What Do You Mean by "Affirm"

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

I have… I know there are problematic cases, but I don’t think it’s widely rejected? I’m could be off base, here, but I think it’s just incomplete.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@SlightlyOddGuy

A pretty widely “accepted” definition of knowledge is “justified true belief”.

I accept that it (the JTB definition) is absurd.

If philosophers want to use that in their theorizing, that’s up to them. But it is not what people ordinarily mean by “knowledge”.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Whatever the case JTB shows a neutral use of the term belief.

[faded_Glory]

I always thought that there is a fundamental problem with the JTB definition. It seems recursive to me. After all, how can you know if a belief is true, unless you already possess the very knowledge that the definition aims to provide?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

Okay. Use another word if you like. At least you know now what we meant by it.

I always knew what you meant by it.

@Tim

I think the problem with “affirm” is that it is generally used in an aspirational rather than factual context. In various Self Help regimens you say all sorts of affirmations to yourself, not because you know that they’re true, but because you aspire to make them true. You get a choice as to what you affirm, but not as to what the facts are, and where those facts lead you.

I agree. It’s also often used in the context of gender. @Eddie should love that.

@Michael_Okoko

Personally, I would use “accept” over “affirm” in scientific discourse, because the latter appears to loaded with theological baggage. Most Christians “affirm” the Trinity in the absence of any positive evidence for it, so if a scientist uses the term to express support for evolutionary theory in the presence of certain religious individuals like YECs (who think evolution is a religion), its going to create the wrong ideas in their heads.

Exactly, Michael.

It’s amazing that so many others are trying to dance around this baggage. Using “affirm” in that way affirms YEC misinformation, because something doesn’t have to be supported by evidence to be affirmed.

@Michael_Okoko

However, in the midst of informed religious individuals (including YECs) or scientists (like those on PS), “affirm” can be used with little or no risk of theological connotation.

Yet in searching the published biomedical literature, I have yet to find even a single case in which an author affirms a scientific conclusion. That verb is, however, sometimes used in the context of evidence affirming a conclusion, which is much more reasonable. I’ve never heard the verb used orally in that personal context in decades in science.

There must be a reason for that. Even non-native speakers avoid that context!

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

I’ve never heard the verb used orally in that personal context in decades in science.

There must be a reason for that. Even non-native speakers avoid that context!

That does seem to true.

In that term, I am using language in a way that makes sense to religious communities, without triggering them, and doesn’t confuse secular audiences even if it sounds strange.

One term we played with for a while was “confess” but that does not work in this particular case.

@Mercer is right that it is first and foremost a statement about us and our beliefs, which is clash of culture with how scientists usually think about this. That’s because religious audiences often ask us what we personally believe in ways that scientists don’t usually care.

Of course, I think evolution is more than merely a personal belief, but most Christians also think that good beliefs are normative and far beyond merely personal belief.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@swamidass

In that term, I am using language in a way that makes sense to religious communities, without triggering them, and doesn’t confuse secular audiences even if it sounds strange.

Agreed. After all, audience is important just as semantic context is important. The discussion in this thread—and especially the disagreements—are a reminder that word meanings are always a mixture of denotation (dictionary meaning) and connotation (emotional/cultural associations and implications.)

@swamidass

Of course, I think evolution is more than merely a personal belief, but most Christians also think that good beliefs are normative and far beyond merely personal belief.

That brings to mind various interesting “pop exegesis” arguments I’ve heard my Christian brethren posit when defining words like faith. Some will say of some doctrinal position, “X is not something I merely believe. It is something I know to be true.” Then they will make fine distinctions between English words like trust, faith, reliability, and obedience, perhaps even citing particular New Testament scriptures, all without being aware that the same underlying Greek word PISTIS appears in those texts and can (depending upon the context) entail some or all of those meanings.

Thus, it should not be surprising that people will disagree over which English word most accurately and unambiguously expresses a particular idea. Language is often complex—and usually a little bit clumsy if not downright messy.

One of my ambiguity and denotation/connotation beefs in American Evangelical English parlance is “You should accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.” Aside from various other problems with “personal savior” as a Christian insider’s term, it translates poorly for those from other cultures and community backgrounds. For example, in my experience most Filipinos outside the USA hear “personal savior” and think it means something very private and even secretive, and thereby something never to be discussed with others.

As for me, I often say that I affirm evolutionary biology and the Theory of Evolution. The word affirm is defined in lexicons as (1) to validate, to confirm, or (2) to assert, as in a judgment or decree. I maintain that both meanings describe my response to the evolution evidence I have carefully examined. However, on topics in which I have yet to examine sufficiently the available evidence and am not yet familiar with the peer-reviewed literature, I will usually use more neutral words like acknowledge. If I am somewhere in-between on a topic, I may simply admit that I find the evidence and scholarly literature compelling. But no matter what word I choose, I can be sure that someone somewhere will be prone to misunderstand or at least find my descriptor lacking.

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

@nwrickert

I accept that it (the JTB definition) is absurd.

If philosophers want to use that in their theorizing, that’s up to them. But it is not what people ordinarily mean by “knowledge”.

I guess I don’t find it as absurd as you do, but I take your point. It seemed relevant to the accept/affirm-believe/know debate going on at the time.

@swamidass

Whatever the case JTB shows a neutral use of the term belief.

Yeah, I think so. I guess my point is we shouldn’t be afraid of the word.

@faded_Glory

I always thought that there is a fundamental problem with the JTB definition. It seems recursive to me. After all, how can you know if a belief is true, unless you already possess the very knowledge that the definition aims to provide?

Yeah. If you’re looking for certainty about knowledge, or like a “know that you know” thing, I don’t think JTB comes through on that. The justification part seems arbitrary, and knowing if a belief is true already sets you up for an infinite regress or circularity. Idk what the solution for that problem is.

[faded_Glory]

@SlightlyOddGuy

Yeah. If you’re looking for certainty about knowledge, or like a “know that you know” thing, I don’t think JTB comes through on that. The justification part seems arbitrary, and knowing if a belief is true already sets you up for an infinite regress or circularity. Idk what the solution for that problem is.

I actually no longer believe in ‘objective knowledge’. All we have is our senses and our intellect, and from that we construct mental models about everything. Knowledge is about us, not about the world. When we say we ‘know’ something we actually mean that we are so convinced of our particular mental model of that particular piece of reality that we cannot possibly see it any other way.

That doesn’t mean that anything goes, of course. There are poor models and there are better models. Integrity, sanity and the need for the human social fabric compel us to accept (affirm) the better models over the poor ones.

[Intjer (Jacob)]

I was thinking of something like this:
I affirm the scientific method and all it entails as valid and necessary, although I acknowledge that science cannot answer every question.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

I maintain that both meanings describe my response to the evolution evidence I have carefully examined. However, on topics in which I have yet to examine sufficiently the available evidence and am not yet familiar with the peer-reviewed literature, I will usually use more neutral words like acknowledge .

That’s certainly not the way it was used in the WaPo today:

“Fox has succeeded for years in straddling the line between a quality news organization and the opinion side. But Trump won’t let that happen anymore, and neither will his supporters,” said veteran GOP pollster Frank Luntz. “They want their ‘news’ to affirm them rather than inform them.”
https://tinyurl.com/5ffnum9e

[Skovand (Mi Krumm)]

For me when deciding how to talk I consider the situation and people. I’m always authentic, but that does not undermine reacting appropriately. I think the most important aspect of language is correctly getting your message across. So when I read affirm, or believe, it’s essentially the same if I’m showing I accept something.

In general conversations around evolution goes
Something like, “ do you believe in evolution” and I respond with ,”’yeah i believe in it.