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

[Porpoise of Life]

A very entertaining thread. And an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

 

[BStrong]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

Of what scientific value are you to humans?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove response to moderated content

I see you're basically spamming the same material with the same posting style all over the 'net, with the same responses from readers.

What is that old saying...? Now I remember!

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove meme for consistency

I usually don't feel the need to resort to 'net memes to make a point, but I think that you may be better able to understand the message if I communicated it to you at your level. There is some doubt that the quote is correctly attributed, but the message itself is 100% correct.

 

[BStrong]

Loaded question.

It's every bit of that, but the MA prevents me from describing what it's loaded with.

 

[JayUtah]

And an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Indeed, and definitely not worth staying up late again for. But yes, the argument does seem to fit a familiar pattern.

I see you're basically spamming the same material with the same posting style all over the 'net, with the same responses from readers.

And normally we would be ill-advised to hold him accountable here for what he has said elsewhere. We debate here what he has said here, saith our moderators. But those foreign references elucidate part of the argument in that lately our self-proclaimed "god" of programming has tried -- as so many proponents do -- to gaslight his critics into believing that they're the ones who are out on the fringe. Arguments (paraphrased) such as, "What kind of brain would reject my obviously-cogent reasoning?" aim to undermine confidence among his critics by raising the possibility that their rebuttals are somehow biased or irrational.

When the data show a clear and consistent pattern of refutation elsewhere, among a variety of self-organized communities, that is congruent with what has happened here, we need not pay any further attention to the gaslighting. The references elsewhere act as a control.

 

[BStrong]

Indeed, and definitely not worth staying up late again for. But yes, the argument does seem to fit a familiar pattern.

And normally we would be ill-advised to hold him accountable here for what he has said elsewhere. We debate here what he has said here, saith our moderators. But those foreign references elucidate part of the argument in that lately our self-proclaimed "god" of programming has tried -- as so many proponents do -- to gaslight his critics into believing that they're the ones who are out on the fringe. Arguments (paraphrased) such as, "What kind of brain would reject my obviously-cogent reasoning?" aim to undermine confidence among his critics by raising the possibility that their rebuttals are somehow biased or irrational.

When the data show a clear and consistent pattern of refutation elsewhere, among a variety of self-organized communities, that is congruent with what has happened here, we need not pay any further attention to the gaslighting. The references elsewhere act as a control.

I hesitated before posting it and did not reference specific details - this isn't my house - and I do intend to post within the MA.

It is an interesting thing and we've certainly seen it in the JFK assassination threads, where folks breeze on in, post their boilerplate argument in favor of their CT - which failed in other venues previously - and they seem genuinely surprised when the CT that failed elsewhere fails here, hence the meme I posted.

I just hope you guys go easy on the drinking game. This thread is a liver killer if I've ever seen one.

 

[Agatha]

I am temporarily closing this thread while I clean out the many rule breaches. I will reopen it as soon as I can. Do not attempt to restart or move the discussion into another thread during the time this thread is closed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Agatha]

I am reopening this thread, but given the amount of edits I have had to make in the last 160 posts alone - I only went back four pages - I am reopening it on moderated status.

As I am sure most of you are aware, this means that in order for your post to be approved, you must ensure it complies in every respect with the MA.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Mod Team will not approve any more graphics in this thread while it is on moderated status unless they are essential to a proper understanding of the post, and where such an understanding cannot be gained by a link.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Nay_Sayer]

If I understand what PGJ is saying then I pose the following;

What about if Believer A has belief A. Evidence comes along and Believer A alters their views but it turns out that the evidence was deliberately skewed and the methodology for it flawed.

It would seem the belief plays no part in this hypothetical and the fault lies in faulty evidence and methodology.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I hesitated before posting it and did not reference specific details - this isn't my house - and I do intend to post within the MA.

It is an interesting thing and we've certainly seen it in the JFK assassination threads, where folks breeze on in, post their boilerplate argument in favor of their CT - which failed in other venues previously - and they seem genuinely surprised when the CT that failed elsewhere fails here, hence the meme I posted.

I just hope you guys go easy on the drinking game. This thread is a liver killer if I've ever seen one.

The sequence, whether received or not, is empirically observed.

FOOTNOTE:
While some users reject facts, others from elsewhere, including ScienceForums, had promptly come to observe belief's science opposing nature as valid.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Indeed, and definitely not worth staying up late again for. But yes, the argument does seem to fit a familiar pattern.



And normally we would be ill-advised to hold him accountable here for what he has said elsewhere. We debate here what he has said here, saith our moderators. But those foreign references elucidate part of the argument in that lately our self-proclaimed "god" of programming has tried -- as so many proponents do -- to gaslight his critics into believing that they're the ones who are out on the fringe. Arguments (paraphrased) such as, "What kind of brain would reject my obviously-cogent reasoning?" aim to undermine confidence among his critics by raising the possibility that their rebuttals are somehow biased or irrational.

When the data show a clear and consistent pattern of refutation elsewhere, among a variety of self-organized communities, that is congruent with what has happened here, we need not pay any further attention to the gaslighting. The references elsewhere act as a control.

Recall our cycle:

(1) JayUtah: The dictionary alone can't be used to verify belief's science opposing nature. Neuroscience is also required.

(2) ProgrammingGodJordan: "Presents neuroscience papers, that show that believers tend to ignore evidence. (be it initial or subsequent)"

(3) JayUtah: (Changes goal posts) "Scientists are also observed to ignore evidence, and its a critical problem in society."

(4) ProgrammingGodJordan: "That scientists practice such that science is neglected, does not suddenly warp science's definition to be that which ignores evidence."

Thusly, it is reasonable to ask: What type of brain rejects that belief, opposes science?




FOOTNOTE:

As I mentioned prior, users via science aligned forums tend to promptly observe non-beliefism (especially its underlining of belief's neglectful science opposing nature) as valid.

That some beings embrace scientific beliefs, does not suddenly remove the fact that belief does not predominantly occur on evidence, as reflected in neuroscience research shown, and common dictionary definitions.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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

Based on the evidence, evolution is valid.

Anyway, no, I have zero beliefs, and so, not surprisingly:

(1) I don't believe in myself.
(2) I don't believe in science. (evolution is a part of science...)


FOOTNOTE:

One need not believe in science, such that science holds true.

Recall that belief (having low concern for evidence) opposes science. (that has high evidence concern)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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 response to moderated content

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.

Let us not ignore the information.

As the article expresses, beyond the scope of initial belief establishment, in the belief evaluation phase, beings tend to ignore new information.

This contrasts science, as new theories are expressed as empirically demonstrable/reproducible, this evidence is not typically ignored.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

It's every bit of that, but the MA prevents me from describing what it's loaded with.

Invalid.
Neuroscience papers show that believers tend to ignore new evidence. (i.e. belief ultimately has a low concern for evidence)

 

[Aridas]

Don't you tire of being wrong?

Here is the remainder of the article:

The significant limitations of ordinary belief evaluation could also lead to the acceptance of unusual beliefs in the absence of pathology (Pechey and Halligan, 2011). The tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and be overly influenced by it, in particular, could lead to the acceptance or entertainment of unusual beliefs.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove picture for rule 6

FOOTNOTE:
O 'wise' one, what is it that the beings are confirming, if not belief? (Although the article had long specified belief)

*sigh* Don't you ever tire of being wrong? Confirmation bias is exactly what it's dealing with, and confirmation bias deals with how people evaluate what to accept. Yes, beliefs are involved when what's in question is how potential beliefs are being evaluated. No, the article doesn't even remotely support your contention that belief opposes science when it talks about confirmation bias.

Going further, non-beliefism couldn't even potentially solve the issue of confirmation bias. Rather, given how superficial and fallacious as it is, at best, it leaves one quite vulnerable to confirmation bias.

 

[Aridas]

Rather than ignore, I underlined the negative impact that belief designates with respect to science, as is evidenced by cognitive papers on belief..

Hardly. You underlined that some systems of belief have a negative effect on the acceptance of science. This is entirely true... some beliefs are anti-science. You then tried to declare victory repeatedly and without actually addressing any of the counterarguments. For example, one of them was that there are also very pro-science belief systems that have had positive impacts on the acceptance of science and that fact alone would be entirely sufficient to demonstrate that your argument does not hold up to even superficial scrutiny.

 

[Aridas]

Rather than ignore, I underlined the negative impact that belief designates with respect to science, as is evidenced by cognitive papers on belief..

To add to what I said before, this kind of response continues to highlight exactly what I said before, though. Namely, that you're ignoring the nature of belief and the actual relationship between science and belief. But then, you seem to fail to appreciate that your logic applied to chemistry would lead to just as blatantly foolish claims like "molecular theory opposes the noble gases, because molecular theory deals especially with atoms other than the noble gases."

 

[Aepervius]

I accept science, not because it comfort my belief, because after long study, and thanks to science, I finally was able to fabricate diamond, diffract small particle through germanium, study the spectra of SF6 and more importantly, refute the paper of a team on a molecule spectra and showing they must have had a purification problem.

So. Yeah.

 

[Mojo]

As I mentioned prior, users via science aligned forums tend to promptly observe non-beliefism (especially its underlining of belief's neglectful science opposing nature) as valid.

Can you provide any evidence to support this assertion? The evidence available on this forum suggests that it is more likely that either you misunderstood them or they were unable to understand you, or some combination of the two.

 

[JayUtah]

(3) JayUtah: (Changes goal posts) "Scientists are also observed to ignore evidence, and its a critical problem in society."

No, that was not my claim. Since you've put my alleged words in quotes, please link to the post where I said exactly the words you're quoting me as having said. If you cannot, I'll h ave to assume you were deliberately misquoting me.

Thusly, it is reasonable to ask: What type of brain rejects that belief, opposes science?

Asked and answered. Your theory fails not because a "type of brain" rejects it, but because your theory is inconsistent with the facts. The failure of your theory is not due to some property of your critics. Odd that in the rush to preserve your cherished belief in the rightness of your theory, you have rejected the evidence that disputes it. Is your theory therefore science, or just a belief you wish to maintain -- according to your theory?

That some beings embrace scientific beliefs, does not suddenly remove the fact that belief does not predominantly occur on evidence,

Nonsense. If your claim is that belief is not based on evidence, then examples of beliefs based on evidence, not accounted for in your theory, exactly refutes your claim. That's what a refutation means. That's how evidence is used to prove points.

...as reflected in neuroscience research shown, and common dictionary definitions.

No, your claims were not supported by the journal articles you posted -- you simply cherry-picked what you wanted from them and then misinterpreted that. As we've previously established, appealing to the dictionary does not provide you with an accurate picture of the relevant concepts.

 

[BStrong]

The sequence, whether received or not, is empirically observed.

FOOTNOTE:
While some users reject facts, others from elsewhere, including ScienceForums, had promptly come to observe belief's science opposing nature as valid.

You're proving my point.

Rather than using science to prove your assertions are correct, you cite various sources that when reviewed don't support the assertions in question.

In reading your responses, it's clear to me that there is some process that you employ to interpret the data or material you cite to your own benefit and hand wave away what absolutely contradicts your theory.

Somehow in your pov you've convinced yourself through your belief in your theory while simultaneously asserting that your theory is based on non-belief-ism.

It in no way improves your theory that you engage in what you claim to reject.