Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ult...nt-believe

A belief can be anything really. A deity, ghost, reality, procedure, etc.  Perhaps the list is endless.  Regardless, I think we are influenced by what we observe. I like science because, if I can paraphrase Lawrence Krauss for a moment, 'I can believe something is true but if evidence is found that refutes my belief, then I'm prepared to toss it out like yesterday's garbage. ' How many of us are willing to do that? For me I think it is easier to toss out a belief simply by recognizing what a belief is. For me that means unsubstantiated fact. Means I require proof but I realize that that proof could also be a belief. So perhaps its more important for me to understand that my beliefs may not be 100% fact. I leave room at least for fresh ideas and input. 

The above link is short, an experiment that was conducted. I don't know if the results were surprising or unexpected.

I sometimes tend toward Plato's definition of be-ing as power, or the power to contribute any effect. He arrived at that in the course of exploring what "corporeal" and "incorporeal" existence could possibly have in common. In that respect, information entities like concepts, memes / thought-viruses, fictional characters, etc can play significant roles in the world (or at least the movements and spasms of civilization).

For instance, God as a mere itinerant idea and abstract pattern abiding on paper and in multiple people's brains has wrought countless historical events (many violent). The almost universal cultural construct of "vampire" once engendered a variety of odd burial and postmortem rituals around the world. Sherlock Holmes keeps spurring the production of movies and television shows despite never having walked in the flesh.

In essence, it's mildly remarkable how items in some ideated or "un-realized" state that are not empirical, concrete / embodied, and localized in quite the same way as a pig or a cart can nevertheless find "be-ing" in alternative ways which implement Plato's "power to ___".

PLATO (as STRANGER): "My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power." --SOPHIST, trans. by Benjamin Jowett

This...

(Jan 8, 2017 05:32 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I like science because, if I can paraphrase Lawrence Krauss for a moment, 'I can believe something is true but if evidence is found that refutes my belief, then I'm prepared to toss it out like yesterday's garbage. ' How many of us are willing to do that?

And this...

Quote:For me I think it is easier to toss out a belief simply by recognizing what a belief is. For me that means unsubstantiated fact. Means I require proof but I realize that that proof could also be a belief. So perhaps its more important for me to understand that my beliefs may not be 100% fact. I leave room at least for fresh ideas and input. 

Are not the same, but you probably realize that.

Even as a theist, I agree with Krauss. Since science cannot offer proof or disproof, only a degree of confidence, it makes more sense to reject beliefs based on refuting facts rather than reject a belief based solely on a lack of evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only the presence of refuting evidence (or lack of confidently expected evidence) is sufficient refute of a belief.

Quote:The above link is short, an experiment that was conducted. I don't know if the results were surprising or unexpected.

I'm not surprised. Even though all participants thought in-home care was better, those who probably had to use daycare (both parents working) were happy to have their misgiving allayed.

Casually speaking, most of which is IMHO.

It's been raining all week and I've planned a huge outdoor event for Saturday. When I go to bed Friday night it is still raining. Morning comes, I wake up and look outside to see nothing but clear skies, not a cloud in sight. I'm so happy and elation causes me to utter, "Thank God, sunshine". A simple three word sentence that says a lot and since we're talking belief here I'll ask how many facts and beliefs are contained in those 3 words? Here are mine.....

Fact: the Sun* is shining, it's not raining, the night is over for me, the event planned has a good probability of taking place, I'm relieved, I'm pleased with the situation 

*I suppose I could call the Sun a belief at this time since it was 8 minutes ago that sunlight left its surface but I don't really need to prove the Sun is still there, because I've only indicated that sunshine is evident by observation.  

Belief: A deity, the deity is named God, God is responsible for the good weather, God is anticipating a favorable response for this action, God has to be thanked, thanking or not thanking God may have repercussions-good or bad, God has incredible power, God is favoring me, God is watching and listening to me

There's probably more for each but it's a good start I think. 

Are the facts actually some distorted view of reality? Different for me than someone else? Do I require a belief in my facts as true? Possibly, possibly, no. I may think we've figured everything out but I'm more than willing to change my thoughts if confronted with new evidence. I don't sit there and anticipate changes but I will definitely incorporate them into my way of thinking. The facts aren't some finely woven tapestry, there are probably holes in need of repair. I can adapt to changes. I like the truth and I'm of the opinion I have it at my disposal at all times. I don't actively pursue it however.

I suppose I could ask the same of the beliefs.  However if I consider my beliefs are facts then are they true, or do I require another belief?   Does one need an extra belief, an all encompassing belief, one that justifies or solidifies a whole set of beliefs. I mean one can just keep on adding beliefs to their trunk full of beliefs and this is...... the want for truth. For believers, to really want something to be true, one has to have faith that it all comes together like a symphony, each piece added supports and strengthens. Is there room for what might be considered actual truth or proven truth if that would break the perfection? A believer wants truth more, but the truth they want is of their own making.  

Blah, blah, blah 

Physicists often express a preference for "beauty" and symmetries in their theories. Perhaps that makes them overprotective of those kinds of theory, for only the sake of human aesthetics. Physicists constantly debate the interpretations of quantum mechanics, even though all their testable predictions are exactly the same. Are these sorts of beliefs of the same kind as theism? There has been no refute for any of them. The physicist want for beautiful theories is of their own making and motivation as well. Why should we assume a lack of willingness to accept new facts from one but not the other? Is this just a prejudice? Since one actively works in a scientific field, we grant them more faith, kind of by association, even though they are just as prone to confirmation bias and exaggerated results as anyone else. Is it just a favored priesthood?

What many refer to as facts are very often touted as more certain than they can objectively be demonstrated to be.

I have a large family that’s extremely religious.  They all know I’m an atheist.  One is a history professor, who loves to argue.  The last time we were together, he was in my face screaming.  He was so mad that I thought he was going to hit me.  My aunt just died a few days ago.  I’ll be heading back there this week.  I am not looking forward to it.  I shit you not.  One of my cousins lost her son to a brain tumor.  The preacher was one of those hellfire types.  During the service, he actually said that her son was going to hell because he wasn’t baptized.  They’re all very musical and a few are pretty successful at it.  At last funeral that I attended, they sang "Angel" by Sarah McLachlan, not knowing that it’s about heroin addiction.  It’s going to be like nails on a chalkboard, and knowing what you’re listening to, makes the experience even more unpleasant.

Ear Anatomy May Amplify Irritating Tones of Chalkboard Squeak

"Of potential interest to psychologists is the finding that participants who knew that the sounds they were hearing came from nails on a chalkboard rated these sounds more unpleasant, and experienced a higher degree of sweating, than the people who thought they were listening to music."

Personally I hate yacking about belief. Beliefs don't really bother me. I have an opinion like everyone else, wrong or right is a tough sell for commentary on belief. So I don't expect everyone to jump on my bandwagon. Perhaps you might wonder why I would start this thread so I will tell you.

I was jawing back and forth with a fellow member about whether a toilet could flush itself. I took the side where it can, for the other side it meant a ghost was performing the act. So I did a simple experiment at my own residence. I simply simulated a leaking flapper by lifting it ever so mildly off its seat. Just enough to allow some water to enter the bowl at a slow steady rate. First time I tried it the toilet eventually flushed itself, I did it again with the same result. Despite all this, the other debater basically told me that because I lifted the flapper, the test proved nothing. Now I've been around enough to know that simulation takes many forms. If I want to test if an electric switch is in the circuit of an appliance I just need to flip it on and off or pull a contact off (OK, a working appliance). Everytime you turn an appliance on you're pretty much performing that test. 

What got me was despite the obvious, belief in some things are probably very hard to disengage oneself from. Maybe it matters on degree of devotion to and how much time one's invested on a subject, I don't know. Perhaps there's a belief that all skeptics are A-holes, whatever. I mean there's still people who steadfastly believe the Earth is flat, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary. My thinking is that believers dislike doubt entering into the equation, thus they put a lot of effort in trying to convince themselves as well as others to stay the course.

That's another two cents worth ..... means very little....the opinion of one guy.

Was this fellow at all religious? I ask because it seems that belief in ghosts tends to be more entrenched in the non-religious.

(Jan 9, 2017 08:21 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Was this fellow at all religious?

To be honest, I don't know. 

Quote:I ask because it seems that belief in ghosts tends to be more entrenched in the non-religious.

I know at least one person where that isn't so.

(Jan 9, 2017 04:21 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Personally I hate yacking about belief. Beliefs don't really bother me. I have an opinion like everyone else, wrong or right is a tough sell for commentary on belief. So I don't expect everyone to jump on my bandwagon. Perhaps you might wonder why I would start this thread so I will tell you.

I was jawing back and forth with a fellow member about whether a toilet could flush itself. I took the side where it can, for the other side it meant a ghost was performing the act. So I did a simple experiment at my own residence. I simply simulated a leaking flapper by lifting it ever so mildly off its seat. Just enough to allow some water to enter the bowl at a slow steady rate. First time I tried it the toilet eventually flushed itself, I did it again with the same result. Despite all this, the other debater basically told me that because I lifted the flapper, the test proved nothing. Now I've been around enough to know that simulation takes many forms. If I want to test if an electric switch is in the circuit of an appliance I just need to flip it on and off or pull a contact off (OK, a working appliance). Everytime you turn an appliance on you're pretty much performing that test. 

What got me was despite the obvious, belief in some things are probably very hard to disengage oneself from. Maybe it matters on degree of devotion to and how much time one's invested on a subject, I don't know. Perhaps there's a belief that all skeptics are A-holes, whatever. I mean there's still people who steadfastly believe the Earth is flat, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary. My thinking is that believers dislike doubt entering into the equation, thus they put a lot of effort in trying to convince themselves as well as others to stay the course.

That's another two cents worth ..... means very little....the opinion of one guy.

You're defending your own beliefs as much as I am. The belief that the paranormal isn't real, that it's all a product of delusion or deception. The only difference is my belief is based on actual evidence. Your belief isn't. It's based on faith--the unevidenced assumption that the paranormal doesn't or can't exist.