Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die.

[andrewgprv]

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html

"Because a basic tenet of both skeptical thinking and scientific inquiry is that beliefs can be wrong, it is often confusing and irritating to scientists and skeptics that so many people's beliefs do not change in the face of disconfirming evidence. How, we wonder, are people able to hold beliefs that contradict the data?"

This is a great article that I encourage everyone to read.

I defenatly agree with the author of this article. I myself have believed this for some time, because of my own experience. As I have mentioned on this forum before, I grew up mormon and my family and community was very religous (grew up in Salt Lake). In my teenage years I started to question the answers I had been spoon-fed since birth. And as the article states this did trigger a fight or flight response in me. For years I struggled between what I considered logicall answers and my known answers. I made about every excuse in the book for my religon but ulitmatly it did not stand up to my sceptical brain. However the whole process was life changing and very stressing. It was as if my entire perception of the world changed. Actually it did as the article explains, I had a map of reality in my head a map handed to me from my parents, by questioing this map and refusing to rely on it any longer I was left feeling vulnerable, lost and extrememly frightened. I think we all experience these feelings when our beliefs are challenged, we become defensive and scared.

 

[Becka]

Sometimes I get the feeling scientists get offended that they can't change some people's beliefs.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Becka
Sometimes I get the feeling scientists get offended that they can't change some people's beliefs.

I would say many get very frustrated.

 

[WillJ]

Interesting article.

 

[Becka]

Well why are they going around trying to change people's beliefs in the first place? That's the job of fundies.

Hey science is great when it comes to the mating habits of the redwing blackbird or a new cancer treatment, but I'm not going base my beliefs (religious and moral) on something that, by its very nature, has to change and be flexible according to new evidence. If that means that I'm a literal creationist instead of an evolutionist or theistic evolutionist, whoop-de-fricken-do. I've never rallied to keep evolution from being taught in a public school or wished that Darwin hadn't been born.

Anyhow I think the world just makes more sense this way. Otherwise there should be a lot of weak babies and sickly old people who should be very very dead now according to the laws of nature.


But it seems that people, oddly enough in this kind of issue and this kind of issue only, care WAY too much what I think.

 

[Skullbones]

Interesting. Perhaps someone can explain to me how someone stubbornly sticking to "creationism" helps them to survive.

 

[Perfection]

So that's what's wrong with everybody!

 

[Mescalhead]

Now I see why people have problems with Agnosticism. The article is a bit apologist, but it explains what I have always suspected.

 

[Narz]

Very interesting. This article explains my girlfriend.

 

[col]

Its well argued but flawed I think.

One can also argue that the brain has evolved the ability to use logic and reason as a survival mechanism. Mans ability to reason has been a powerful evoltionary mechanism. The ability to deduce danger from available evidence aids survival. Therefore brains that do not use logic are anti survivalist.

What distinguishes man from other animals is the ability to use reason to extend knowledge into new areas.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by col
What distinguishes man from other animals is the ability to use reason to extend knowledge into new areas.

but not solely, otherwise many would be totally overpowered by fear that they cannot counter as they lack the data to 'finally' judge them.

 

[Chauliodus]

One can also argue that the brain has evolved the ability to use logic and reason as a survival mechanism. Mans ability to reason has been a powerful evoltionary mechanism. The ability to deduce danger from available evidence aids survival. Therefore brains that do not use logic are anti survivalist.

However, surviving in a population of humans, requires a peron to have a brain that can think illogicly.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Quite interesting article, cleared up some answers. Some faith is still better than paranoia. It also stressed what I've suspected, when one's beliefs collapse, it seems as the whole World collapses, so it's important to maintain this "ballance". Beliefs could also be the artifice that stops one go coockoo .

 

[Gothmog]

The article is a bit too cut and dry for my tastes. This is not a phenomena that is exclusive to non-scientific thinking, it is simply human.

As humans we simply do not have access to the truth (or so my agnostic belief system tells me), thus we will inevitably run into conflicting ideas/beliefs.

F. Scott Fitzgerald elaborated on such conflicting ideas by saying, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

Sometimes in science this conflict leads to wonderful breakthroughs in thinking, known as paradigm shifts, such as the quantization of electron orbits or plate tectonics. These ideas left many scientists feeling defensive and scared, some never accepted them. A few generations later everyone accepts them.

The difference in science is that the proof is in the pudding so to speak. A theory must make testable predictions. In science it is the job of the scientist to test those predictions in as impartial a manner as possible. Over time the theory that is closer to reality will correctly predict more phenomena. In moral or religious belief systems there is no such impetus, no such self-correcting mechanism.

Actually Becka’s post is a nice example of why beliefs are necessary to all of us. People want to believe that they know the truth, be it religious or scientific. They do not want to hear that their idea of the truth may have to change in the light of new evidence. Rather than re-evaluate their beliefs they will satisfy themselves with statements such as his characterization of what makes sense to him. Very human, just like the scientists I mention above.

As far as an evolutionary perspective it makes sense to me that group bonding is strengthened by a shared belief system (e.g. we must sacrifice virgins to the rain god) and so the ability to disregard evidence could become important to your position in the group (e.g. you don’t want to be the first one to do a statistical analysis of the effect of virgin sacrifice on future rainfall). Your position in the group relates directly to your ability to impact the future gene pool.

It seems to me that evolutionarily a best case scenario would be if most people follow beliefs without regard to evidence, but a significant subset of people were driven to challenge the current belief system. Sound familiar?