Should we tamper with belief?

[Donn]

No amount of appeal to straightforward reasoning like lack failure of clinical trials, failure to submit claims for million dollar prize, etc. will have any effect on the believers views as the facts are easily countered when one has a non-Occam's razor type view of the world.

I would imagine you know more about this than I, but I am new at this dance.
What if one got hold of a particular view and boiled it down to its essence; eliminated the chaff and reduced it to as stark and basic a set of issues as possible; and then attempt to demonstrate with examples and maybe even home-experiments that the science of the thing shows X and they think it shows Y?

I tried this with the Blue Mars questions, trying to argue from a light wavelength, absorption pov but I could not get enough good info from boards like this one or Bad Astronomy to do so, mainly because they argue that there just is not enough evidence yet - so lack of ability on my part is a problem - but the stategy should be sound: Hone-in, pose the problem, demonstrate the elements of it and how it resolves and then ask them to place weight on their now very shakey leg.

One should simply pick one's areas of focus more carefully; ensure a fighting-chance!

 

[davefoc]

Donn, I am afraid you give me more credit than I deserve. I am just a casual observer of how people form beliefs.

As a life long skeptic, it has always been strange to me that people can so earnestly believe so many things with so little supporting evidence. I have wondered why for a long time.

A key, I think, is whether people apply Occam's razor before establishing a belief. I think to some degree we all apply it most of the time. Gradually life teaches us that it is valid because we have success when we apply it. For instance, when our car won't run, it could be that pink fairies are preventing the engine from turning or it might be there is something wrong with the engine. Most of us assume that there's something wrong with the engine and we are rewarded for selecting the more straightforward cause as the probable one when somebody fixes the engine and the car runs again.

But no matter how much logic you apply to the problem, it is still not possible to eliminate the pink fairy hypothesis.

For some reason, people that seem perfectly rational, who routinely apply Occam's razor to their thinking, will occasionaly go for the pink fairy type hypothesis with some of their beliefs. The skeptic tends not to realize that somebody has actually suspended Occam's razor when they have adopted a pink fairy type hypothesis as their view so the skeptic words and rewords his arguments of why there aren't pink fairies, always thinking that if he can express it just right, or bring forth just the right set of facts the true believer will realize that he is wrong and change his view.

This seems to rarely happen. The true believer long ago has suspended Occam's Razor for the particular view in question and without the application of Occam's razor to almost any idea the fact is that pink fairies are just as logical an explanation as anything else.

 

[Suggestologist]

A key, I think, is whether people apply Occam's razor before establishing a belief. I think to some degree we all apply it most of the time. Gradually life teaches us that it is valid because we have success when we apply it.

Remember that Occam's razor is only a heuristic. Heuristics are rules-of-thumb. Heuristics are sometimes often wrong.

But no matter how much logic you apply to the problem, it is still not possible to eliminate the pink fairy hypothesis.

If one is thinking scientifically, how does one eliminate a hypothesis? Develop a test, an experiment for it.

The skeptic tends not to realize that somebody has actually suspended Occam's razor when they have adopted a pink fairy type hypothesis as their view so the skeptic words and rewords his arguments of why there aren't pink fairies, always thinking that if he can express it just right, or bring forth just the right set of facts the true believer will realize that he is wrong and change his view.

People think emotionally and justify their conclusions with logic. Ever heard that before? Rewording the argument does not change the emotional content of the conclusion. What if you stepped into their reality and assumed for the moment that everything they have been saying has been true -- of something: in order to find out Of What it is true. In order to determine what type of hypothesis testing the person will respond to from within their conceptual reality.

The true believer long ago has suspended Occam's Razor for the particular view in question and without the application of Occam's razor to almost any idea the fact is that pink fairies are just as logical an explanation as anything else.

Yep. If what you've been doing hasn't been working, do more of it. Very logical.

 

[Donn]

In order to determine what type of hypothesis testing the person will respond to from within their conceptual reality.

This sounds ok, but it means you have to descend into their world. If their thinking is already so coloured by their emotional investments then I think the "Pink Fairy" syndrome will remain in place: they will ignore your attempts.
Also, once you are treading on fairies, the ground becomes very muddy (pink mud?) and you cannot lay out a logic argument anyway.

On the subject of should we tamper with belief; I have decided not to challenge my friend with full-on skeptic "tactics" (pointing out fallacies, revealing flaws etc.) because I think he is already so fragile and living in a dream (or nightmare) world that I do not want to do any harm. I will try making a difference in his views by humour and taking my time.

I am no scientist myself, so perhaps tampering is vain of me, presumptious - Can you throw the first stone? (excuse the source.)
Are you as fit as you think you are to tamper with others'?

 

[Suggestologist]

This sounds ok, but it means you have to descend into their world.

Whoever said that tampering with beliefs was going to be easy?

If their thinking is already so coloured by their emotional investments then I think the "Pink Fairy" syndrome will remain in place: they will ignore your attempts.
Also, once you are treading on fairies, the ground becomes very muddy (pink mud?) and you cannot lay out a logic argument anyway.

As I have described already, logic has nothing (directly) to do with hypotheses. Hypothesis testing does. The thought processes a person uses may not seem logical to you; but there is method to their "madness" that you can discover by attempting to understand how they are thinking; by temporarily using those thought process yourself and asking for clarification when you get things wrong.

On the subject of should we tamper with belief; I have decided not to challenge my friend with full-on skeptic "tactics" (pointing out fallacies, revealing flaws etc.) because I think he is already so fragile and living in a dream (or nightmare) world that I do not want to do any harm. I will try making a difference in his views by humour and taking my time.

There's nothing wrong with using humor, as long as you can BOTH laugh at it.

I am no scientist myself, so perhaps tampering is vain of me, presumptious - Can you throw the first stone? (excuse the source.)
Are you as fit as you think you are to tamper with others'?

Yep, you need to get certified and licensed and bonded before you can ethically tamper with anyone's beliefs. Don't talk to anyone at all about anything at all until you have all three.

 

[hammegk]

... I've met lots of people who were_afraid of hellfire.

Odd to say the least; that would not become a usual topic of conversation. Were you in some medical provider role?

 

[Blondin]

Can't say for certain, but it's a bet I'd happily take. I'd much rather deal with a planet full of people who understood that they alone were responsible for their own, and each others', happiness and sadness, and that this turn on the planet is all they get, so they'd best make the most of it.



You're probably right. Hopefully, they would replace it with what many on this board and elsewhere have replaced it with: the ecstatic, liberating, mind-blowing knowledge that they have within themselves the power to lead an amazing and fulfilling life, and to help others do the same, without imaginary friends.

Well said, Mighty Quinn!

 

[davefoc]

Suggestologist said:

...What if you stepped into their reality and assumed for the moment that everything they have been saying has been true -- of something: in order to find out Of What it is true. In order to determine what type of hypothesis testing the person will respond to from within their conceptual reality.

Do you suppose we might take this idea literally. I wonder if we could get one of our resident experts to take the part of the true believer and Donn could take a shot at him.

Maybe Donn could pick out the subject. Homeopathy, Conspiracy theories, Big foot, Astrology, etc. Let's see how a skeptic does in the role of true believer.

 

[Donn]

I wonder if we could get one of our resident experts to take the part of the true believer and Donn could take a shot at him.

Whoa - I'm of the opinion that to get inside a believer's perspective is too hard.
I am burdened by a lack of patience and a singular sensation of boredom when accosted by such fluff as gets emailed to me.
The last thing I want to do is to start thinking in that mode!

 

[davefoc]

No problem Donn, it was probably a screwy idea. I originally thought that I'd play the role of the true believer then I thought that I wasn't really up for the effort of trying to understand their arguments well enough to take on the role.

But I'm not sure that getting inside a believer's perspective is that hard. My hypothesis is that their thought process is quite similar to that of a skeptic and that even skeptics fall victim to forming beliefs based on what makes us feel good rather than what is most likely to be true.

It's just that the true believer does it a little more easily than the skeptic and perhaps is a little more willing to hang on to those beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.

 

[Donn]

davefoc - interesting insights.
I am never far away from being a non-skeptic (what's the word for this? An acceptic ) in that I have only recently become aware of skepticism and so forth.
For the greater parts of my life I have been in the "grey"; the zone of "Well, it could be...", only I never could hold the flag aloft and cry "psychic powers are real!" - there was always a nagging feeling that the world was more cruel than that; TANSTAAFL in other words!

So, I can see that believers in conspiracies and paranormal stuff would have to develop an internal 'consistancy' of some kind - we are all strangely logical creatures that way.
I suppose that's why being a skeptic is such a special thing, and why one such as I cannot just claim to be one - willy nilly; it takes practise and hard work. You have to disabuse yourself of the comfortable 'pet theory' and face the facts of the evidence or lack thereof.

This is not a natural thing to do.

I could post some of the stuff that my friend has emailed me so you can see what kind of fantasy he indulges in.
It's opaque to my sense of what is real! If I read it in a Sci-Fi book, then I could suspend my disbelief and try to enjoy the chains of cause and effect and the bizarre explanations etc. But to live this... that's just beyond me.

 

[Gestahl]

I am not sure you can be at fault...

Let's see... in order for you to influence/corrupt/someotherword someone else's mental perception of *anything*, they must do the following three things:

1) They have to be willing to listen to you
2) They have to be willing to accept the tenets of what you say
3) They have to be willing to listen and accept your logic (whether real or supposed).

If they are willing to do all these things, then they are bound to the results they produce. They have every chance in the world to not listen or accept your words. I would also list a fourth attribute that must be met w.r.t. religious topics:

4) They must *want* to believe you.

Religion is about what people want. People freely modify their beliefs to jibe with what they want, everyday. This is due to the fact there is no way to represent an absolute truth in religion, due to "interpretations" and the fact that the statements are not testable. If they don't want to believe you, then they won't, plain and simple. They have no room to blame you at all, my friend.

Question: We seem to find no issue telling our kids that Santa Claus and his retinue of fairies in fact do not exist, something kids figure out anyway usually, so they are not surprised when we tell them. Why should we be any different about these than God? The only differences are that most people don't figure it out on their own, and are very surprised and indignant when we try and tell them...

 

[davefoc]

what's the word for this? An acceptic

I like it. The two alternatives that I can think of both have problems.

woo-woo - too deragatory
true believer - used in ways other than what it is people who use it in this forum use it.

But acceptic, seems just right to me. But I think lots of things are good ideas that never catch on.

 

[Donn]

davefoc,
Yes, Woo-Woo is too derogatory.
It is too easy to fall into a name-calling battleground of two sides. The reality is more complicated and we must live and work and befriend the very people whom we might name Woo-Woo's.

This does not mean we can never lose patience
and take a stab, but in general I don't like the woo^2 phrase either.

I must add that I have been guilty of using the ww phrase- just to prevent being called a hypocrite!

 

[Kopji]

People who are honestly searching, doubting, testing, revising… are not harmed by new ideas or critical thinking and logic. Learning itself consists of cycles of building up new, and tearing down old ideas.

I try to offer better ideas to replace the old ones lost or questioned in debate. Escape from religion took many years, and I always appreciated people who helped me find and use better tools to reason: “bricks and mortar” of a better understanding that came later on…

Running everything through the Razor sometimes implies that the shortest distance to somewhere is the best route. I do not consider my life wasted by religion, a lot of the most scenic stuff (in the form of understanding, and maybe compassion) lies along the long road around. The value of the scenic ‘long’ journey is lost when we set up shop somewhere and insist that this is by far the best view ever, and dedicating our lives to surrounding ourselves with like-minded followers.

The Unfortunates who have “FOUND IT”, and stopped any questioning or doubt, are in a sense asleep. Humm, is it better to wake someone who is sleepwalking or let them go on doing something dangerous? Try to wake them gently, but with more assertiveness if needed…

“Fear not”. I always liked that angelic advice as a believer, and even more so now as an unbeliever.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Sounds good to me.

To continue the metaphor: unless waking the sleepwalkers is more dangerous than what they're doing (which seems generally unlikely), you don't lose anything by trying to shake them out of it.

Contrary to popular belief, people don't lose their souls when they're startled out of sleepwalking. Nor do they lose them when they're startled out of their paradigms.