• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
What does the article mention of conviction's meaning?

What does the other article express of the word belief?
Click to expand...

You may find this interesting:

Beliefs vary in terms of the level of evidence and support they command. Some beliefs have high levels of evidence, while others appear to be accepted without requiring much evidential support (Lamont, 2007).
Click to expand...

Sound familiar?
 
JayUtah said:
Did you read them?
Click to expand...

Yes, "belief can be defined as the mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of some idea".

Conviction requires not evidence.




EDIT:

The articles certainly, did not bound belief to not concern non-evidence.

The articles also describe clearly that belief typically encodes non evidence.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Yes, "belief can be defined as Belief can be defined as the mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of some idea'.
Click to expand...

That's what someone else already said about the article. You're just repeating it. I'll ask you again, and this time tell the truth. Did you read the articles?

Convictions require not evidence.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Conviction is the outcome of the act of convincing. Are you claiming convincing must be done without evidence?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Had you contacted a neuroscientist (or neuroscience), prior to utilizing all the words amidst the entirety of your comments?

Had you contacted a neuroscientist (or neuroscience), concerning the usage of all the words amidst your studies in the past 30 years?


Edited by Agatha: 
Edited moderated content




FOOTNOTE:

Neuroscience utilizes standard belief definitions:
http://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/research/cameos/DeludedBrain.php

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327528/



Based on the footnote above, the prior question then re-emerges:
Click to expand...
Woo graphics and memes. The calling card of the woo merchant. I did take the trouble to explain how that works. You took the trouble to post proudly that you did not read and refused to read that post. Your bridges are well and truly burned.

No soup for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Yes, "belief can be defined as the mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of some idea".

Conviction requires not evidence.
Click to expand...

Nor does it inherently lack concern for evidence. A scientist may require robust evidence before adopting a conviction; the restrictions are only in your mind.
 
JayUtah said:
That's what someone else already said about the article. You're just repeating it. I'll ask you again, and this time tell the truth. Did you read the articles?
Click to expand...

Yes, that another has quoted the article, doesn't suddenly render that data inexistent.




JayUtah said:
I disagree. Conviction is the outcome of the act of convincing. Are you claiming convincing must be done without evidence?
Click to expand...

That you disagree, does not remove that conviction is defined to include opinion/faith.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
The articles also describe clearly that belief typically encodes non evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MostlyDead said:
Nor does it inherently lack concern for evidence. A scientist may require robust evidence before adopting a conviction; the restrictions are only in your mind.
Click to expand...

It had long been expressed, (see the original post) that regardless of the instance that belief may concern evidence, beliefs mostly don't.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Yes, that another has quoted the article, doesn't suddenly render that data inexistent.
Click to expand...

When I ask you whether you've read the article and you answer by quoting only what someone else has already quoted from it, my judgment based on experience is that you haven't read the papers. Keep in mind I used to teach your kind, and I'm well attuned to whether someone has actually read the references he cites in a paper. Now I'm going to ask you a third time -- did you actually read the papers you cited?

Disagree or not, does not remove that conviction is defined to include opinion/faith.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it didn't. Conviction involves varying application of evidence. You are the one insinuating that conviction categorically negates conclusions drawn on evidence. That is not supported by your sources.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
It had long been expressed, (see the original post) that regardless of the instance that belief may concern evidence, beliefs mostly don't.
Click to expand...

Restating your original claim doesn't override the refutation of it. You're arguing that belief cannot allow for evidence, but the people who have devoted their lives to studying belief seem to disagree with you. I'll take their judgment over your ignorance.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
It had long been expressed, (see the original post) that regardless of the instance that belief may concern evidence, beliefs mostly don't.
Click to expand...

And that is soley your belief. It is not externally supported.

And for Christ's sake, don't respond with requoting your same dumb-ass definition that has already been rejected.
 
JayUtah said:
Restating your original claim doesn't override the refutation of it. You're arguing that belief cannot allow for evidence, but the people who have devoted their lives to studying belief seem to disagree with you. I'll take their judgment over your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Article:

". In support of this, there is research suggesting that beliefs may persevere even when the initial evidence for the beliefs is discredited (Ross et al., 1975, 1977; Anderson et al., 1980). As a result of these biases, people can accept beliefs without sufficient evidence and also retain incorrect beliefs longer than would be case if they sought out diagnostic information.".

While the article refers to philosophical descriptions of belief (where the article expresses of the lack of consensus amidst philosophy on the matter) the article entails that belief is such that typically persists regardless of and contrary to evidence.

Science in contrast, is not in the domain of persisting, absent evidence...
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
...belief is such that typically persists regardless of and contrary to evidence.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what the article says. it says this may occur. It doesn't say it's the rule, or typical. Further, your thesis is that belief and science (i.e., conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence) are mutually exclusive "by definition." It turns out that the descriptions used by the actual relevant science aren't as cut-and-dried, nor their conclusions nearly as bifurcated, as you've been claiming.

So your critics are right. If you abandon the dictionary-only argument and actually start delving into the relevant sciences, you find that the relevant concepts are a lot more fuzzy-edged than you give them credit for. The pursuit of that sort of thinking is what we mean by erudition.
 
JayUtah said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
...belief is such that typically persists regardless of and contrary to evidence.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what the article says. it says this may occur. It doesn't say it's the rule, or typical. Further, your thesis is that belief and science (i.e., conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence) are mutually exclusive "by definition." It turns out that the descriptions used by the actual relevant science aren't as cut-and-dried, nor their conclusions nearly as bifurcated, as you've been claiming.

So your critics are right. If you abandon the dictionary-only argument and actually start delving into the relevant sciences, you find that the relevant concepts are a lot more fuzzy-edged than you give them credit for. The pursuit of that sort of thinking is what we mean by erudition.
Click to expand...

Wrong, JayUtah.

Article:

"
The tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and be overly influenced by it, in particular, could lead to the acceptance or entertainment of unusual beliefs. Likewise, if an individual has strong pre-existing beliefs that are consistent with a delusional account, these beliefs might lead to acceptance of the delusional account without any additional deficit in belief evaluation. In this latter case, the new delusion would fit within the pre-existing web of beliefs, so would be accepted, while intact belief evaluation could serve to eliminate alternative, non-delusional accounts that are not consistent with the pre-existing web of beliefs."


Albeit, the critics are wrong; for belief typically opposes science.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom