Why are some beliefs impervious to all evidence and reason?

[Puppycow]

Not sure exactly which forum this goes in but I guess it fits here just as well as any of the others.

I'm not talking specifically about religious beliefs, although religious beliefs are a good example of this.

What got me thinking about this question was a recent news story which is discussed in this thread. This is an example other than religion. The man is a biologist who apparently doesn't believe that viruses exist. He offered a reward of 100,000 euros to anyone who could prove that measles is caused by a virus. So, a doctor amassed evidence and presented it to him. He dismissed the evidence. So the doctor sued and a court of law has determined that the evidence presented is indeed proof and has ordered the biologist to pay up. Still, he disputes it and is appealing, claiming that measles is "psychosomatic" and caused by "traumatic separations".

Some people, I think, can change their beliefs based on new evidence, but it seems that many, perhaps even most, have at least some beliefs which they will not change for any reason.

I also notice that, even on this forum, once somebody takes a position, they very rarely admit to making a mistake if someone else points it out. Sometimes they simply ignore it. Others will respond with endless rebuttals, but will never admit to being wrong about anything. A simple "You're right; I was wrong" or something to that effect is exceedingly rare. Most posters never concede anything. Clearly we can't all be right all of the time.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's an old thing called "that doesn't matter". I've seen it endless times.

"You know the world wasn't created 6019 years ago, right?"

"That doesn't matter, I still believe our Lord Jesus loves me!"

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It's an old thing called "that doesn't matter". I've seen it endless times.

"You know the world wasn't created 6019 years ago, right?"

"That doesn't matter, I still believe our Lord Jesus loves me!"

That doesn't mean, that it is restricted to religious people. Have you checked and applied falsification to the idea, that it can only be found in religious people?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That doesn't mean, that it is restricted to religious people. Have you checked and applied falsification to the idea, that it can only be found in religious people?

Where did I say it was restricted to religious people?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Where did I say it was restricted to religious people?

Okay

 

[Bikewer]

NPR's Science Friday has done a segment on this business. Some time previously, they had a show on the anti-vax movement, and a call-in lady went on as to how she just didn't trust anything the government said or any studies.

Sometime later, after several major studies had been done proving that the vaccine/autism thing was non-existent, they contacted the woman again. Again, no change whatever. She flatly said that there was no evidence that they could present that would change her mind.

So what do we have here? No faith in government-"big-pharma"-science....Which she (and others) see as all part of the system to simply make profits from dangerous products?

Overly emotional response..."I must protect my child at all costs, no matter how slight the risk!"?
Don't know. How about those anti-vaxxers who's children became ill? Will it be a big dope-slap, or will it just be..."Well, it's just the measels...."

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the caller would say "there's no evidence you can produce that would change my mind" about a whole lot of things. There's an enclave north of Grey's Summit that was created to "protect our children from such ideas", meaning most of the modern world. They have their own school house.

 

[Puppycow]

Don't know. How about those anti-vaxxers who's children became ill? Will it be a big dope-slap, or will it just be..."Well, it's just the measels...."

For some, even the death of a child can't shake the belief:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore

Christine Joy Maggiore (July 25, 1956 – December 27, 2008) was an HIV-positive activist and promoter of AIDS denialism (the belief that HIV is not the cause of AIDS).[1][2] She was the founder of Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, an organization which disputes the link between HIV and AIDS and urges HIV-positive pregnant women to avoid anti-HIV medication.[3] Maggiore authored and self-published the book What If Everything You Thought You Knew about AIDS Was Wrong?

Maggiore's promotion of AIDS denialism had long been controversial, particularly since her 3-year-old daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, died of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, considered to be an AIDS-defining illness. Consistent with her belief that HIV was harmless, Maggiore had not taken medication to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her daughter during pregnancy, and she did not have Eliza Jane tested for HIV during her daughter's lifetime.[3][4] Maggiore herself died on December 27, 2008 after suffering from AIDS-related conditions.[5]

 

[LSSBB]

Recently termed "The backfire effect"

As I detailed in a recent column, the backfire effect makes it difficult for the press to effectively debunk misinformation. We present facts and evidence, and it often does nothing to change people’s minds. In fact, it can make people dig in even more. Humans also engage in motivated reasoning, a tendency to let emotions “set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about”.

 

[Delvo]

It goes beyond both supernaturalism and conspiracy theories to even silly trivial stuff. I once had a conversation that started with someone claiming "Braveheart" was a very historically accurate movie, and by the time we were done, she had William Wallace discovering Scottish titanium ores, figuring out how to mine and refine the stuff, and even figuring out things we still can't do with it today such as getting it to take a sharp edge and form an alloy with steel, then apparently all of that knowledge getting lost for the next few centuries, all just to explain ONE of the movie's historical inaccuracies, that the sword he was shown using the wrong type of sword (too big & heavy).

I'm sure she would have gone to equal lengths to defend a claim that the movie was quite inaccurate... if that had been the first one she'd heard. Whichever idea about something gets in first gets stuck. Some ideas might get stuck more easily than others, but some people are more prone to having them get stuck than others are.

 

[Delvo]

I also notice that, even on this forum, once somebody takes a position, they very rarely admit to making a mistake if someone else points it out. Sometimes they simply ignore it...

"Ignoring" it doesn't mean not admitting it. If I've been corrected about an error, I'm likely to just just quietly let the correction stand for itself and be the end of that issue.

 

[Puppycow]

"Ignoring" it doesn't mean not admitting it. If I've been corrected about an error, I'm likely to just just quietly let the correction stand for itself and be the end of that issue.

Maybe, but if you don't acknowledge it, nobody can tell if you have changed your mind. I don't rebut everything, or respond to everything, because I don't believe that the last person to post "wins" and some people are so persistent that you can never get the last rebuttal.

I usually try to acknowledge when somebody does make a valid point though, not just ignore it.

 

[Loss Leader]

I also notice that, even on this forum, once somebody takes a position, they very rarely admit to making a mistake if someone else points it out.

In fact, studies have shown that contrary evidence makes an individual more certain of his/her position.


ETA: Ninja-ed by just about everybody.

 

[fuelair]

Because their holders are incompetent tools and/or coprophagic trolls and losers like some recently active POSes.

 

[hgc]

It's not the beliefs that are impervious; it's the believers.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the adage: you can't reason a person out of an idea they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[MG1962]

It's an old thing called "that doesn't matter". I've seen it endless times.

"You know the world wasn't created 6019 years ago, right?"

"That doesn't matter, I still believe our Lord Jesus loves me!"

I dont see the connection. The date of creation is not central to a belief in Jesus. The Bible does not even give a date or attempt to give one. That was answer was bolted on a good 2000 years later

 

[Belz...]

Why are some beliefs impervious to all evidence and reason?

Because what feels true is almost impossible to challenge. The human mind is geared to trust its feelings as a matter of survival. It literally believes that its life depends on said trust.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the adage: you can't reason a person out of an idea they didn't reason themselves into.

Because it's not true.

 

[Lowpro]

Because it's not true.

What about the other saying "it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they were fooled"