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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Where have you shown I'm incompetent?


No, that was another guy. Keep your critics straight.


Your other critic simply noted that the article to which you have hitched your wagon does nothing more than discuss the confirmation bias, which is old at around here. The confirmation bias specifically discusses evidence that favors one's belief. What makes it a bias is that it's selectively chosen from among all available evidence. That rather throws a wrench in your theory that belief is devoid of evidence. Belief may evaluate evidence, but irrationally.

According to research, beings tend to adopt prior data regardless of new information.

Such new information may not surprisingly, be called evidence.

So, it is unavoidable that new information or evidence is ignored via belief.

 

[JayUtah]

Wrong once more, wise one.

Nope. This is a well-known principle in engineering, in the man-machine interface.

"Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements..."

The initial judgment in this case is based on evidence. The author is discussing the principle that people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily than later evidence. We observed this in the handling of the Apollo 13 incident and the Three Mile Island incident. It in no way establishes that belief proceeds contrary to evidence. It argues instead that a weighing of contradictory evidence tends to favor initial evidence. The key to the concept is that the evidence is contradictory. See Perrow, Normal Accidents for a thorough discussion.

Thusly, the critics had been wrong all along; wrong based on the dictionary, and wrong based in cognitive papers that are reflected in dictionaries' descriptions.

You're still obsessing over the dictionary? And no, you have no idea what you're reading in these papers. You're in over your head, and your critics have decades of experience beyond yours that lets them know you are.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Not explicitly, but you treat it as a sort of platonic opposite to your caricature of belief.



No.



I have. It doesn't say what you say it says.



Again, that's a conditioned statement. Learn to read conditionals.

Wrong JayUtah.

Article:

"Belief evaluation, even in the absence of frank pathology, has several limitations. People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies (Evans, 1989; Gilovich, 1991; Johnson-Laird, 2006; Nickerson, 2008). People, for example, tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief (Nickerson, 1998, 2008). People may also use inefficient strategies that waste effort on non-diagnostic data (Fischoff and Beyth-Marom, 1983; Evans, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 2006) or focus on heuristics (Kahneman et al., 1982; Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011; Kahneman, 2011; see also Gilovich et al., 2002). Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis."

 

[JayUtah]

According to research, beings tend to adopt prior data regardless of new information.

Yes, people tend to weigh initial evidence heavier than later evidence. This is not proof that they are proceeding in "non-evidence" as you claim.

Such new information may not surprisingly, be called evidence.

Not "may be called" evidence. It is evidence. And we discuss this thoroughly in the literature, none of which you've read.

So, it is unavoidable that new information or evidence is ignored via belief.

But you forget that the initial belief was also predicated on evidence. Your theory is the belief and evidence (i.e., science) are mutually exclusive. The principle of first evidence simply says that people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily than later-emerging evidence when the evidence is contradictory. it does not at all say that people attain a belief in the absence of evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Nope. This is a well-known principle in engineering, in the man-machine interface.



The initial judgment in this case is based on evidence. The author is discussing the principle that people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily than later evidence. We observed this in the handling of the Apollo 13 incident and the Three Mile Island incident. It in no way establishes that belief proceeds contrary to evidence. It argues instead that a weighing of contradictory evidence tends to favor initial evidence. The key to the concept is that the evidence is contradictory. See Perrow, Normal Accidents for a thorough discussion.

Contrarily, beings are subject to ignoring new information/evidence due to confirmation bias, and thusly prior beliefs persist.

You're still obsessing over the dictionary? And no, you have no idea what you're reading in these papers. You're in over your head, and your critics have decades of experience beyond yours that lets them know you are.

Decades of experience, and decades of confirmation bias.

That one is is older, does not necessitate that one is smarter.

 

[JayUtah]

Wrong JayUtah.

No, right. The quoted paragraph has nothing to do with whether the initial conclusions are based on evidence. It says that initial evidence holds sway. You're trying to parlay that into a claim that belief contradicts evidence. "Belief evaluation" is the operative concept here. You've swept it under the carpet.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Yes, people tend to weigh initial evidence heavier than later evidence. This is not proof that they are proceeding in "non-evidence" as you claim.



Not "may be called" evidence. It is evidence. And we discuss this thoroughly in the literature, none of which you've read.



But you forget that the initial belief was also predicated on evidence. Your theory is the belief and evidence (i.e., science) are mutually exclusive. The principle of first evidence simply says that people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily than later-emerging evidence when the evidence is contradictory. it does not at all say that people attain a belief in the absence of evidence.

A prior quote of mine applies:

Wrong JayUtah.

Article:

"Belief evaluation, even in the absence of frank pathology, has several limitations. People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies (Evans, 1989; Gilovich, 1991; Johnson-Laird, 2006; Nickerson, 2008). People, for example, tend to seek confirmatory information that supports their belief and be overly influenced by this information, but neglect information that is critical of their belief (Nickerson, 1998, 2008). People may also use inefficient strategies that waste effort on non-diagnostic data (Fischoff and Beyth-Marom, 1983; Evans, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 2006) or focus on heuristics (Kahneman et al., 1982; Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011; Kahneman, 2011; see also Gilovich et al., 2002). Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis."

In fact, in the typical event that beings proceed while ignoring new information, that new information may be called evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No, right. The quoted paragraph has nothing to do with whether the initial conclusions are based on evidence. It says that initial evidence holds sway. You're trying to parlay that into a claim that belief contradicts evidence. "Belief evaluation" is the operative concept here. You've swept it under the carpet.

That initial beliefs may concern evidence, does not suddenly purge the fact that beings may proceed absent evidence, regardless of when prior beliefs become invalidated.

This behaviour contrasts scientific methodology.

So, yes, you remain wrong JayUtah.

 

[JayUtah]

Contrarily, beings are subject to ignoring new information/evidence due to confirmation bias, and thusly prior beliefs persist.

Prior beliefs based on evidence. The question at hand is the comparative evaluation of contradictory evidence.

That one is is older, does not necessitate that one is smarter.

Oh, please. You're a newbie in this field, and abjectly ignorant of the other relevant fields. I was writing about the man-machine interface long before you were born. You're not the god you claim to be. Sure, I'll grant that certain people younger than I are more adapt and erudite than I. Heck, I can even name names. But they can demonstrate their erudition. All you can demonstrate is delusions of grandeur for which others -- rightly -- have taken you task. This isn't the first forum you've tried to pretend to be some grand master.

 

[JayUtah]

That initial beliefs may concern evidence, does not suddenly purge the fact that beings may proceed absent evidence...

Yes it does. The question is the weighing of contradictory evidence. Evidence is at play in all steps of the process. That people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily that subsequent evidence does not in any way support a claim that they are proceeding "absent evidence."

This behaviour contrasts scientific methodology.

You are not an authority in scientific methodology.

 

[abaddon]

As I lack belief in all things, I lack belief in evolution, not surprisingly.

Do you accept evolution or not?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Prior beliefs based on evidence. The question at hand is the comparative evaluation of contradictory evidence.

Yes, including priorly invalid beliefs that may remain unchanging regardless of new evidence.

Science is not in the domain of holding old invalid/incomplete data, regardless of new paradigm shifting evidence.

QED.

Oh, please. You're a newbie in this field, and abjectly ignorant of the other relevant fields. I was writing about the man-machine interface long before you were born. You're not the god you claim to be. Sure, I'll grant that certain people younger than I are more adapt and erudite than I. Heck, I can even name names. But they can demonstrate their erudition. All you can demonstrate is delusions of grandeur for which others -- rightly -- have taken you task. This isn't the first forum you've tried to pretend to be some grand master.

Inconsequential.

 

[JayUtah]

Science is not in the domain of holding old invalid/incomplete data, regardless of new paradigm shifting evidence.

Nonsense. One of the most common criticisms of scientific practice today is that it favors existing, established theories over proposals of new ones. That's not inappropriate, since we want a high barrier to overturning established theory.

You're not a scientist, so you wouldn't know this. You rely upon a caricature dictionary definition of science which you treat essentially as the perfect skeptic's religion. You have no idea what you're taking about.

Inconsequential.

Nope. You are the one claiming to be the "god" of computer science. In fact you're a recent graduate of a substandard program that has nothing to do with the claims you're making here. The fact that your critics are better educated, better experienced, and better informed than you are is not inconsequential to your claims. You're frankly arrogant. This arrogance leads you to make significant mistakes in the presentation and defense of your claims.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That initial beliefs may concern evidence, does not suddenly purge the fact that beings may proceed absent evidence...

Yes it does. The question is the weighing of contradictory evidence. Evidence is at play in all steps of the process. That people tend to weigh initial evidence more heavily that subsequent evidence does not in any way support a claim that they are proceeding "absent evidence."

"Yes it does" was the wrong answer.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0

Let's break things down:

(1) Believer A has belief A.
(2) New evidence comes, believer A alters his/her belief, to give belief A+1.

(1b) Believer B has belief B.
(1c) New evidence comes, but believer B willingly ignores new evidence.

Believer Bs may be observed to not update their priorly erroneous beliefs.

We see then that belief is such that allows beings to typically ignore evidence, and maintain prior beliefs, contrary to scientific methodology.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Nonsense. One of the most common criticisms of scientific practice today is that it favors existing, established theories over proposals of new ones. That's not inappropriate, since we want a high barrier to overturning established theory.

You're not a scientist, so you wouldn't know this. You rely upon a caricature dictionary definition of science which you treat essentially as the perfect skeptic's religion. You have no idea what you're taking about.

Regardless of scientific practice (or rather activities practiced by beings that happen to be scientists) science highly concerns evidence.

Contrary to your value-less comment, belief is not in the domain of paradigms that highly concern evidence.

You need not conflate scientists that may neglect science, with science's description.

Nope. You are the one claiming to be the "god" of computer science. In fact you're a recent graduate of a substandard program that has nothing to do with the claims you're making here. The fact that your critics are better educated, better experienced, and better informed than you are is not inconsequential to your claims. You're frankly arrogant. This arrogance leads you to make significant mistakes in the presentation and defense of your claims.

Inconsequential.

That belief opposes science, is but not manufactured on my account.

I shall now slumber, while you reconsider your fancy for beliefs.

 

[abaddon]

Do you accept evolution or not?

It's a simple yes or no question. Why are you unable to answer?

 

[JayUtah]

"Yes it does" was the wrong answer.

No, it isn't. The weighing of contradictory evidence doesn't fit into your simplistic notion of belief-vs-science.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove response to moderated content

We see then that belief is such that allows beings to typically ignore evidence, and maintain prior beliefs, contrary to scientific methodology.

No. Your examples fail to note that the initial beliefs were formed on the basis of evidence. The difference between your two hypothetical samples is not whether the beliefs were formed on the basis of evidence, but by what policy the beliefs were modified to accommodate new evidence. Judicious interpretation of contradictory data is part of scientific methodology. You've received no training in that methodology and you've had little if any opportunity to practice it. You are not an authority on scientific methodology.

This is a well plowed field. I've given you references to the two most cited works on the subject. You apparently don't care.

 

[JayUtah]

Regardless of scientific practice (or rather activities practiced by beings that happen to be scientists) science highly concerns evidence.

You are not an expert in scientific practice.

You need not conflate scientists that may neglect science, with science's description.

Straw man. I made no reference or insinuation to derelict scientists. You have a romantic notion of science, gleaned apparently from simplistic dictionary definitions. Scientific practice is science -- the only kind of science that matters. Conscientious, honest scientists in the practice of their profession do not subscribe to the ignorance you're spouting. Scientific practice not inappropriately favors established theories over attempts to overturn those theories. New evidence is not inappropriately considered anomalous until it achieves sufficient import.

That belief opposes science, is but not manufactured on my account.

Yes it is. The notion that belief and science are mutually exclusive is entirely your proposal. That's why you wrote a paper on it; you were hoping to force a "rethink" of the situation starring you as the principal investigator. You're groping for admiration based on erudition you don't possess.

I shall now slumber, while you reconsider your fancy for beliefs.

I have no "fancy" for belief. But it's telling that you think I must have. I simply dispute your naive and simplistic formulation of the relationship between belief and science.

 

[Belz...]

You are not an authority in scientific methodology.

And the understatement of the month goes to.....

 

[Belz...]

Inconsequential.

Your ignorance in these fields is irrelevant? Are you claiming divine revelation?

Show me your stigmata and I'll show you mine!