"1.) How typical of the believer (I am referring to you). He or she identifies something that may align with his/her opinion, and stops there, not searching for opposing evidence."

It was you (not me) who cited it as supporting your beliefs you clown. You are a believer, all humans are, that's what the article you linked is saying. You linked the article which utterly refutes your bullshit, all I did was cite this, I never claimed it supported any position I am taking, so that last part is hilarious given it was you who pasted the link claiming it supported your bullshit when it utterly refuted it, and it was you who had ignored this.
--------------------------------
2.) Wrt to those introductory descriptions you cited, article also went on to say:

Article said:
"There is, for example, no philosophical consensus on what belief is (McKay and Dennett, 2009) or even what constitutes a delusion (Spitzer, 1990; David, 1999; Coltheart, 2007)."

care to show a post of mine claiming otherwise? Or why this alters the other research that shows how essential beliefs are to our cognitive functions interacting with the world? This is priceless now.
-------------------------------------------------------
3.) Beyond the above, the article went on to say:....Advice: You ought to read beyond the introduction!"

Nothing I quoted was from the introduction you clown. Straw man again as well, as at no point have I said that beliefs have to be true, are you really this thick?

One last time as simply as it's possible to put it:

I ACCEPT THAT BELIEFS CAN BE BOTH PROPERLY AND IMPROPERLY EVIDENCED.

Why you keep lying about this is bizarre?

1.) I have no beliefs.

2.) I didn't tell any such lie; it is rather clear that you constrain belief to be merely evidenced based, such that the concept is supposedly not science opposing. (Note that your providing the definition does not alter the outcome that you falsely rank the concept of belief to be not generally science opposing!)

3.) Here's a simple question: Why do you refuse to accept that the concept of belief is generally science opposing?

Sheldon said:

"1.) In toddler like words: Experiments (as cited prior) show that belief generally facilitates ignorance if evidence."

That link is just to an earlier post, the link in that is to an article that utterly refutes your claims. The article also says plainly more than once BELIEFS CAN BE HELD WITH OR WITHOUT PROPER EVIDENCE.

"2.) As cited by Sheldon, dictionary reflects what I had initially underlined, that belief generally facilitates ignorance of evidence."

Beliefs can be both evidenced and unevidenced, seeemples. So what?

1.) How is a model that *generally facilitates that evidence is ignored*, supposedly compatible with a model that *generally facilitates that evidence is not ignored*?

2.) The article does not "refute" what I underline in non-beliefism. Notably, the article does not mention that belief is essential!

Utter bollocks again by you!

The paper states it's not a comprehensive theoretical model, you dumb shit.

And another hint, is any paper you've cited peer reviewed?

Fraud!

1.) Expletives don't suddenly guarantee correctness!

2.) Quote from paper:

Article said:

"We acknowledge, however, that there are a number of challenges to investigating belief and developing a ***more comprehensive*** theoretical model"

3.) In reality, an aim to be "more comprehensive" doesn't suddenly mean that the thing in question isn't comprehensive at all!

4.) Another reference in "Research/Peer review": A cognitive account of belief: a tentative road map.

Sheldon said:

He's delusional, utterly delusional. I am really thinking the Dunning Kruger effect now, it all fits. He's linking articles as scientific validation, when they roundly refute his claims, then accuses me of quote mining them ffs. Then because one small paragraph said there is currently no philosophical consensus on what beliefs actually are, he tried to claim this made my use of the rest biased, when again he was the one who linked the article not me. On top of which the bit he quoted hardly supports his bullshit idea all humans should somehow expunge the ability to form beliefs from their cognitive ability. Please note he has yet to suggest how we might even achieve this, or what it might mean given the article he linked states plainly that our cognitive ability to to form beliefs form an essential component of how we function in the real world.

If he has a degree I'm frankly stunned, what that says about the university that he attained it from can be nothing good. How can anyone spend 4 years in higher education and so completely lack the ability for any critical thinking.

1.) The article does not "refute" what is underlined in "non-beliefism".

2.) Notably, the article does not express that beliefs are "essential".

3.) Could you cite where you supposedly found that beliefs are "essential" from the article? Or perhaps you sillily confused "we do things grounded in belief.." with the expression not present in the article "we must believe"?

3.b) That society is grounded in belief is an "old hat"; a large point of the article is that belief generally occurs such that evidence is ignored, and that belief generally facilitates that people tend to twist new evidence to suit old false beliefs. Is it then essential that we don't correctly update our expressions?

4.) "Non-beliefism" rather than not, underlines that we may simply avoid the concept of belief, by generally being keen on evidence.

5.) Not surprisingly, others on this forum have trivially consumed the nonsense that has escaped your mind. Such is belief's embarrassing design.

6.) If you had devoted more thought cycles to the topic at hand, rather than "ad-hominem" attacks wrt my place of schooling, you would probably not have messed up your analysis!