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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

The dictionary definition, is not opposite from detailed regimes of research.

It was answered priorly, but was answered sillily.

Dictionaries and detailed regimes of research, show that belief is such that typically ignores evidence.

Such is the case whether or not you select to observe the data.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

It is not that evidence is absent, but instead that beings tend proceed without bothering to contact the evidence, or distorting the evidence in some false way to fit it to their prior beliefs. (See the cognitive paper long presented)

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.

As I mentioned to another here before:

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."

That belief may vary, or be held at different levels of confidence, or may concern evidence, does not suddenly remove that belief generally occurs absent evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Typo correction, via reply 714, sentence 4:

Thusly beings tend to...

 

[Aridas]

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)

I don't think that paradigm means what you think it does, if you're trying to use it to describe the creation of false memories.

Did you garner that false data did not disregard evidence?

What evidence is it supposedly disregarding? Rather, it's that it's not disregarding evidence would be the problem.

 

[Aridas]

No, that alone doesn't compute.

When compared to your treatment of what "belief" is and what arguments you're trying to make? Yes, that alone is enough to demonstrate that you are working from notably false premises, leading to notably silly and fallacious conclusions.

See the remainder of the paper:





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

First of all... What you quoted doesn't say that most beliefs ignore evidence and trying to claim that it does is to demonstrate some of the exact issues that it's warning about. There are indeed issues when it comes to any evaluation of what one should accept and human cognitive facilities frequently do not self-select the most sound methods of determining what to accept, which should not surprise anyone here. That's distinctly different than the claims that you've actually been making and does not serve as support for them.

 

[Thermal]

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?

Memory implantation/suggestion is providing evidence (although false) that the subject gives credibility to. It is certainly not ignoring evidence, but is evaluating the implanted evidence as having substantial credibility, as opposed to the lack of evidence (no recollection of the implanted memory) of the subject. The subjects did not ignore evidence, as you assert. They accepted the implanted evidence as real. While this is a fascinating (albeit Orwellian) phenomenon, it does not follow that the subjects disregarded evidence.

Had you bothered to read the research by Scorboria et al, the study was done by implementing false childhood memories (linked below). This is a far cry from your assertion of 'beings' ignoring evidence in belief formation:

Understanding that suggestive practices can promote false beliefs and false memories for childhood events is important in many settings (e.g., psychotherapeutic, medical, and legal).

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09658211.2016.1260747?journalCode=pmem20

 

[Aridas]

The dictionary definition, is not opposite from detailed regimes of research.

That wasn't what was said. YOUR INCORRECT USAGE is disputed and wouldn't be "opposite" anyways. It's simply wrong, as the cited paper showed quite explicitly.

 

[Thermal]

It is not that evidence is absent, but instead that beings tend proceed without bothering to contact the evidence, or distorting the evidence in some false way to fit it to their prior beliefs. (See the cognitive paper long presented)




As I mentioned to another here before:

The paragraph you keep citing is referring to the authors' proposed third stage in belief formation, Candidate Belief Evaluation. It is tempered with the earlier cited observations, including beliefs varying in required evidence, etc. The authors do not say that all people ignore evidence. It says there is a tendency (for some unknown percentage of subjects) to neglect evidence that is critical of an existing belief. The authors clearly qualify this with the earlier greatest hits selection I provided for you. You ignore the qualifiers to focus on the cherry you picked out of context.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

No.

In stark contrast:

Distort: Decline etc
Ignore: Reject etc

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.

Answered, but answered poorly, contrasting evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Why are most of us a part of belief systems that contrast scientific evidence?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Memory implantation/suggestion is providing evidence (although false) that the subject gives credibility to. It is certainly not ignoring evidence, but is evaluating the implanted evidence as having substantial credibility, as opposed to the lack of evidence (no recollection of the implanted memory) of the subject. The subjects did not ignore evidence, as you assert. They accepted the implanted evidence as real. While this is a fascinating (albeit Orwellian) phenomenon, it does not follow that the subjects disregarded evidence.

Had you bothered to read the research by Scorboria et al, the study was done by implementing false childhood memories (linked below). This is a far cry from your assertion of 'beings' ignoring evidence in belief formation:

Understanding that suggestive practices can promote false beliefs and false memories for childhood events is important in many settings (e.g., psychotherapeutic, medical, and legal).

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09658211.2016.1260747?journalCode=pmem20

The above does not suddenly remove that said beings are ignoring evidence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That wasn't what was said. YOUR INCORRECT USAGE is disputed and wouldn't be "opposite" anyways. It's simply wrong, as the cited paper showed quite explicitly.

No, in contrast, I had expressed that dictionary definitions were not opposite from detailed regimes of research, which other posters here (including JayUtah) had expressed; that dictionary definitions were disparate/opposite from said detailed regimes of research.

Anyway, it is unavoidable that that believers tend to ignore evidence, as is evidenced.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I don't think that paradigm means what you think it does, if you're trying to use it to describe the creation of false memories.



What evidence is it supposedly disregarding? Rather, it's that it's not disregarding evidence would be the problem.

Hint is in the words:

Data.
False Data.

False data is disregarding data. (i.e. evidence)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The paragraph you keep citing is referring to the authors' proposed third stage in belief formation, Candidate Belief Evaluation. It is tempered with the earlier cited observations, including beliefs varying in required evidence, etc.
The authors do not say that all people ignore evidence. It says there is a tendency (for some unknown percentage of subjects) to neglect evidence that is critical of an existing belief. The authors clearly qualify this with the earlier greatest hits selection I provided for you. You ignore the qualifiers to focus on the cherry you picked out of context.

Thanks for finally presenting some semblance of valid data.

The only valid section you posted, is that the remainder of the article (the paragraph I presented) is indeed related to the earlier portions you presented.

However:

(1) No where did I mention that all belief occurs such that beings ignore evidence.

(2) No section, be it the portion you presented, or the portion I presented, removes that belief occurs such that beings tend to ignore evidence. (The portion I presented actually shows this general ignorance)
The earlier section is an old hat, that I had long approached in the original post; I had long underlined that belief could contain science (See second sentence of original post), but that doesn't suddenly remove that belief especially construes non-evidence.




FOOTNOTE:

Rather than 'cherry picking', or 'ignoring the qualifiers', I had long been observing the data together, rather than in isolation; I had long underlined that belief could both concern evidence, and non-evidence, however highly concerning non-evidence.

 

[Aridas]

No.

In stark contrast:

Distort: Decline etc
Ignore: Reject etc.

Argument by synonym/thesaurus is invalid, especially when your use of it is little more than cherry-picking from numerous weakly related options. Argument by synonym chain, like you're actually doing here again, is utterly farcical. Not only that, you pointedly went with a word that the link itself notably considers to be a more weakly associated term for distort.

It is, however, quite telling that you are happy to ignore even the dictionary when you can't distort what the dictionary says to say what you want.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

PGJ this tangent into grammar has nothing to do with your original post.

Why are you fixated on making beliefism a thing?

 

[JayUtah]

No.

Yes. A thesaurus does not define words.

Answered, but answered poorly, contrasting evidence.

Gibberish. You are not a scientist. You have no education or experience in actual science or scientific practice. You are not therefore an authority on how science approaches evidence and I will not accept your fiat on those grounds.

 

[Aridas]

No, in contrast, I had expressed that dictionary definitions were not opposite from detailed regimes of research, which other posters here (including JayUtah) had expressed; that dictionary definitions were disparate/opposite from said detailed regimes of research.

Given that you are the only one who is talking about the definitions being somehow opposite, your claim is remarkably weak from the start. Going further, your response here is irrelevant. Your attempted usage has simply been wrong. This has been demonstrated in various ways throughout the thread and the paper you cited also makes it clear that your usage is entirely wrong to apply beyond any doubt.

Anyway, it is unavoidable that that believers tend to ignore evidence, as is evidenced.

Except... you still haven't managed to demonstrate that in a way that meaningfully supports your claims. Given what you've actually presented, we can certainly accept that believers tend to ignore evidence... if and only if we also accept that filtering evidence is a necessary part of determining what is reasonable to accept, both in science and in every other system. You've presented no actual difference, as just one of the many fatal flaws in your position.

 

[Aridas]

Hint is in the words:

Data.
False Data.

False data is disregarding data. (i.e. evidence)

You have no idea what you're talking about, in short? False data is not disregarding data, by definition. Remember definitions? Those things that you immediately abandon if you can't make them say what you want them to say? Rather the actual problem in play is that the false data is NOT disregarded when it should be. It's a pretty clear example of a case where data should be rejected.

 

[abaddon]

Why are most of us a part of belief systems that contrast scientific evidence?

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/wqjlEhx.png[/qimg]

Do you really believe that table is accurate? Because it is not. Many who identify as a given religion do so on a cultural basis, even though they do not believe a word of said religion. In my country, for example, supposedly 70-80% are catholic, or so they self identify. However, half of those are outright atheist, they are simply reflecting that fact that they have been raised in a catholic environment. Of the remainder, fewer that a tenth are actual catholics as can be seen by the volume of deserted churches. When I was a kid, there were 3-4 priests in each parish. Now, there are 3 parishes for each priest simply because they have no more parishioners to justify even having Sunday services.

I also have known many muslims the overwhelming majority of whom were entirely secular.

Citing such tables simply serves to conceal the reality on the ground and fundamentally tell us nothing useful beyond the flaws inherent in surveys.