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

[Aridas]

Does belief especially concern evidence?

(Hint: Several research shows the opposite, that belief does not especially concern evidence)

Yet, this was answered previously. Evidence is entirely irrelevant to determining whether something qualifies as a belief in the first place. Furthermore, the "especially" in the dictionary definition that you're so fond of refers to a common, non-technical usage of the term which is entirely inappropriate to employ in the manner that you're trying to employ it. In addition to that, trying to define science as "especially" concerning evidence, simply to try to artificially differentiate it from belief is to ignore the actual defining characteristics of science. Rather, a word like "faith" would fit your attempted opposition and there would be no need to try to oversimplify science to the point where you leave it open to including non-science.

 

[Aridas]

There are inaccurate portions amidst your post above.

Stating such is rather valueless when you fail to back up your claim, yet again. Your personal credibility isn't remotely high enough to accept such at face value.

Anyway, that scientists may neglect science, does not suddenly warrant that science becomes a model that strives to especially concern non evidence.

Responded to earlier, but I'll respond again... what I said does not even remotely imply that science concerns non-evidence and your implication that it does is nonsensical to the point where it's hard to believe that you're not simply trolling with that kind of response.

Contrary to belief's design,

What design? A belief is an idea or position that someone accepts.

science strives to highly concern evidence.

That's not even remotely contrary to belief. That ends up as a subset of belief.

Belief has no such striving.

Duh? Color doesn't have to tend to be red for red to be a color.

 

[Thermal]

Part A
Wrong.
There are standard dictionaries of the English language.

These standard dictionaries contain belief's meaning as described in the quote above.

The quote above refers to defining belief using the words 'ensues such that beings especially ignore evidence'. Not one of the definitions you provide suggests that evidence is ignored, while a couple define belief as holding especially absent evidence.

Evidence being absent is not remotely equivalent to evidence being ignored. You are lying to keep asserting this dictionary support.

Wrong.

It is unavoidable, that research has revealed scenarios, such that people generally tend to express confirmation bias, such that prior beliefs are maintained regardless of evidence, as is evidenced.

You are aware that this paper you repeatedly cite does not remotely support your position, right? Have you read it or did you just word search it and cherry-pick a quote? A few highlights:

Belief can be defined as the mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of some idea

Although obvious, beliefs are significant because they are held by us to be true and provide the basis for us to understand the world and act within it

Beliefs have different origins. Beliefs, for example, can be formed through direct experience or by accepting information from a trusted or authoritative source
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

Beliefs can be held with different levels of conviction or degrees of confidence. This can range from firmly held (e.g., in the case of basic physical laws) to relative uncertainty (e.g., in the case of unfamiliar topics; Peters et al., 2004). In some beliefs, this conviction may even fluctuate over time or across different contexts

Beliefs vary in their resistance to change in response to counter-evidence and social pressure

Although admittedly underspecified and limited by the paucity of research, this non-recursive five stage approach to characterizing belief formation and acceptance...

Breeze over this brief selection, and note how at odds it is with your interpretation and particularly your reliance of it being some kind of silver bullet support.

I am capable of jokes.

Also, I am yet to encounter any evidence, that challenges the data that has priorly been observed. (I leave feelings, and abandon belief with respect to the aforesaid observation)

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for moderated thread

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for moderated thread

 

[JayUtah]

No where, had I mentioned that confirmation bias is belief.

You cited references describing confirmation bias as if it supported your conclusion that belief ignores evidence. The reference is either relevant to your claim or it isn't. You don't get to have it both ways.

It is not typical for empirically observed sequences to be "ignored", in the regine of science.

You are not a scientist, nor can demonstrate proficiency in scientific reasoning. You have no foundation from which to be making authoritative statements about what science does or doesn't do.

I need not misuse/twist dictionaries, for while incomplete, the dictionaries are not disparate from more detailed regimes of work.

You keep phrasing your defense as if you must not have done something because you had no need to do it. Whether someone can show you needed to do something is irrelevant to whether you did it or not. Do not attempt to gaslight away criticism.

You do misuse dictionaries because while you admit they are incomplete summaries, you nevertheless base your argument on the fact of something being included or omitted from them. Your argument wrongly presupposes the authority of a dictionary to establish the nature of a concept precisely by virtue of such composition. You give only lip service to the limitation of your chosen sources and insist that your critics must accept them as authoritatively as you do. If something is omitted from the dictionary, you attribute that to its omission from the concept, not the nature of the dictionary as an incomplete summary.

Hint: Several research shows the opposite, that belief does not especially concern evidence

Repeatedly asked and repeatedly answered. The research you cited explicitly describes several nuanced approaches to evidence. There is no support for a claim that "belief does not especially concern evidence." It concerns it quite a lot, in several ways that vary in objective cogency. You were similarly unable to cope with the inability of your theory to explain your own behavior. Rather than do so, you just wrote it all off as a "joke."

Anyway, that scientists may neglect science, does not suddenly warrant that science becomes a model that strives to especially concern non evidence.

Contrary to belief's design, science strives to highly concern evidence. Belief has no such striving.

Nonsense. That both scientists and non-scientists display nuanced approaches to evidence most assuredly refutes your claim that a strong distinction exists. Your theory is too simplistic to predict even your own behavior, much less that of anyone else, so it is rejected.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No. Dictionaries are brief summaries of the way people use language at any given time in general conversation. They are not canonical prescriptions of word meanings, either in general or for specific fields. We have discussed this at length. Your attempt to elevate the dictionary to a superlative position simply because that's all the research you're willing to do, or because its simplicity matches the simplicity of your argument, has been roundly rejected. Do not attempt to resuscitate it endlessly.

I hadn't done any such elevation.
However, regardless of your feelings, the dictionary's definitions are not disparate from detailed regimes of research.

However, that they are incomplete, does that warrant that the definitions are disparate from more detailed regimes of research?

Yes.

No. The dictionary describes science as a paradigm bound in evidence, and empiricism. The dictionary is not disparate from detailed regimes of data, and it doesn't suddenly become disparate because you desire that belief fits your refusal to observe belief's science opposing nature.

It makes not any sense to deny both the dictionary, and detailed regimes of research, that both show that belief typically ensues such that one ignores evidence. Such is inevitable.

For example, dictionary definitions express science to highly concern evidence, while belief concerns especially non-evidence.

Is that incomplete sequence, invalid?

Yes.

You are attempting to limit the field of knowledge to what is or isn't found in the dictionary. If you concede that dictionaries contain only incomplete summaries, then you concede arguments predicted on the fact of inclusion or exclusion.

Regardless of their incompletes, these definitions are not disparate/opposite from more detailed regimes of research.

Such detailed regimes of research already express that belief indeed, typically ensues such that evidence is ignored :

(1)
"Half of People Believe Fake Facts"

http://neurosciencenews.com/false-memory-facts-psychology-5698/








(2)
"In an uncertain and ambiguous world, effective decision making requires that subjects form and maintain a belief about the correctness of their choices, a process called meta-cognition..... It is important to mention that in this paper it is not claimed that belief is explicit, conscious or readily accessible for verbal report."

Paper above occurs on a bayesian description of belief, in the regime of probabilities; a "formalism" entitled "p(z=k|x,d=k)".

Related 'human choice suboptimality' 2-years later paper from an author on the prior paper:
"In such conditions, human choices resemble optimal Bayesian inference, but typically show a large suboptimal variability whose origin remains poorly understood".

The bayesian aligned 'belief' is shown to carry 'large suboptimality'...








(3)
Wikipedia is not complete, but Wikipedia's data distribution is non-trivial.
Wikipedia neuroscience analysis reveals a single paper that clearly refers to belief.

"...Recalling is, in some degree, always falsely believed, for a given recall is never exactly
like the original experience and goes through various modifications without our awareness, so much so that we falsely believe that memories
represent events exactly the way we experienced them."








(4)
"A cognitive account of belief"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327528/

"...Belief /] (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."







(5)
The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868313497266

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Crucial typo corrections:

Reply 693:
(1) It is not typical for empirically observed sequences to be "ignored", in the regime of science.

Reply 694:
That a minority of beliefs concern evidence, does not suddenly remove that a majority concerns non evidence

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Yes, it is unavoidable that research exists. However, that research does not support your findings. It does not support your claim of "ignoring" evidence because it instead describes nuanced approaches to evidence.



More rationalization. However, if you would like to apologize for falsely accusing your critics of drug abuse and/or some sort of mental instability, we will entertain your apology. I doubt your critics found your deliberately false accusations as humorous as you did.



You seem to think your critics need to provide evidence that contradicts the papers you've presented. The problem is with your interpretation of the papers. Your critics present evidence that you are not able to read and interpret these papers properly. Your ongoing failure to communicate effectively in English is just more such evidence.



But you have distorted it. Whether you needed to or not is beside the point.



I've addressed this non sequitur several times. Do not simply keep repeating it.



No. You are specifying the kind of rebuttal your critics should provide, specifically that they have an obligation to refute your claim affirmatively. They have made rebuttals appropriate to your argument. Deal with the rebuttals they present, not with what you wish they had presented, or what you think they will be unable to present.

Beings, older ones too, tend to be stuck in their old ways, as they reinforce prior data with data that confirms such.

Regardless, it is futile to ignore the evidence:

(1)
"Half of People Believe Fake Facts"

http://neurosciencenews.com/false-memory-facts-psychology-5698/








(2)
"In an uncertain and ambiguous world, effective decision making requires that subjects form and maintain a belief about the correctness of their choices, a process called meta-cognition..... It is important to mention that in this paper it is not claimed that belief is explicit, conscious or readily accessible for verbal report."

Paper above occurs on a bayesian description of belief, in the regime of probabilities; a "formalism" entitled "p(z=k|x,d=k)".

Related 'human choice suboptimality' 2-years later paper from an author on the prior paper:
"In such conditions, human choices resemble optimal Bayesian inference, but typically show a large suboptimal variability whose origin remains poorly understood".

The bayesian aligned 'belief' is shown to carry 'large suboptimality'...








(3)
Wikipedia is not complete, but Wikipedia's data distribution is non-trivial.
Wikipedia neuroscience analysis reveals a single paper that clearly refers to belief.

"...Recalling is, in some degree, always falsely believed, for a given recall is never exactly
like the original experience and goes through various modifications without our awareness, so much so that we falsely believe that memories
represent events exactly the way we experienced them."








(4)
"A cognitive account of belief"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327528/

"...Belief /] (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."







(5)
The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868313497266

 

[JayUtah]

However, regardless of your feelings, the dictionary...

You're simply restating your claims without addressing any of my rebuttals.

 

[Aridas]

Regardless, it is futile to ignore the evidence:

So, why have you been? To repeat what MostlyDead quoted from the paper you linked to -

Belief can be defined as the mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of some idea

Although obvious, beliefs are significant because they are held by us to be true and provide the basis for us to understand the world and act within it

Beliefs have different origins. Beliefs, for example, can be formed through direct experience or by accepting information from a trusted or authoritative source

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

Beliefs can be held with different levels of conviction or degrees of confidence. This can range from firmly held (e.g., in the case of basic physical laws) to relative uncertainty (e.g., in the case of unfamiliar topics; Peters et al., 2004). In some beliefs, this conviction may even fluctuate over time or across different contexts

Beliefs vary in their resistance to change in response to counter-evidence and social pressure

Although admittedly underspecified and limited by the paucity of research, this non-recursive five stage approach to characterizing belief formation and acceptance...

This, alone, should have been enough to show that you have been very much in error. Why do you persist in your belief, even after it's clearly shown that you're in error in numerous ways, including science?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You cited references describing confirmation bias as if it supported your conclusion that belief ignores evidence. The reference is either relevant to your claim or it isn't. You don't get to have it both ways.

As we say in Jamaica, "come bettah dan dat man".

A rather weak argument of yours above.

It is belief that confirmation bias may enforce, as is evidenced in the paper "a cognitive account of belief."
I get curious, what is it that you think beings are said to be confirming in the paper? (Hint: Paper says belief)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Typo correction, via reply 705:

No. The dictionary describes science as a paradigm bound in evidence, and empirical data.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You are not a scientist, nor can demonstrate proficiency in scientific reasoning. You have no foundation from which to be making authoritative statements about what science does or doesn't do.

Part A

Here are some examples of proficiency in scientific reasoning:

(1) A quantum computing mathematical description of mine, based on scientific data.

(2) A simple neural network of mine written from scratch, based on scientific data.

etc.

Part B

Separately, one need not somewhat understand quantum computing, such that one observes trivially, that science is such that highly concerns evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You keep phrasing your defense as if you must not have done something because you had no need to do it. Whether someone can show you needed to do something is irrelevant to whether you did it or not. Do not attempt to gaslight away criticism.

You do misuse dictionaries because while you admit they are incomplete summaries, you nevertheless base your argument on the fact of something being included or omitted from them. Your argument wrongly presupposes the authority of a dictionary to establish the nature of a concept precisely by virtue of such composition. You give only lip service to the limitation of your chosen sources and insist that your critics must accept them as authoritatively as you do. If something is omitted from the dictionary, you attribute that to its omission from the concept, not the nature of the dictionary as an incomplete summary.

I had long included the paper "cognitive account of belief" together with other papers amidst the book in the original post.

However, it is unavoidable that regardless of the incompleteness of dictionaries' belief meanings, said meanings are not opposite to detailed regimes of research. (as is evidenced by such detailed regimes of research)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Hint: Several research shows the opposite, that belief does not especially concern evidence

Repeatedly asked and repeatedly answered. The research you cited explicitly describes several nuanced approaches to evidence. There is no support for a claim that "belief does not especially concern evidence." It concerns it quite a lot, in several ways that vary in objective cogency. You were similarly unable to cope with the inability of your theory to explain your own behavior. Rather than do so, you just wrote it all off as a "joke."

Repeatedly answered wrongly, that is.

Let's really really break it down.

You may have missed the part, that expressed that beings tend to observe "evidence" (that is, a distortion of the evidence, to fit whatever invalid belief that beings may priorly hold. It turns out then, that such is clearly not the actual evidence at all, but rather a distortion)
Tusly, beings tend to especially ignore evidence, or generally ignore evidence.

What beings tend to observe in contrast, are distortions of said evidence.

(4)
"A cognitive account of belief"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327528/

"...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."

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Anyway, that scientists may neglect science, does not suddenly warrant that science becomes a model that strives to especially concern non evidence.

Contrary to belief's design, science strives to highly concern evidence. Belief has no such striving.

Nonsense. That both scientists and non-scientists display nuanced approaches to evidence most assuredly refutes your claim that a strong distinction exists. Your theory is too simplistic to predict even your own behavior, much less that of anyone else, so it is rejected.

You need re-read my posts, and your posts.

You had priorly mentioned that both scientists and non-scientists are weighing evidence.

Your expressions had long began to churn out errors, when you ignored that belief persists such that "evidence" or rather distortions of it, are employed to fit prior invalid beliefs. (So evidence is ignored)

This is contrary to science, where science strives to highly concern actual scientific evidence, absent the aforesaid general distortion or ignorance of scientific evidence.

"A cognitive account of belief"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327528/

"...Belief evaluation, even in the absence of frank pathology, has several limitations... 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."

 

[Thermal]

Such detailed regimes of research already express that belief indeed, typically ensues such that evidence is ignored

"Half of People Believe Fake Facts'...

Holy frijoles, Quicks-Draw! You haven't read this article either (that you cite as support for your assertion that evidence is ignored).

In a study on false memories, Dr Kimberley Wade in the Department of Psychology demonstrates that if we are told about a completely fictitious event from our lives, and repeatedly imagine that event occurring, almost half of us would accept that it did.

Over 400 participants in ‘memory implantation’ studies had fictitious autobiographical events suggested to them – and it was found that around 50% of the participants believed, to some degree, that they had experienced those events.

The power of suggestion and 'memory implantation' has absolutely nothing to do with ignoring evidence, as you claim above. You got suckered by a clickbait title. You might want to read the articles before pretending they support your assertions.

 

[Aridas]

As we say in Jamaica, "come bettah dan dat man".

A rather weak argument of yours above.

It is belief that confirmation bias may enforce, as is evidenced in the paper "a cognitive account of belief."
I get curious, what is it that you think beings are said to be confirming in the paper? (Hint: Paper says belief)

"Mold grows on bread! Bread makes you sick!"

 

[JayUtah]

[Y]ou ignored that belief persists such that "evidence" or rather distortions of it, are employed to fit prior invalid beliefs. (So evidence is ignored)

No, "distort" means something different than "ignore." You're trying to shoehorn the evidence into your preconceived theory, which is too simplistic to receive it.

This is contrary to science, where science strives to highly concern actual scientific evidence, absent the aforesaid general distortion or ignorance of scientific evidence.

You are neither a scientist nor an authority on science, and your arguments lately are simply vain repetitions of your original claims which have been answered.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Holy frijoles, Quicks-Draw! You haven't read this article either (that you cite as support for your assertion that evidence is ignored).



The power of suggestion and 'memory implantation' has absolutely nothing to do with ignoring evidence, as you claim above. You got suckered by a clickbait title. You might want to read the articles before pretending they support your assertions.

Yet another weak, argument, that is contrary to the evidence.

Is memory implantation some form of construct that forces subjects to adopt the suggested data? (Hint: Answer is no)

Such a process is yet another paradigm, where beings ignore evidence (i.e. adopt false data)

Did you garner that false data did not disregard evidence?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

So, why have you been? To repeat what MostlyDead quoted from the paper you linked to -

Belief can be defined as the mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of some idea

Although obvious, beliefs are significant because they are held by us to be true and provide the basis for us to understand the world and act within it

Beliefs have different origins. Beliefs, for example, can be formed through direct experience or by accepting information from a trusted or authoritative source

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

Beliefs can be held with different levels of conviction or degrees of confidence. This can range from firmly held (e.g., in the case of basic physical laws) to relative uncertainty (e.g., in the case of unfamiliar topics; Peters et al., 2004). In some beliefs, this conviction may even fluctuate over time or across different contexts

Beliefs vary in their resistance to change in response to counter-evidence and social pressure

Although admittedly underspecified and limited by the paucity of research, this non-recursive five stage approach to characterizing belief formation and acceptance...

This, alone, should have been enough to show that you have been very much in error. Why do you persist in your belief, even after it's clearly shown that you're in error in numerous ways, including science?

No, that alone doesn't compute.

See the remainder of the paper:

"A cognitive account of belief"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327528/

"...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."

RECALL
That some beliefs vary, may concern evidence, etc does not suddenly remove that most beliefs ignore evidence.