Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

[Vitnir]

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die by Gregory W. Lester

This is a realy good article. It gave me an insight into mechanisms of psychology and explained why people I know wouldn't change their mind once I explained to them the boring reality of the idiomotor phenomenon in dowsing. I just read it and even though I 'm pretty sure it's not news here it's too good not to bring back.

Essentially it says beliefs are integral to the brains attempt to form a picture of reality and is reluctant to give up even a small belief. It's like removing a card in the base of a house of cards, it threatens the integrity of everything.

skeptics must not expect beliefs to change simply as the result of data or assuming that people are stupid because their beliefs don't change. They must avoid becoming critical or demeaning in response to the resilience of beliefs. People are not necessarily idiots just because their beliefs don't yield to new information. Data is always necessary, but it is rarely sufficient

A lesson to us all?

 

[athon]

If he didn't fall into the hole with any logic, you can't pull him out with it. Or something like that.

As I've said in another post, the best thing we can do in the world is simply change things with baby steps. Little victories, and while we will never conquer the fact that the human mind is a fallible machine and a poor way to interpret nature, anything we do will help.

Athon

 

[The Don]

One of the most endearing features of the human race (and the reason why we study you) is the fact that most humans are credulous quite a lot of the time.

Bad beliefs will never die out because there is a need for most people to believe in something which is beyond, better, outside normal life and simple explanations

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

The most significant reason bad beliefs will never die is because the "stupid" (or ignorant, deluded, etc.) are allowed to breed and pass it on.

 

[Peter Morris]

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die by Gregory W. Lester

This is a realy good article. It gave me an insight into mechanisms of psychology and explained why people I know wouldn't change their mind once I explained to them the boring reality of the idiomotor phenomenon in dowsing.

Two questions for you, Vitnir, asked just out of interest.

1) Please tell me, what exactly do you think the idiomotor effect demonstrates, WRT dowsing?

2) If I were able to show you that you were mistaken about the idiomotor effect, would you then change your mind?

 

[Ratman_tf]

The most significant reason bad beliefs will never die is because the "stupid" (or ignorant, deluded, etc.) are allowed to breed and pass it on.

Are you insinuating that people who are, in your opinion, "stupid, ingorant, deluded, etc." should not be allowed to reproduce?

 

[apoger]

Re: Re: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

Two questions for you, Vitnir, asked just out of interest.

1) Please tell me, what exactly do you think the idiomotor effect demonstrates, WRT dowsing?

2) If I were able to show you that you were mistaken about the idiomotor effect, would you then change your mind?

I know you asked Vitnir these questions, but I'll take a poke at helping out.

For your answers to ideometer effects and dowsing check out;
http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html
http://skepdic.com/dowsing.html


I'd love to see how you can show that skeptics are mistaken about the ideometer effect. How would you demonstrate that? If you could, I'd be delighted to change my mind. Are you suggesting that you can demostrate dowsing?

By all means, if you can do dowsing, and can show it to be a real and testable means of finding anything, make an application to the JREF and take their million. Help us come to a new and better understanding of the world around us while doing so.

 

[UserGoogol]

The most significant reason bad beliefs will never die is because the "stupid" (or ignorant, deluded, etc.) are allowed to breed and pass it on.

That's insanely troll-sounding, but I'll just say that ideas are not passed on genetically. The mild successfulness of the "celibacy" idea ought to make this clear. The only way to prevent an idea from spreading is to prevent people from talking (or writing or whatever) about it, and that's insanely hard, and also somewhat of a dangerous idea.

I will grant you that parent-child communication is a stronger way to pass ideas than most, but it's also not too common a method. People only have a couple kids, (less than 5, usually) while they can talk to literally millions of people in a lifetime.

 

[Peter Morris]

Re: Re: Re: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

For your answers to ideometer effects and dowsing check out;
http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html
http://skepdic.com/dowsing.html

I'd love to see how you can show that skeptics are mistaken about the ideometer effect. How would you demonstrate that? If you could, I'd be delighted to change my mind. Are you suggesting that you can demostrate dowsing? [/B]

Just to clarify, I know what the ideometer effect is, Randi often mentions it, but my question is essentially "so what?" What difference does it make? What do you think you are proving by citing the ideomotor effect?

To answer your questions: Yes, I think I can demonstrate that you are wrong about the idiomotor effect - subject to you clarifying your point; no, I don't think I can demonstrate dowsing.

 

[SquishyDave]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

Just to clarify, I know what the ideometer effect is, Randi often mentions it, but my question is essentially "so what?" What difference does it make? What do you think you are proving by citing the ideomotor effect?

Nothing is proved by saying the idiomotor effect causes the effect of dowsing. But there are several double blind tests which show dowsers scoring no better than chance.

To answer your questions: Yes, I think I can demonstrate that you are wrong about the idiomotor effect - subject to you clarifying your point; no, I don't think I can demonstrate dowsing.

So what you are saying, is that dowsing doesn't work, but the reason it appears to work is something other than the idiomotor effect?

 

[apoger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

Just to clarify, I know what the ideometer effect is, Randi often mentions it, but my question is essentially "so what?" What difference does it make? What do you think you are proving by citing the ideomotor effect?

If you know what it is, and have looked at the link I provided, why would you even need to ask?

Just so there is absolutely no mistake, what we are explaining is that people who are given suggestions/information will often use that information to move their bodies even though they are not conscious of the act being willfull.

This is one thing that contributes to belief in dowsing. Hence the citation.

To answer your questions: Yes, I think I can demonstrate that you are wrong about the idiomotor effect - subject to you clarifying your point; no, I don't think I can demonstrate dowsing.

There is quite a bit of evidence backing up the ideometer response. If you can show evidence that past testing has come to false conclusions, then I am all ears.

 

[Vitnir]

Re: Re: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

1) Please tell me, what exactly do you think the idiomotor effect demonstrates, WRT dowsing?

2) If I were able to show you that you were mistaken about the idiomotor effect, would you then change your mind?

1. The ideomotor effect demonstrates that small muscular motions can take place without a person is aware of it. The significant feature of a dowsing rod is that it can amplify small muscular motions. The ideomotor effect works independent of dowsing and is an integral part of how we understand the brain. (I'm not a neurologist). Sorry, the ideomotor effect doesn't just exist to tell dowsers they are wrong.

2. Depends what you mean by "show". Human senses can be very wrong. In principle YES I would change my mind if I were presented with convincing evidence.

If dowsing were to work independently of the ideomotor effect it would work if you had a robot walk with it. Unless of cause the human body somehow is the "antenna" for psi/earth rays and the ideomotor effect then makes sure an visible result is produced. The problem is then to explain how the human body can be so sensitive to something no other instrument can detect. (And we human can build realy sensitive ones)

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

That's insanely troll-sounding, but I'll just say that ideas are not passed on genetically. The mild successfulness of the "celibacy" idea ought to make this clear. The only way to prevent an idea from spreading is to prevent people from talking (or writing or whatever) about it, and that's insanely hard, and also somewhat of a dangerous idea.

I will grant you that parent-child communication is a stronger way to pass ideas than most, but it's also not too common a method. People only have a couple kids, (less than 5, usually) while they can talk to literally millions of people in a lifetime.

Ok, that was a little attempt at humor, but I guess everyone couldn't see me wink. I know that ideas and ideals are not passed genetically. And I am, by no means, suggesting compulsory sterilization. However, everyone must agree that most that a majority of beliefs, especially religious, are gained during a child’s formative years. Ask 10 religious people why they believe and I’ll bet that 9 say it’s because they were raised to believe. Sure, quite a few might say they choose to believe. However, whether they consciously choose or are just rationalizing their programming (for lack of a better word) is a matter for another thread.

It was supposed to be a joke though. Maybe I should learn to use those emoticons.

P.S. <- Oh, man, that one's perfect.

 

[Peter Morris]

Re: Re: Re: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

1. The ideomotor effect demonstrates that small muscular motions can take place without a person is aware of it. The significant feature of a dowsing rod is that it can amplify small muscular motions. The ideomotor effect works independent of dowsing and is an integral part of how we understand the brain. (I'm not a neurologist). Sorry, the ideomotor effect doesn't just exist to tell dowsers they are wrong.

2. Depends what you mean by "show". Human senses can be very wrong. In principle YES I would change my mind if I were presented with convincing evidence.

Thank you for your response.

Note: I'm not attempting to convince you that dowsing is real, I just wish to demonstrate the weakness of arguments based on the idiomotor effect.

Iam, in fact, a sceptic, but more open minded than many. I don't actually believe in dowsing, but I was interested enough in the subject to try it out for myself before I rejected it entirely. My own experiments were inconclusive - slightly above chance, but nothing spectacular.

Anyway, I found a couple of teach-yourself-dowsing type books in my local library and read them. They stated directly that the purpose of the rod or the pendulum is to magnify slight twitches in the hand. They talked about a conditioned reflex, how you could actually train your hand to twitch when you are over water, and advised on practising the movement before I tried to detect anything.

Since then, I have read quite a few pro-dowsing articles, many of them state directly that the rod or pendulum magnifies tiny muscle movements. I don't believe I have ever seen an article by a dowser that denies it.

see for example : http://damkar.org/mudra2.html

<< Proof of this may be found in the occult art of dowsing where the imperceptible movement of the hand as motored by nerve impulses causes a pendulum to sway under direction of an unseen subconscious intelligence--the pendulum merely acting as an amplifier for the conscious aspect of the psyche. >>

or see: http://tinyurl.com/9m3b

<< It is almost universally accepted that dowsing is a neurophysiological response and that the rods or pendulums are only present as a mechanical amplifier of otherwise unnoticeable small tilts and movements of the hand. The material and type of the rod doesn't matter.... The most common response is a subtle twitch of the wrist or arm, and learning to hold the rods with a particular extension and tension in various muscle groups is used to increase the magnitude of the response.>>

You can find lots of similar ones

If dowsing were to work independently of the ideomotor effect it would work if you had a robot walk with it. Unless of cause the human body somehow is the "antenna" for psi/earth rays and the ideomotor effect then makes sure an visible result is produced. The problem is then to explain how the human body can be so sensitive to something no other instrument can detect. (And we human can build realy sensitive ones)

consider this, from the same site as above:

["In 1556 a German metallurgical text commented on the common use of dowsing to detect metallic ores while the author, AGRICOLA, pointed out that the dowsing instrument did not move of its own accord, but only in the hands of sensitive persons."]

Does this show you why a robot wouldn't show the reaction, and in fact dowsers claim that the human body does act as an antenna? That is precisely what they claim.

I'm not trying to convince you that dowsing is "true", I don't accept that it is. I just hope that it demonstrates the falsity of your argument. This is why people don't change their minds when you explain the boring reality of the idiomotor effect. The argument only impresses people who are already skeptical of dowsing.

 

[SquishyDave]

So what your saying is, both skeptics and dowsers agree on exactly what moves the rod, it's just that they disagree on whether it works at all?

Obviously skeptics don't say "there is thing called called the idiomotor effect, and dowsing can't work, therefore the idiomotor effects causes it." That is the agument of a cynic, not a skeptic.

Skeptics say, "there have been several double blind tests, and all of them have failed, yet people still claim the rod moves above water, and they can feel it move, so maybe the idiomotor effect causes this." The idiomotor effect is the best theory to describe what we are seeing is all, if there is a better theory, present it, but considering it seems both sides of the debate agree on exactly the cause, it seems more likely.

And saying you are a openminded skeptic is a tautology.

 

[Ratman_tf]

It was supposed to be a joke though. Maybe I should learn to use those emoticons.

P.S. <- Oh, man, that one's perfect.

Ayup. Sorry to snap at you like that.

 

[Peter Morris]

So what your saying is, both skeptics and dowsers agree on exactly what moves the rod, it's just that they disagree on whether it works at all?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that dowsers say "the dowsing rod magnifies slight movements of my hand" while skeptics say "Oh, those crazy dowsers, they think the rod moves of its own accord, but we can prove that it actually magnifies slight movement of the hand, and that proves it doesn't work."

Essentially I am complaining about the dishonesty of Randi, who deliberately misrepresents the claims of dowsers.

Obviously skeptics don't say "there is thing called called the idiomotor effect, and dowsing can't work, therefore the idiomotor effects causes it." That is the agument of a cynic, not a skeptic.

I won't argue with that. However, it is pretty much the argument made by a lot of opponents of dowsing, who call themselves skeptics.

And saying you are a openminded skeptic is a tautology.

No, not really. I find many skeptics to be totally closed-minded. They just know that dowsing doesn't work, and accept any old argument that reinforces their belief, they often get very angry when I question the weak arguments they rely on.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

No, not really. I find many skeptics to be totally closed-minded. They just know that dowsing doesn't work, and accept any old argument that reinforces their belief, they often get very angry when I question the weak arguments they rely on.

In the case of dowsing I don't rely on any weak "arguments" I rely on evidence, or rather lack of evidence.

Every report I've ever read in which a "dowser" is faced with a truely blinded situation their ability fades away.

An example can be found in a JREF preliminary test of a dowser who posted on the this forum aftr his failed. (I know you have a personal bias about Randi, however search on this forum for Edge and dowsing.)

However as far as I can remember he never claimed that Randi "cheated" him or fixed the test so he couldn't pass it and it is open for him to reapply to be re-tested at any time.

(Some of Edges's threads still exist so you can verify the actual dowser’s claims and his view of the JREF preliminary test.)

 

[Vitnir]

I'l admit that sceptics and believers can look strangely similar in that sceptics can be fanatics too, a "True Disbeliever" will never admit that there can be anything paranormal. However, when you read and hear about endless accounts of frauds and cheating and suddenly a true psychic or phenomenon is supposed to appear. How are you going to separate them?

I was a bit careless with my words when I said I explained the boring reality of the ideomotor effect in dowsing. I explained to this woman how it worked, demonstrated how you can seemingly control a pendulum with your thoughts. I suggested experiments and explained benefits of double-blind design.

In the end she felt demeaned, even though I was calm and polite she felt that I thought she was an idiot. Result? a total failure on my part and I didn't do anything to change her beliefs.

Regarding the idea that the body is an antenna and amplifier and the dowsing rod is simply what records the signal. I still find it strange that no other man-made instrument can detect the earth rays this woman said she could locate. Earth rays are also known as Curry or Hartman lines.

I claim that there is no room for these rays in theoretical physics and the logical conclusion is that they only exist in the mind of the dowser. Occams razor can be applied here I think. You have two equal theories that explains the phenomenon of dowsing. The first says that it works since the dowser in his mind knows that there is a Curry line or a vein of gold or water and the ideomotor effect makes sure there is a result. The other says that the Curry line or gold or water somehow influences the body.
The first theory can easily be explained by current knowledge, why would we go with the second?

As for the claim that earth rays have no room in theoretical physics, it's difficult to prove that unless you study theoretical physics for ten years full time and I took such a persons word for it.

 

[apoger]

Peter Morris, you seem to be missing a key point.
Nobody here (nor skeptics) are using the ideometer effect as an "argument" against dowsing. It is an "explanation" of how some people may deceive themselves.

An argument against dowsing would be "As of this time, no dowser has been able to verify their abilities when scientifically tested".


>Essentially I am complaining about the dishonesty of Randi, who deliberately misrepresents the claims of dowsers.

Can you cite a specific instance of his dishonesty?
As far as I know, Randi has not "misrepresented" any dowsers claims.



>I find many skeptics to be totally closed-minded. They just know that dowsing doesn't work, and accept any old argument that reinforces their belief, they often get very angry when I question the weak arguments they rely on.


Such a person would not be a skeptic, they would be a cynic, as has been pointed out to you. Trying to redefine skepticism won't get you far.