(Untitled)

[maria_sputnik]

Why do people believe what they believe?*

ALSO: where + how did you learn/discover/accept the stuff you believe? What's the "intake process" through which one of your ideas graduates from hypothesis to belief?

*About politics, science, the Ultimate Nature of It All, human behavior, et cetera.

Comments

[uberdionysus]

Heh. Just going for the big questions, huh?

I try to keep belief as minimal as possible and test and question all things as much as possible. I believe in very little, except for the basic Kantian a priori stuff: causality, the existence of the world, the existence of others, time and space, etc.

I do believe in "the equality of all men" but I know it's not true in any meaningful way, just a statement of what I want and what I'm willing to fight for.

Politics: I don't believe, but I follow closely.
Science: I love collective observation and experimentation, and I love that science believes in practically nothing compared to any other system (it demands belief in causality and objective reality and little else). I like that belief doesn't enter into science except for what I said.
The Ultimate Nature of It All: I've experienced nothing to suggest this is real.
Human Behavior: I use observation and inquiry. I don't think belief really applies here, but there does seem to be a human behavior and in my experience people are moderately predictable.

what we see depends on where we point our telescope

[maria_sputnik]

i have days where i'm not so sure about the existence of the world.

i like the scientific method, too, and i like that belief SHOULDN'T enter into science (except for causality etc), but it's my impression that belief really does enter into science -- into the way hypotheses come into existence and are gathered up or instantly discarded, into the choice of what to study, where to point the telescope, etc., not to mention all the studies funded by Whatever Evil Industry that find out the things that the Industry Would Like to Be True.

the ultimate nature of it all could be physics, if you like (which reminds me of that song "the roar of the masses could be farts")

and people make hypotheses about human behavior CONSTANTLY, i.e. jamezm below proposing that perhaps most people are dumber than dried shit. often that congeals into beliefs about human nature (whether folks are trying to explain human behavior from an "evolutionary" perspective, brain science, psych, or pop psych)

ALSO, VERY INTERESTING: how do you think you wound up so belief-adverse?

[uberdionysus]

Sure, framing is important and inevitable, and all pursuits are constrained by ideology. But that's not the same as having a conscious belief. You can't fully escape your environment, so you're always hampered by the surrounding ideologies. Scientists are no exception, yet science is still comprised of very few beliefs.

And the world may not exist, and we may exist in a dream, but my response is, "Who cares?" Even if we're in The Matrix, our world is real enough. I guess the idea of transcendence is powerful, but it's not something I'm too interested in. There's plenty to do on this world and even if there's some Matrix like situation that requires me to leave this world, my life here will still end, which isn't so far off from death (except in the Matrix situation you still have your sense of self).

And physics just looks at how things work and it's done a damn good job of doing just that. No metaphysics are necessary.

People apply belief to human nature but it's usually based on some sort of experience, even if it is harebrained. I still like the compare and contrast model better than relying totally on my own judgments.

And I've been in a cult, grew up ultra-Roman Catholic, made worlds and religions as a DM for D&D, been in the Army, been in a frat, been through various socio-economic realms, and studied all kinds of belief systems, and it seems that the one thing that is constant is that everyone thinks they're right. Which suggests to me that everyone is wrong, including myself. And suggest no particular belief is constant, only the need to believe, which means that belief is another human trait that is filled up with whatever cultural apparatus that fits.

we are believing machines

[maria_sputnik]

ah yeah. i think what i mean is that science is driven by unconscious assumption, not that it's driven by belief.

i can also see how being in all those different reality-tunnels might lead you to feel that most reality-tunnels are a load of horseshit. i kind of feel the same way. but i half-believe, y'know? sometimes i feel like something's wrong with me that i can't wholeheartedly believe.

what was the cult, anyway? and how did you manage to worm your way out of that many all-encompassing brainwashy organizations?

also, do you have any ideas about why the need to believe is so strong? it seems like people don't do very well with skepticism and uncertainty, and i'm not sure exactly why, esp. when the world seems so perma-conflicted and mysterious

[uberdionysus]

Just a Church of Christ variation. Nothing big or too freaky. And I was kicked out of almost every organization that I've been in, including the cult. (They figured out that I didn't believe in god. I told them I believed in Jesus and sort of in their organization, but that wasn't enough.)

I just the think are brains are wired to believe. I think that skepticism runs against our natural tendency and is a hard long-term stance to take. And I just think it's a quirk of our brains. There's a lot of study into this right now, and of course it's causing controversy.

expelled from church!

[maria_sputnik]

I want to read the studies! Do you know where it's being studied or who the folks are that are studying it? I'm on a brain science kick.

[uberdionysus]

I have the links somewhere on my blog but I'll look for them later. No matter what I put into google, I get a mess of crappy websites.

Here's one intro to a science of religion:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875666

swain and i are eachothers doppelgangers

[lostcosmonaut]

i'm totally w/ Swain on this one--

science being pure, in a way, except in that it has to be carried out by scientists, who are impure

I love it

--mza.

No you're not.

[uberdionysus]

Talking about the purity of science is as meaningless as talking about the controlled experiments of religion, or the engineering of philosophy.

Science isn't a philosophy or a religion. It is a process that uses experimentation, among other things. There are ideological assumptions behind it, but they are few, and the process of science doesn't need many ideological assumptions (they are a belief in an external world and a belief in causality and little else).

What makes science work, and what utterly distinguishes it from any other process coming from philosophy and religion, is that it's based on collective results. It's the results of millions of experiments made by millions of people over hundreds of years. Science is not a philosophy, although there is a philosophy of science. And science is not a religion, although there are beliefs needs to do science (which I listed above).

Science is a bottom up phenomenon, whereas religion and philosophy are a top down phenomenon. Those tiny, hyper-focused experiments add up to a mountain of knowledge. Occasionally, someone will attack one of the older experiments and cause a landslide, but the rest of the mountain still remains. Philosophy and religion doesn't do that. Not to mention that religion is based on divine inspiration. But comparing them isn't fair. They are not the same. You can follow science and be a Christian or a fan of Nietzsche or a Hindu or a Marxist.

Talking about the purity of science is silly. There is no ideal science. People lie and fuck up results, but other people will find out when they try to match their results.

figures of speech

[lostcosmonaut]

swain, chill out, you want me to go back and put quotation marks around "pure"

I was AGREEING w/ you, you fucking windbag

--mza.

It's funny 'cause it's true.

[uberdionysus]

I loled.

But I hate the word and concept of "purity." And "authenticity."

Does that count as a belief?

it could be considered a political stance i reckon

[lostcosmonaut]

yes, now I know this about you, for future reference!

For th record: I dislike those concepts, too, especially as devices of communication about art or intention

but I like them for making outrageous claims, and for describing th driven snow

--mza.

[maria_sputnik]

this thread is special, i never heard actually address another person as a windbag before

[uberdionysus]

Also, all that Kantian a priori stuff is inherently unprovable. We can't prove causality, or external existence, or even our self. But I no longer bother thinking about it. I frame it off as things that I can't answer and ignore the question. If those questions haven't been answered in 3,000 years, I doubt I can do much better. I kind of take the pragmatist stance that they're meaningless questions that are more a problem of language then of reality.