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

[Red Baron Farms]

OK I did a rethink. Here is my conclusion:
I believe that belief either with or without evidence is an evolutionary advantage to the species Homo Sapiens. This abstract concept you call belief is a thought process that allows our species to act with limited and/or incomplete information. Since no one knows everything, belief is the mechanism by which we can progress and not get frozen by lacking the ability to decide a course of action.

Thus rather than me believing that belief itself is dangerous for your brain, I believe that non-belief(as a philosophy) is a sign of brain damage that in eons past I believe would have most likely caused a significant fitness drop.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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."

Wrong.

Here is the simple difference:

(1) Events in science empirically ensue, such that some X constructs consist especially of some x.
(2) Scientific methodology does not empirically ensue, such that science especially ignores evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

There are words that construe high concern for evidence. (such as "science")
Belief is not one of such words.

As is evidenced, belief typically concerns non-evidence.
Scientific methodology in stark contrast, typically concerns evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

As we've previously established, appealing to the dictionary does not provide you with an accurate picture of the relevant concepts.

]Dictionary definitions while simplified, are generally not disparate, but instead robust summaries with respect to whichever process they define.
Note that dictionary definitions of "science" ensue such that science highly concerns evidence, while dictionary definitions of belief ensue such that belief especially concerns non-evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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?

I had not rejected your presentation of evidence.

With reference to your Karl Popper reference via reply 582, no where, had I expressed that science was perfect.

In contrast, rather than express that science was unchanging, I had expressed that belief facilitated the ignorance of evidence altogether.

That scientific methodology (highly concerning evidence) is imperfect, does not suddenly warrant that belief (especially concerning non-evidence) need be employed.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

Did you miss the original post?
That a minority of beliefs may concern evidence, does not suddenly remove that a majority of beliefs ignore evidence.

This has been that which non-beliefism had long underlined.
See the second line of the original post: "Believe can contain non-science." (This is a "hint" showing that belief, not surprisingly, may contain science to, i.e. scientific evidence)
This doesn't remove though, that belief typically occurs absent evidence, as is evidenced.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

*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.

Wrong, as far as science prescribes.
It is belief that confirmation bias acts on; it is belief that is especially unchanging in the face of new evidence, due to bias.

That non beliefism underlines that one shall prioritize evidence, is contrary to belief's neglectful design.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

Not my "claims" (but rather empirically observed sequences).
No such "cherry picking took place".

I referred to:
(1) A philosophical presentation of belief, included in the cognitive study.
(NOTE: The reference (Schwitzgebel E. (2010) of the word designated that belief was essential to human life.)
(**However**, I also noted that the same article mentions that there is no consensus on the aforesaid philosophy. The sciences further disregard the aforesaid philosophy, in relation to belief.)



(2) In the same article, there were several sequences that expressed that belief typically ensues such that evidence is ignored. (prior source presented, with many references to cognitive studies)

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Words added to correct typo at the request of the author

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

(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.

Recall reply 613:

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.

So, the proposal of new theories, as empirically observed, may be called evidence.

As such, the short version as seen in (3) above, like the long highlighted portion, both express that scientists may ignore evidence. (on the grounds of belief/bias)

Of course, the expression is not fallacious, for scientists are in fact subject to confirmation bias/ignorance of evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

Wrong, I had unavoidably used science to compound my expressions.

You are fulfilling belief's neglectful design.

In addition to observing the expressions of others (eg JayUtah), you need attempt to observe the evidence yourself.

For example, it is demonstrable that JayUtah, had been invalid regarding my sources' unavoidable confirmation of my prior expressions:

(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."

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

Wrong, as far as science designates.

As the original post presents, such arising "evidence" must be scientifically evaluated, and not merely be observed absent further scientific evidence.

Regardless, belief remains a process that facilitates that haphazard "evidence" be observed as valid. (i.e. the ignorance of evidence at some regime)

For example, David Wolfe presents several sequences of "evidence" for several pseudoscientific paradigms.

One need be wary of David Wolfe.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

OK I did a rethink. Here is my conclusion:
I believe that belief either with or without evidence is an evolutionary advantage to the species Homo Sapiens. This abstract concept you call belief is a thought process that allows our species to act with limited and/or incomplete information. Since no one knows everything, belief is the mechanism by which we can progress and not get frozen by lacking the ability to decide a course of action.

Thus rather than me believing that belief itself is dangerous for your brain, I believe that non-belief(as a philosophy) is a sign of brain damage that in eons past I believe would have most likely caused a significant fitness drop.

Scientific methodology is certainly not perfect.
For example, astronomy once ensued such that science contained nonsense, such as mythology.

However, as scientific methodology highly concerns evidence (contrary to belief, of low evidence concern), astronomy but no longer consisted of astrology/mythical components.

 

[JayUtah]

Recall reply 613:

The quote you attribute to me does not appear in that post. Please provide a link to where I said what you quoted me as saying, or retract the misquotation.

So, the proposal of new theories, as empirically observed, may be called evidence.

No. Evidence may be observed which appears to contradict prevailing theory. There are different ways of responding to contradicting evidence, none of which fit your "belief is without evidence" theory.

As such, the short version as seen in (3) above, like the long highlighted portion, both express that scientists may ignore evidence. (on the grounds of belief/bias).

Different strategies for reconciling apparently conflicting evidence exist. They are not "ignoring evidence," as you claim.

Of course, the expression is not fallacious, for scientists are in fact subject to confirmation bias/ignorance of evidence.

Yes they are, which is why the scientific method includes requirements for such things as peer review and for reproducibility, which aim to counterbalance all manner of bias. So for example, scientists may find in some cases that new evidence -- allegedly challenging the status quo -- cannot be reproduced. In that case the rational approach is to hold to the prevailing theory and characterize the new evidence as in some way anomalous.

 

[JayUtah]

No such "cherry picking took place".

Hogwash. I gave examples, which you did not address. For example (again) you read sentences that say things of the form, Where a tendency toward X exists, we observe also Y. You think that means there is a tendency toward X. You only read the parts of sentences that confirm your pre-existing beliefs. You use your belief in the rightness of your theory to filter the evidence that applies to it.

In the same article, several sequences that expressed that belief typically ensues such that evidence is ignored.

No.

The source says that where a strong belief exists, the subject is more likely to evaluate new evidence based on how well it conforms to his belief. That's not "ignoring" evidence. That's not to say that beliefs are "typically" strong. That's not to say that the original beliefs were not also predicated on evidence.

For example, it is demonstrable that JayUtah, had been invalid regarding my sources' unavoidable confirmation of my prior expressions:

Nonsense. You can only "demonstrate" it by putting words in my mouth that I never said. Instead of substantiating the alleged quote, you just doubled-down on it. Link to where I said the words you attribute to me, or retract the misquotation.

 

[BStrong]

Wrong, I had unavoidably used science to compound my expressions.

You are fulfilling belief's neglectful design.

In addition to observing the expressions of others (eg JayUtah), you need attempt to observe the evidence yourself.

For example, it is demonstrable that JayUtah, had been invalid regarding my sources' unavoidable confirmation of my prior expressions:

I'll let the first bolded sentence stand as proving the point I made.

Your theory of non-beliefism is only supported by your belief that your interpretation of human behavior and their thought processes is correct.

Second bolded: I have.

Your theory is your opinion alone not scientifically supportable.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Typo Corrections:


Reply 646:

This is a "hint" showing that belief, not surprisingly, may contain science too, i.e. scientific evidence)

Reply 649

As such, the short version as seen in (3) above, like the long highlighted portion, expresses that scientists may ignore evidence. (on the grounds of belief/bias)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The quote you attribute to me does not appear in that post. Please provide a link to where I said what you quoted me as saying, or retract the misquotation.

As I had long mentioned, such was a shortened version, of your long expression.

No. Evidence may be observed which appears to contradict prevailing theory. There are different ways of responding to contradicting evidence, none of which fit your "belief is without evidence" theory.

Not my theory, where such is empirically observed.

Also, that there are multiple ways in responding to contradicting evidence, does not suddenly remove that belief facilitates that one ignores evidence.

Different strategies for reconciling apparently conflicting evidence exist. They are not "ignoring evidence," as you claim.

That "different strategies for reconciling apparently conflicting evidence exist.", does not eliminate that beings still ignore evidence on the grounds of prior belief.

This is no claim, this is empirically observed.

Yes they are, which is why the scientific method includes requirements for such things as peer review and for reproducibility, which aim to counterbalance all manner of bias. So for example, scientists may find in some cases that new evidence -- allegedly challenging the status quo -- cannot be reproduced. In that case the rational approach is to hold to the prevailing theory and characterize the new evidence as in some way anomalous.

Your words above does not change that is not typical for science to ignore evidence.

Science remains a construct that highly concerns evidence.



Albeit, can you provide scientific evidence to show that belief does not mostly facilitate that its users ignore evidence ?
Scientific data already displays that belief occurs typically such that one ignores evidence. Common dictionary definitions also express such. Lest new scientific data arises to the contrary, I'm afraid the sum of your expressions are empirically, unavoidably invalid.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Typo correction (Reply 648):

(2) In the same article, there were several sequences that expressed that belief typically ensues such that evidence is ignored...

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Hogwash. I gave examples, which you did not address. For example (again) you read sentences that say things of the form, Where a tendency toward X exists, we observe also Y. You think that means there is a tendency toward X. You only read the parts of sentences that confirm your pre-existing beliefs. You use your belief in the rightness of your theory to filter the evidence that applies to it.

No.

The source says that where a strong belief exists, the subject is more likely to evaluate new evidence based on how well it conforms to his belief. That's not "ignoring" evidence. That's not to say that beliefs are "typically" strong. That's not to say that the original beliefs were not also predicated on evidence.

Wrong.

The article had referred to general tendencies, rather than merely strong belief.

Article: "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 support of this, there is research suggesting that beliefs may persevere even when the initial evidence for the beliefs is discredited."

Nonsense. You can only "demonstrate" it by putting words in my mouth that I never said. Instead of substantiating the alleged quote, you just doubled-down on it. Link to where I said the words you attribute to me, or retract the misquotation.

It is observable that my prior quote on that matter is valid.
That you proceed to deny such, does not alter its validity.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Typo correction reply 657:

Your words above do not change that is not typical for science to ignore evidence.