's why I said that neither Crocker nor I "believed" in anything, and
why Crocker said that refusing to believe in anything is a form of moral
cowardice. I meant that certainties are unnecessary, and Crocker meant
that claiming to refuse all judgement (as to which of two assertions is
*more* plausible) is being afraid to say anything because you might be
proved wrong. (It's also dishonest; you can't avoid such judgements and remain functional.)
Do you believe that you can't believe in anything? This strikes me as being inconsistent.
-- email@example.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://pobox.com/~sentience/tmol-faq/meaningoflife.html Running on BeOS Typing in Dvorak Programming with Patterns Voting for Libertarians Heading for Singularity There Is A Better Way