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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

What I expressed: Belief highly concerns non-evidence.

Dictionaries: Belief is especially absent evidence.

Research: Although belief can concern science, believers tend to ignore evidence.

So, I was not the one who had erred.

:
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.

The above doesn't remove that believers tend to ignore evidence.

It had long been presented that while belief can concern evidence, it generally doesn't.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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

[IMGw=500]http://i.imgur.com/wqjlEhx.png[/IMGw]

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.

What are you on about?

Are you expressing that most humans are atheists, instead of theists (who hold silly beliefs that contrast scientific evidence)?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

I am no nobel prize winning physicist, but I can observe reality; that science highly concerns evidence, while belief generally does not.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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

Why are you fixated on making beliefism a thing?

Non-beliefism though, not "beliefism".

Evidence simply warrants that humanity shall discard the concept of belief.

 

[Chanakya]

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
(...)

And therefore, Distort = Reject. Nice. There's a party game that goes exactly like this. PGJ just takes the one step here, but you can take more than one step, as many as you like, for your "proof". And the winner is the one who's taken the least number of steps.

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

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

The error lies in how you interpret the evidence.
(Hint : No "Pastafarianism" in that list.)
(As Abaddon explains, more clearly, in the post immediately preceding this.)

 

[Thermal]

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.

Hot damn. Looks like we may be getting somewhere at long last.

However:

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

True, you did not assert as much directly. But reread your postings objectively: they carry the strong impression that you mean all or nearly all people ignore evidence. If you only mean some (especially if the percentage is unknown), it would be far clearer to incorporate that in the assertion. You frequently state that 'beings ignore evidence'. Do you see how a casual reader would interpret that as 'all/most beings ignore evidence' (an unproven assertion)? The paper you cite does not attempt an even vague guess at the percentage of subjects who ignore evidence; so neither should we assume any value.

(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)

No section removes that, but no section clearly expresses it either. The research being referred to is by Nickerson's paper entitled Confirmation Bias. I think confirmation bias is not quite what is being discussed here, as your argument seems to focus on ignoring evidence in favor of supporting irrational belief. Related ideas, but very different in the context of the religion chart you recently posted.

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.

Yes, but we all know that beliefs may rely on strong evidence. Your postings are worded specifically that most beliefs ignore evidence, an assertion for which there is no support. Some, sure. But you have not shown any evidence that a majority of beliefs ignore evidence. A crucial distinction, in the context of this thread.

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.

Again with the 'highly'. And we were doing so well. No where, in any of your postings, is there evidence to support that belief 'highly' concerns a lack of regard for evidence. A couple definitions using 'especially' does not equate to 'highly' ignoring evidence. If you are aware of any evidence that beliefs highly ignore evidence, by all means, please share. Not the stuff you already posted, but specifically about highly ignoring.

 

[Mojo]

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

No, it isn't.

 

[abaddon]

What are you on about?

Are you expressing that most humans are atheists, instead of theists (who hold silly beliefs that contrast scientific evidence)?

Literally everyone is born atheist without exception. Everybody. Nobody ever sprang forth from the womb filled with belief in anything at all.

 

[JayUtah]

And therefore, Distort = Reject.

No, that's not how logic works. You're trying to make "distort" the same thing as "ignore" because your theory says "ignore" but the evidence says "distort." Your best effort seems to be to be a series of cherry-picked skips through the thesaurus. We already demonstrated how that cannot lead to equivalence of meaning.

The error lies in how you interpret the evidence.

No, the error lies in how you are interpreting general reference books.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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

[Imgw=500]http://i.imgur.com/wqjlEhx.png[/IMGw]

The error lies in how you interpret the evidence.
(Hint : No "Pastafarianism" in that list.)
(As Abaddon explains, more clearly, in the post immediately preceding this.)

I was simply curious on why most of us believe in nonsense.


Anyway, what is your deal?

Are you too of the camp that most humans don't believe in nonsense that contrasts science?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Hot damn. Looks like we may be getting somewhere at long last.

You had just now come to express something valid, but that something had long been posted in the second sentence of the original post. Thusly, it is you that has gotten somewhere.

True, you did not assert as much directly. But reread your postings objectively: they carry the strong impression that you mean all or nearly all people ignore evidence. If you only mean some (especially if the percentage is unknown), it would be far clearer to incorporate that in the assertion. You frequently state that 'beings ignore evidence'. Do you see how a casual reader would interpret that as 'all/most beings ignore evidence' (an unproven assertion)? The paper you cite does not attempt an even vague guess at the percentage of subjects who ignore evidence; so neither should we assume any value.

You started of validly, then proceeded into oblivion.

No, no where did I express that all beliefs contained non-evidence.
(See the second sentence in the original post)


FOOTNOTE:

No need for assumption. The paper expresses that a general percentage does.

Article: "People tend to adopt non-optimal hypothesis-testing strategies.[/hilite] (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). 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."

Phrases such as "general tendency" already indicate the frequency by which subjects contact belief, in sub-optimal manners.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No section removes that, but no section clearly expresses it either. The research being referred to is by Nickerson's paper entitled Confirmation Bias. I think confirmation bias is not quite what is being discussed here, as your argument seems to focus on ignoring evidence in favor of supporting irrational belief. Related ideas, but very different in the context of the religion chart you recently posted.

I wouldn't mind if your arguments utilize some validity. Long streams of text, with no evidence as usual. (worthless)

On the contrary (to the highlighted portion above), here are sections that show this.

You might have missed 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 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."







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

Yes, but we all know that beliefs may rely on strong evidence. Your postings are worded specifically that most beliefs ignore evidence, an assertion for which there is no support. Some, sure. But you have not shown any evidence that a majority of beliefs ignore evidence. A crucial distinction, in the context of this thread.

Evidence once more:

(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 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."







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

Again with the 'highly'. And we were doing so well. No where, in any of your postings, is there evidence to support that belief 'highly' concerns a lack of regard for evidence. A couple definitions using 'especially' does not equate to 'highly' ignoring evidence. If you are aware of any evidence that beliefs highly ignore evidence, by all means, please share. Not the stuff you already posted, but specifically about highly ignoring.

Yet another weak argument of yours.

In stark contrast, see 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 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."







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

Using standard definitions of especially, it is trivially observable that "highly" or "largely" falls under that regime.

 

[Aridas]

What I expressed: Belief highly concerns non-evidence.

Okay.

Dictionaries: Belief is especially absent evidence.

Not okay. Especially, when used by dictionaries like that, generally deals with frequency. A common, non-technical usage of belief is to conflate it with faith, which would be a subset of belief that is pointedly without evidence, and that is what the especially is referring to. "Belief is especially absent evidence" is an indefensible interpretation for anyone actually familiar with dictionaries and the English language.

It just gets worse when you're trying to apply your misinterpretation to a technical paper that makes it perfectly clear that it's not using "belief" in that way.

Research: Although belief can concern science, believers tend to ignore evidence.

Not okay. This is a blatant attempt to twist what the paper said. Such has been repeatedly demonstrated, though, regardless of your attempts to ignore such.

On a slightly different front, when it comes to your arguments that you're trying to support, trying to use the paper (and confirmation bias in general) as evidence that believers ignore evidence is self-destructive. By doing so, you're leaving your arguments wide open to the valid counterargument that some evidence should be ignored, for various reasons. Not all evidence is trustworthy, after all, as has been shown over and over and over, and that very much includes scientific evidence.

So, I was not the one who had erred.

It can only look that way if you're wearing faith goggles.

The above doesn't remove that believers tend to ignore evidence.

It does, however, show that your actual argument is worthless for the purposes that you're trying to use it.

It had long been presented that while belief can concern evidence, it generally doesn't.

And this is little more than a dodge of the actually important points. I'm not sure what's so important about hiding from the truth? I get that you've emotionally latched onto your attempted misuse of belief, because you don't like uncertainty, but sooner or later, if you actually do value the principles of science and rationality, it'll be time to face the inherent uncertainty of reality and our collective inability to reach omniscience.

 

[desmirelle]

Point of Fact: False data means that the data is WRONG.

Disregarding data is ignoring, discounting, or otherwise leaving out the data, without a judgment on it authenticity.

Example: False data is "The price of gas in Oklahoma in January 2017 is $.38 (thirty-eight cents) a gallon.

Why? Because the price of gas was more than that, that is why it is false (wrong).

Disregarding data is ignoring the tornado warning siren that goes off during the thunderstorm that's raging outside.

Why? Because the warning siren is a signal to take shelter, and you're gambling that: a) there is no tornado, or b) that the tornado will miss your house/apartment/trailer home.

 

[steenkh]

Exactly what evidence is ignored by believers in a god of the gaps?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

Scientific methodology is arguably only a recent discovery. 300 BCE at the earliest? So it actually has nothing to do with the advantage belief gave societies prior to 300 BC, (most of human existence)

So you really haven't even answered my post at all.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No section removes that, but no section clearly expresses it either. The research being referred to is by Nickerson's paper entitled Confirmation Bias. I think confirmation bias is not quite what is being discussed here, as your argument seems to focus on ignoring evidence in favor of supporting irrational belief. Related ideas, but very different in the context of the religion chart you recently posted.

Yes, but we all know that beliefs may rely on strong evidence. Your postings are worded specifically that most beliefs ignore evidence, an assertion for which there is no support. Some, sure. But you have not shown any evidence that a majority of beliefs ignore evidence. A crucial distinction, in the context of this thread.Again with the 'highly'. And we were doing so well. No where, in any of your postings, is there evidence to support that belief 'highly' concerns a lack of regard for evidence. A couple definitions using 'especially' does not equate to 'highly' ignoring evidence. If you are aware of any evidence that beliefs highly ignore evidence, by all means, please share. Not the stuff you already posted, but specifically about highly ignoring.

Why bother to repeat "beliefs may rely on strong evidence'? As the evidence shows, although belief may rely on strong evidence, this does not remove that beliefs mostly concern non-evidence. (Open a damn dictionary to begin with)

Anyway, you may have missed the evidence, to the contrary of your nonsensical expressions above:

(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 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."







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

 

[gigmaster]

Belief is not dangerous for your brain, but could be a serious threat to others. The most dangerous weapon that has ever existed is An Idea.

 

[The Norseman]

Exactly what evidence is ignored by believers in a god of the gaps?

All the places that the god used to inhabit until evidence forced the believer into finding ever smaller gaps where evidence hasn't yet been found.

 

[Aridas]

I was simply curious on why most of us believe in nonsense.

Why do people believe nonsense? Numerous reasons. There are lots and lots of potential errors in logic that people can potentially employ, for a variety of reasons. Some of the most common involve accepting invalid authority and letting one's emotions and desires overcome their rationality. As something that shouldn't be completely surprising, both of these seem highly likely to be some of the effects of species traits that grant evolutionary advantages overall.