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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@JayUtah, a curious question:

All standard dictionaries (including google) express a flavour of belief, that ensues such that beings especially ignore evidence.

Are they all invalid?

Asked and answered. There are no "standard" dictionaries in the sense that any one of them is canonically approved in some way to dictate meaning. Further, I already discussed at length how dictionary definitions relate to your theory and to the line of reasoning in it. Consult that discussion to find your answer.

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

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

Part B
You had mentioned something regarding incompleteness of the definition amidst dictionaries, with respect to belief and science.

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

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

Is that incomplete sequence, invalid?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Generally, people tend to express confirmation bias, such that prior beliefs are maintained regardless of evidence.

Such is unavoidable.

It's either unavoidable or it's a tendency. It cannot be both.

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.

But in fact you did, whether you believe you needed to or not. You speculated in one case that the reason your critics didn't accept your theory was that they were taking cocaine. In another case you asked your critics a series of questions which you later disclosed were an attempt to discover what "kind of brain" would reject your theory. These were speculative exercises to rationalize away the fact that seemingly intelligent people nevertheless disagreed with your argument. That fact is evidence which challenges your belief that your theory is rational and correct. You didn't ignore the evidence that your belief was unfounded; you just rationalized around it by speculating reasons why your critics' evaluation might not be as probative as it seemed. That is, you let your belief drive you to adjust late-stage evidence to conform to it. You didn't let the evidence sway your belief.

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

No. Despite your pidgin readings, the material you've presented here describes a spectrum of behavior regarding belief and evidence. It does not fall into your simplistic bifurcation. In fact, your theory cannot even explain your own behavior. At this point it is clear you are unwilling to adopt any reading of the data that does not conform to the conclusions you drew before encountering it. You are simply repeating the same declarative statements over and over. I have no desire to follow you in a tight circle of ipse dixit.

The data is pretty clear, I need not distort such data in any way:

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.

That people tend toward or away from some behaviors exactly supports the notion that a simplistic theory cannot thoroughly explain it. As I stated, your argument has devolved into simply regurgitating non sequiturs and is no longer effectively addressing the points raised.

Simply, belief though complicated, does not suddenly warrant that belief is not observed to generally occur absent evidence, as is evidenced.

It is possible for you to both present evidence and also demand specific affirmative counterclaims, inappropriately so, from your critics. The two are not mutually exclusive.

It certainly is possible to both present evidence (as I had prior done), and politely request contravening evidence.

I am yet to encounter any contravening evidence though.

 

[Aridas]

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.

You said "Wrong," so what's the actual reason that I'm wrong? I'm merely demonstrating the application of the logic that you are pushing, not endorsing it.

 

[Aridas]

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.

Like that last post, your response isn't saying anything that actually addresses the point made. Nor can "typically" be validly used to justify your arguments regarding belief and science, regardless.

 

[Aridas]

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.

Summation of this in an easy to understand analogy -

Person 1: Bread makes you sick!
Person 2: *blinks a few times in disbelief* What? This is probably going to be a waste of time, but... got evidence?
Person 1: Moldy Bread makes you sick!
Person 2: Err, yes, excessive amounts of mold can make you sick, but that's not showing that bread makes you sick. In fact, there's a lot of bread that isn't moldy and has been demonstrated beyond all possible reasonable doubt to not make one sick.
Person 1: The mold grows on the bread! Bread makes you sick!

I remain thoroughly unconvinced by your flailing about. Confirmation bias is not at all the same thing as belief. Nor does science in any way support your contention that it is. A tornado is made of air and acts on air and can even kill you easily... yet we don't treat air, in general, like we treat a tornado.

Edited by Darat: 

Removed rule 0/12 in moderated thread.

 

[Aridas]

Not my theory, where such is empirically observed.

You have yet to demonstrate such. You have claimed such, but without valid evidence to back such up. You have given evidence that would support dramatically weaker claims, yes, but not this.

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

Certain kinds of belief can do so. Other kinds of belief do the exact opposite. Your characterization of belief in general is still false.

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

Science remains a construct that highly concerns evidence.

Not quite as much as you're trying to claim. Science regularly employs constructs that are known to have issues and largely ignores the evidence against the construct until such time as a more useful construct is found. Gravity is an easy example, at present. Atomic theory has undergone a numbers of revisions as better constructs have been formulated and demonstrated to be better, yet the constructs at each iteration were provisionally accepted, despite there being reason to believe that they didn't reflect all the evidence fully.

While science does "highly concern evidence," it is quite typical for evidence to be effectively ignored for indeterminate lengths of time for reasons of practicality, among a number of other things.

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.

To be clear, you've yet to demonstrate that such a refutation of your claims is needed, given how much you've been blatantly trying to twist actual science into saying things that it doesn't even come close to saying. Similarly, your misuse and abuse of dictionary and thesaurus doesn't even come close to making a valid argument.

 

[Aridas]

(5)

A curious question. Do you garner that science is true whether or not one believes in it? (NOTE: I didn't ask whether science was perfect)

Reality is true, whether one believes in it or not. Science is our best tool to determine what reality actually is. How much science informs one's actual beliefs is another matter entirely, and a much, much more complex one in reality, not least because much of science should not be trusted either blindly or out of context, regardless. Simplifying it to "science is true whether or not one believes in it" is a fine move while evangelizing for science, not for accuracy.

 

[Chanakya]

PGJ, please define "science". Seriously.

When you say, "Science is true irrespective of belief", etc, you're simply conflating 'reality' and 'science'. The latter is not the former, it is simply one way (and, yes, by far the best we've devised thus far) of understanding the former. As plenty of people have pointed out to you plenty of times.

Anyway, so just define this "science", will you, that you say is "true irrespective of belief". Perhaps just doing this might clear this up?

 

[JayUtah]

It is unavoidable, that research has revealed scenarios, such that people generally tend to express confirmation bias...

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.

I am capable of jokes.

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.

Also, I am yet to encounter any evidence, that challenges the data that has priorly been observed.

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.

The data is pretty clear, I need not distort such data in any way:

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

Simply, belief though complicated, does not suddenly warrant that belief is not observed to generally occur absent evidence,

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

It certainly is possible to both present evidence (as I had prior done), and politely request contravening evidence.

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.

 

[JayUtah]

You can either deny my polite request, or proceed to speak absent evidence.

I reject your ongoing attempts to shift the burden of proof, regardless of how you try to disguise it.

Why bother to lie (especially when all our posts are here to witness)?
I had not demised any such practice.

What I mentioned, was that scientists (not all now) may neglect science.

And you did so as a premise to the claim that we should not look to scientific practice to understand how science operates and whether its approach to evidence conforms to your theory. How science approaches evidence is exactly how scientists -- individually and collectively -- approach evidence. Scientific practice is not irrelevant to your theory, as you tried to claim. Your theory requires science to be a simplistic caricature of what goes on. This is part and parcel of my rebuttal to the effect that your theory is too simplistic to predict any actual behavior or outcomes.

 

[JayUtah]

There are standard dictionaries of the English language.

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

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.

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

Yes.

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.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Summation of this in an easy to understand analogy -

Person 1: Bread makes you sick!
Person 2: *blinks a few times in disbelief* What? This is probably going to be a waste of time, but... got evidence?
Person 1: Moldy Bread makes you sick!
Person 2: Err, yes, excessive amounts of mold can make you sick, but that's not showing that bread makes you sick. In fact, there's a lot of bread that isn't moldy and has been demonstrated beyond all possible reasonable doubt to not make one sick.
Person 1: The mold grows on the bread! Bread makes you sick!

I remain thoroughly unconvinced by your flailing about. Confirmation bias is not at all the same thing as belief. Nor does science in any way support your contention that it is. A tornado is made of air and acts on air and can even kill you easily... yet we don't treat air, in general, like we treat a tornado.

Edited by Darat: 

Removed rule 0/12 in moderated thread.

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

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

While science does "highly concern evidence," it is quite typical for evidence to be effectively ignored for indeterminate lengths of time for reasons of practicality, among a number of other things.
.

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

(2) Separately regardless of the instance the instance that scientists may neglect science, this does not suddenly warrant that science becomes a model that strives to ignore evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Certain kinds of belief can do so. Other kinds of belief do the exact opposite. Your characterization of belief in general is still false.
.

That a minority of beliefs concern evidence, dies not suddenly remove that a majority concerns evidence.

There are already phrases such as science, that already highly concern evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

To be clear, you've yet to demonstrate that such a refutation of your claims is needed, given how much you've been blatantly trying to twist actual science into saying things that it doesn't even come close to saying. Similarly, your misuse and abuse of dictionary and thesaurus doesn't even come close to making a valid argument.

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

As such dictionaries express that belief highly concern non evidence, as do a sequence of more detailed content, such as cognitive papers.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You have yet to demonstrate such. You have claimed such, but without valid evidence to back such up. You have given evidence that would support dramatically weaker claims, yes, but not this.

Does belief especially concern evidence?

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

When answering the above, recall that I am not querying whether some beliefs may concern evidence. That's an old hat, that had long been approached in the original post.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Not quite as much as you're trying to claim. Science regularly employs constructs that are known to have issues and largely ignores the evidence against the construct until such time as a more useful construct is found. Gravity is an easy example, at present. Atomic theory has undergone a numbers of revisions as better constructs have been formulated and demonstrated to be better, yet the constructs at each iteration were provisionally accepted, despite there being reason to believe that they didn't reflect all the evidence fully.

There are inaccurate portions amidst your post above.

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.

 

[Aridas]

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

You might be better served by addressing the examples presented of such, rather than offering reflexive and baseless denial?

(2) Separately regardless of the instance the instance that scientists may neglect science, this does not suddenly warrant that science becomes a model that strives to ignore evidence.

I didn't even remotely claim such in the first place and such an interpretation could be easily refuted by pointing to the first part of the quoted sentence, let alone the larger context of my points. Given such, this is a remarkably pointless response for you to try to make and can't really be treated as anything more than you trying to insinuate that I somehow supported the foolish proposition that you're attacking here.

 

[Aridas]

That a minority of beliefs concern evidence, dies not suddenly remove that a majority concerns evidence.

There are already phrases such as science, that already highly concern evidence.

There are words like "color" that talk about a concept and words like "red" that talk about a subset of that concept. Even if one validly demonstrates that most colors are not red, that does not support the claim that red is not a color or that color is not a perfectly valid way to describe red.

 

[Aridas]

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

Whether you need to or not, you have been.

As such dictionaries express that belief highly concern non evidence, as do a sequence of more detailed content, such as cognitive papers.

More specifically, in the cherry-picking that you've pointed at over and over, "especially" is used to denote that the word is more frequently used in a particular way, not that the term actually "highly concerns non-evidence." When it comes to the cognition papers, you're rather blatantly trying to employ an interpretation of belief that is not appropriate for either the field or the paper from the start, given that the usage of "belief" in such is the neutral interpretation that I've been employing all along in this thread, not some caricature that "highly concerns non-evidence." That confirmation bias exists and can be applied to just about any evaluation of the reasons to accept something doesn't even remotely indicate that belief highly concerns non-evidence, either.