Belief First, Explanations & Rationalizations Later.

[Cryptid]

"We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs, we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first; explanations for beliefs follow. We might call this process belief-dependent realism, where our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it. Reality exists independent of human minds, but our understanding of it depends on the beliefs we hold at any given time.

The brain is a belief engine. Once beliefs are formed, the brain begins to look for and find confirming evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further confidence in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them; round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of converting beliefs into truths." -- Prof. Michael Shermer, Ph.D.

I am currently reading "Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist" by Dr. Shermer, and quoted from pages 2 and 3 above, and what I have quoted seems to be the process by which many people form their beliefs.

This is backward thinking. Belief should come AFTER considering all relevant and valid evidence, and not after listening to or reading the latest crackpot claim from some self-appointed expert on any given subject.

 

[Xinyta]

Honestly. The statement you posted is a window into the twisted world people live in now. Not to say some shape or form of this never existed before. But never before did people have a platform be this brazen on, that can reach the world.

Logic and common sense does seem to be faltering in the minds of humanbeings today. And at an alarming rate. Like it's seen as the bad thing to have.

I can never understand how anyone can live thier lives in this perpetuity of being unhappy and angry about everything. Especially in making statements, like the one you posted.

 

[Cryptid]

As an example to my OP: "There must be life on other planets" → "The surface of Venus is obscured by clouds" → "Clouds are made of water vapor" → "Water vapor arises as steam from swamps" → "Swamps are teeming with life" → "There is life on the surface of Venus".

Of course, the original premise has been proven false by discovery of facts about Venus -- a surface temperature of 867°F (464°C), a surface pressure of 92 atmospheres, and an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, argon and traces of other compounds and elements.

 

[Misery]

Honestly. The statement you posted is a window into the twisted world people live in now. Not to say some shape or form of this never existed before. But never before did people have a platform be this brazen on, that can reach the world.

Logic and common sense does seem to be faltering in the minds of humanbeings today. And at an alarming rate. Like it's seen as the bad thing to have.

I can never understand how anyone can live thier lives in this perpetuity of being unhappy and angry about everything. Especially in making statements, like the one you posted.

I feel like I'm missing some context/understanding/everything here. Who is angry about what now?

 

[Cryptid]

Xinyta seems to be 'angry' about the kind of people who form their beliefs, then look for 'evidence' to support their beliefs. Are they also angry about what I posted? Not sure. Don't care, either.

 

[MNAus]

I think the use of the word "beliefs" is perhaps slightly loaded. Another way to describe it might be to say the brain works on predictions. When evidence (from senses) contradicts the prediction, the brain either needs to update its predictions or needs to discount the evidence. For some people (for a variety of reasons) the predictions hold a stronger sway in this decision than for others. The trouble with this is that you need to discount evidence on a regular basis, which is uncomfortable, so we see things like confirmation bias creep in.

 

[Cryptid]

'Belief' is the over-riding term, one definition of which is "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something". This definition works whether or not the belief itself is true, actual, or valid in and of itself.

'Knowledge' is belief that is based on provable things -- physical principles, events, beings, places, and objects. Knowledge is quantifiable, and is the basis for all sciences, technologies, engineering, and mathematics.

'Faith' is belief that is based on improvable things -- extraterrestrial aliens, paranormal and supernatural principles, events, people, places, and objects. Faith is qualifiable, and is the basis for all religions, superstitions, conspiracy theories, and prejudices.

Your perceptions are based on memory, not real-time sensations. The act of perception is a complex, highly filtered, and active constructive process by your brain. We do not passively perceive external stimuli like a camera. This constructive process introduces many possibilities for illusion and mis-perception. There is always a short delay as your brain processes sensory data and inserts it into your short-term memory.

Your real-time perceptions are not a passive recording of the outside world. Rather, they are an active construction of your brain. This means that there is an imperfect relationship between outside reality and the model of that reality crafted by your brain. Obviously, the model works well enough for us to interact with that reality on a routine basis, and that’s actually the idea. Constructed perception is not optimized for accuracy but rather for functionality.

 

[Xinyta]

I feel like I'm missing some context/understanding/everything here. Who is angry about what now?

Xinyta seems to be 'angry' about the kind of people who form their beliefs, then look for 'evidence' to support their beliefs. Are they also angry about what I posted? Not sure. Don't care, either.

I would like to appologize for that post. I really have no business posting things when I am laying in bed, needing sleep. I don't do well with thinking before posting, when I am out of it.

But I honestly did go on a odd tangent. I'd delete it, if I could.

Anyway. Sorry about derailing.

 

[Hypnalis]

This is backward thinking. Belief should come AFTER considering all relevant and valid evidence, and not after listening to or reading the latest crackpot claim from some self-appointed expert on any given subject.

This is true as a principle: people should behave that way. And in fact sometimes they do.

But IMO the book is more right than wrong. Generally beliefs come in without analysis, often unnoticed, so we "discover" them later when making a decision or a claim in a discussion.

Rational thinking has to be learned, and it requires discipline to use it consistently. A lot of people don't do it.

Just head on over to youtube for an "infinite" number of examples where some anti-logician tries to disprove a valid point by manufacturing a "1 in a million" exception out of thin air, and acting as though they've contributed something of value /sigh.

BTW I have some sympathy for @Xintya's position. A specific example (I have many more):

A lot of people have been taught to "trust their feelings". Yet it's terrible advice: a key element in inducing "learned narcissism". It locks people's emotional development at approx. 12 years old, a bit before they start learning adult-level emotional regulation.
If they get lucky, something will happen that breaks the logjam, but in the 21st century it's far from certain this will happen.

There's evidence for this being a bad thing here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
At least for now /sigh. After seeing a possibly politically biased re-write of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs the other day, I'm wondering if wikipedia's relevance, lack of bias, and accuracy are all under attack.

 

[Tom]

This is a national disgrace. What alien is going to stop here? No coffee, no donuts, nothing. This is precisely why aliens haven't contacted us yet. A new branch of government, the Alien Welcome Division needs to be created and massive ammounts of funds poured into it.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

"We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs, we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first; explanations for beliefs follow. We might call this process belief-dependent realism, where our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it. Reality exists independent of human minds, but our understanding of it depends on the beliefs we hold at any given time.

The brain is a belief engine. Once beliefs are formed, the brain begins to look for and find confirming evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further confidence in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them; round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of converting beliefs into truths." -- Prof. Michael Shermer, Ph.D.

I am currently reading "Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist" by Dr. Shermer, and quoted from pages 2 and 3 above, and what I have quoted seems to be the process by which many people form their beliefs.

This is backward thinking. Belief should come AFTER considering all relevant and valid evidence, and not after listening to or reading the latest crackpot claim from some self-appointed expert on any given subject.

We have basically 2 ways of thinking. One may call it "system 1" which is a result of all of our biases. One may see it as the quick-witted or "knee-jerk" types of responses or thoughts. It's where our mind goes immediately, before the facts of the situation are presented. Then there is "system 2" thinking. This actually requires a pause, sometimes clarifying questions, research, context, perspective, then, eventually, a response.

Learning how to read medical research papers requires taking in the very specific context and perspective with regards to the model and methods, and not allowing oneself to make generalizations. This is why at the end of the discussion section, most will remind the reader that "more study is needed". This is why I cringe any time a news outlet headlines a story with "doctors say" or "scientists say", because all of the doctors and scientists are like "one study, one model, one method". It's often not translatable to real-world practice. We need more information.

One of the techniques we use as instructors in the medical fields is to design written and oral tests with "system 2" type of thinking. For example, I present you with some basic information about the patient, but then it is up to you to pause and gather your information before making decisions. Basic enough, but it is interesting when you present the student with a situation where it could be multiple different things, and then you allow them to go down the wrong pathway, and then some will outright fail, and others will get themselves back on track down the correct pathway.

 

[Shevek]

As an example to my OP: "There must be life on other planets" → "The surface of Venus is obscured by clouds" → "Clouds are made of water vapor" → "Water vapor arises as steam from swamps" → "Swamps are teeming with life" → "There is life on the surface of Venus".

Of course, the original premise has been proven false by discovery of facts about Venus -- a surface temperature of 867°F (464°C), a surface pressure of 92 atmospheres, and an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, argon and traces of other compounds and elements.

Carl Sagan did a delightful presentation on this, with several more steps. He then summed it up with "Observation: You can't see a thing. Conclusion: Dinosaurs."

Regarding your first quoted paragraph, I think that we can observe families staying with the same church, etc, but there are also a lot of "black sheep" that leave. I think that there is a strong genetic component to xenophobia as well as to sexuality. Neither one is very flexible. If a plague comes through, Ma Nature needs to have a few tribes that shun all strangers to produce the next generation. However, it that crop of kids does not include some curious, open-minded types, it will eventually be out-competed by tribes with more genetic diversity and better flint from trading.

 

[Shevek]

View attachment 127703

This is a national disgrace. What alien is going to stop here? No coffee, no donuts, nothing. This is precisely why aliens haven't contacted us yet. A new branch of government, the Alien Welcome Division needs to be created and massive ammounts of funds poured into it.

I am always amazed at the ubiquitous alien encounter scenarios that are exclusively modeled on the European explorers in their wooden ships. If I were planning to land a UFO, I'd at least contact Air Traffic Control, but more likely, I'd have a long palaver with the UN on a video call.

 

[Shevek]

I think the use of the word "beliefs" is perhaps slightly loaded. Another way to describe it might be to say the brain works on predictions. When evidence (from senses) contradicts the prediction, the brain either needs to update its predictions or needs to discount the evidence. For some people (for a variety of reasons) the predictions hold a stronger sway in this decision than for others. The trouble with this is that you need to discount evidence on a regular basis, which is uncomfortable, so we see things like confirmation bias creep in.

When the first Spaniards arrived in the Caribbean, the locals were initially mystified at where they had come from. Then, a Shaman noticed something seemed strange about the bay, and after much effort, was finally able to see the outlandish sight of a three-masted sailing ship where there had never been anything before.

Similarly, a friend who grew up here had often gone to a country store at the corner to his road home. When he returned, it was derelict, but then, when it burned down, he still kept seeing it in his peripheral vision for weeks until he took a deliberate look.

In "Lila" Robert Persig tells about sailing into an unfamiliar harbour at night. He was having more trouble than usual keeping a course, and one navigation buoy was missing, but he got to the dock without much trouble. Then he found out he was in a different city.

 

[Shevek]

Rational, scientific thought is extremely rare and fragile. Most people can't tell the difference between rationality, and the rationalizing they do all the time. Logic is just impossibly slow for daily interactions. Once it has been successfully incubated in a safe, welcoming space, and a new discovery can be proven, it has about the odds of a baby sea turtle of growing up.
"Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn—and most fools do." People have to ignore fools every day, and so they really have no time to examine a new truth, which starts off looking the same. They just continue to navigate by what the rest of the herd is doing. Trashing the planet with technology is not smart, but when I propose huge savings, I get overruled by "that's the way we have always done it."

 

[MNAus]

View attachment 127703

This is a national disgrace. What alien is going to stop here? No coffee, no donuts, nothing. This is precisely why aliens haven't contacted us yet. A new branch of government, the Alien Welcome Division needs to be created and massive ammounts of funds poured into it.

Maybe they already did stop here, briefly, and decided to just keep on going till the next class M planet when they saw the facilities at this one.

 

[Cryptid]

I would like to appologize for that post. I really have no business posting things when I am laying in bed, needing sleep. I don't do well with thinking before posting, when I am out of it.

But I honestly did go on a odd tangent. I'd delete it, if I could.

Anyway. Sorry about derailing.

Meh. No worries.

 

[Cryptid]

Maybe they already did stop here, briefly, and decided to just keep on going till the next class M planet when they saw the facilities at this one.

Speculation proves nothing.

 

[MNAus]

Speculation proves nothing.

Jokes rarely require proof.

 

[Cryptid]

Jokes are the chrysanthemums of the flower world.