Cognitive paradox (not?)

[Bruno Putzeys]

This puzzle wafted in during half-sleep tonight:

You can't fake understanding mathematics without really understanding it. You can't fool a mathematician into believing you know maths when you don't. Science ditto.

On the other hand, a skeptic can fake belief. Acting skill is all you need to make a believer think you're a believer too.

What conclusions can we draw from this asymmetry?

 

[Genesius]

This puzzle wafted in during half-sleep tonight:

You can't fake understanding mathematics without really understanding it. You can't fool a mathematician into believing you know maths when you don't. Science ditto.

On the other hand, a skeptic can fake belief. Acting skill is all you need to make a believer think you're a believer too.

What conclusions can we draw from this asymmetry?

. . . that belief is not scientific?

Wow, what a blinding insight. Please feel free to request "Master of the Obvious" as your custom title.

 

[drkitten]

. . . that belief is not scientific?

Wow, what a blinding insight.

Let's be more charitable here. What other things can and cannot be faked?

I'd submit, for example, that performance skills can't be faked. I can't convince you that I can play chess well unless I actually can. SImilarly for my abilities to sing, dance, play the flute? On the other hand, I can easily fake mediumship ("I'm getting a message from someone who can't remember more than a single letter at a time....") .

Could I fake non-scientific scholasticism? Could I persuade people that I was a philosopher, a theologian, or a literary scholar without actually being one? (I suspected that the answer was "no" before I read Sokal and Bricmont; now I'm not too sure.) Could I fake "knowledge" of hermeticism, of astrology, or of conspiracy theories?

I don't think we're looking at as simple a divide as scientific vs. non-scientific.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

. . . that belief is not scientific?

Wow, what a blinding insight. Please feel free to request "Master of the Obvious" as your custom title.

The problem is that most believers are all too willing to admit that belief is not scientific. So that's not nearly enough.

But by all means, "quick to judge" wouldn't fit too badly as your title

 

[StewartP]

I think it's a good approach. Given that:

The problem is that most believers are all too willing to admit that belief is not scientific

you could then try Bruno's approach: REAL things, VALID things can't be faked. very often woo can.

The Believers are also, however, willing to agree that there are fakers, but that THEIR medium/crystal/homeopath/healer is the real thing.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

Let's be more charitable here. What other things can and cannot be faked?

(...)

Could I fake non-scientific scholasticism? Could I persuade people that I was a philosopher, a theologian, or a literary scholar without actually being one? (I suspected that the answer was "no" before I read Sokal and Bricmont; now I'm not too sure.) Could I fake "knowledge" of hermeticism, of astrology, or of conspiracy theories?

Hmmm so the asymmetry could equally divide between beliefs that require skill and those that don't. Sounds like you've answered my question there. I was hoping for something deeper but I guess it came out of my half sleep for some reason
My intention was to see if it could serve as a sensible criterion between woo and reality but it's not really cogent. It's true that real thing's can't be faked, but some woo is hard to fake as well. So far we've got <= but not =>

 

[drkitten]

Hmmm so the asymmetry could equally divide between beliefs that require skill and those that don't.

I don't think that "belief" enters into it. I don't "believe" mathematics (or flute playing) -- I just do it (or don't). My skill at playing the flute is more or less independent of my belief system. But there does seem (perhaps) to be a distinction between "stuff" that requires skill and stuff that doesn't.

Alternatively, it could be a question of how easily skill can be measured. I can easily determine how well someone can play the flute if there's a flute around. On the other hand, if I were stranded on a desert island a la Survivor, I could easily claim to be a professional pianist and who would doubt me? I could claim to be a neurosurgeon at a cocktail party, perhaps even to another neurosurgeon,.... but not at a job interview where they got to ask questions.

I think that's part of the reason the Randi foundation exists; to provide a framework for assessing skill more easily. If I claim to be able to do something wild and crazy, they'll test it.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

That's why I wrote "could", to exclude things that have nothing to do with belief. I don't "believe" in science either. It works fine. So I mean: within the subset of things which *are* beliefs, the paradox as it stands now also makes a division, demonstrating it's not sufficient to tell the difference between reality and beliefs.

Maybe it could be rescued by saying that theologists study what is believed about God, not God himself. After all, the beliefs themselves are real enough and can be studied. But then we're back into long winded debates again. Let's shelf this.

 

[hipparchia]

What conclusions can we draw from this asymmetry?

Faking a belief will meet less judgement than faking a skill. Let's say I'd like to act "crystal power convert". Just saying "Wow, really, wearing thas amethyst HAS actually made me feel better"- will warrant acceptance, because it fits the worldview of the true believer. There will be no way they can verify this improvement. Besides, woos seem blind to satire pointed at their claims- my experience shows. (Reminds self to act out "crystal power convert".)

 

[Beerina]

SImilarly for my abilities to sing, dance, play the flute?

Here's Pinnochio
What a happy lad
Since the day he lost his strings.
He can walk and talk and fly!
"Do anything I try!"
He can dance, sing a song, play a flute.
"Do anything I try!"
But never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, ever should he ever tell a lie!