Philadelphia, PA

Dear MacGregor,

Good question.

I think it basically goes something like this: People live in groups, and human beings are social and political animals. Moreover, it increases their sense of security in the group if a given person can agree with most of the others. Human social insecurity tends to produce may people inclined to "go along" with established opinion, in order to "get along" in the group --minimize conflicts and disagreements. Acceptance in the group can often be established, even when those "going along" have no hint of how to test or evaluate the opinions adopted.

Given the power of unified opinion in groups, others attempt to influence and exploit the process by offering various sorts of incentives for the adoption of particular opinions seen as beneficial to those offering the inducements. Generally, it is very hard to get someone to question a firmly held opinion, when any sort of "pay-day" depends on their holding it. (Of course, this need not involve direct monetary payments.)

I think it important to note that we benefit in the U.S. from the variety of religious and political convictions in healthy competition with each other. Imposed uniformity, however, is dangerous. If any of the various religious or political groups were able to call the tune and act without restraint, then that would likely be a quite unfortunate situation. Maintaining our balance requires religious and political tolerance.

That is the great lesson which the West took from the great religious wars which followed the Reformation. We decided to diminish the social costs of open disagreements and opposition. Its an imperative, crucial lesson.

H.G. Callaway

Our imaginary world sometimes has greater needs than just securing the probability of a conviction against objections. And there are faith traditions that come from a past historical world. I think that no religious or artistic conviction can be refuted by arguments. Only rational arguments can be refuted.

That's exactly what I keep asking, Kirk! Why? The world would be far better off if people had some hint of doubt, about their thoroughly unsubstantiated beliefs. Of course, religion being the number 1 subject matter where this would apply. Politics is another. Any field in which mere "beliefs" have such prevalence.

I've come to think that people not schooled in the sciences are frequently unaware of this dichotomy. There seems to be no deep discomfort from adhering to beliefs, without a shred of evidence. Whether we're talking about Galileo, Copernicus, or Isaac Newton, history has proven time and again how difficult it is to move people beyond their fantastic belief structure. Still true today.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear MacGregor,

Good question.

I think it basically goes something like this: People live in groups, and human beings are social and political animals. Moreover, it increases their sense of security in the group if a given person can agree with most of the others. Human social insecurity tends to produce may people inclined to "go along" with established opinion, in order to "get along" in the group --minimize conflicts and disagreements. Acceptance in the group can often be established, even when those "going along" have no hint of how to test or evaluate the opinions adopted.

Given the power of unified opinion in groups, others attempt to influence and exploit the process by offering various sorts of incentives for the adoption of particular opinions seen as beneficial to those offering the inducements. Generally, it is very hard to get someone to question a firmly held opinion, when any sort of "pay-day" depends on their holding it. (Of course, this need not involve direct monetary payments.)

I think it important to note that we benefit in the U.S. from the variety of religious and political convictions in healthy competition with each other. Imposed uniformity, however, is dangerous. If any of the various religious or political groups were able to call the tune and act without restraint, then that would likely be a quite unfortunate situation. Maintaining our balance requires religious and political tolerance.

That is the great lesson which the West took from the great religious wars which followed the Reformation. We decided to diminish the social costs of open disagreements and opposition. Its an imperative, crucial lesson.

H.G. Callaway

I have no clue !!!!!!!!

I do believe math is a language with a construct of its own with lemmas and conjectures . It can be created and trashed by any one - String theory or Quantum Physics !!!!

But people, gravitational wave has frequency and energy (Low I agree) fits into our wave theory and representation . Took a long long time to be "relatable" and measured ...

Luckily , science and math evolves with us , not matured enough . I guess that is why it is hard to get through ...

By definition, beliefs are irrational, i.e. assumptions taken for granted.

In his Theatetus, Plato defines science as justified belief. I.o.w., science = belief + justification. It is the justification which validates, or not, any bile. In that short equation is the entire history of culture summarized.

Yes, it is found.

Growing environment from childhood, poor IQ, social, religious and cultural prejudices make many people without having any logical explanation power in brain.

But they NEVER feel it.

It also beats me dear. Looks like people tend to believe things that cant be proven. Yet they do not want to believe in things that can be proven

Yes, it's a tad puzzling ... and it begs the question - what is the proper, 21st century approach to belief?

It must be simple : the only sane way is simply to "believe" in nothing at all.

But to know - rather than believe in - what is proven, all the rest being (legitimate) hypotheses, which will remain in this status of hypotheses until they are either confirmed or invalidated, convincingly so (either by unassailable mathematical proof , or by repeatable experimentation buttressed by a tentative theoretical explanation, etc.) In the 21st century, it is not morally, intellectually, spiritually, humanly acceptable to 'believe' in unproven stuff.

Specifically as far as religions are concerned, religions are at their core a set of statements about the nature of ultimate reality - nothing more, nothing less. Theirs is a reality where there exists a form of transcendence, etc., and they make very strong statements about what is the reality in which we live.

In this sense, a religion is essentially the same thing as a theory in physics, the theories of physics being also explorations of ultimate reality.

Theories of physics, just like religions, are either

right

or

wrong

There is no middle way: either they factually match reality as it is, and faithfully describe it, or they are just plain false. End of story.

In physics, there exist fairly robust mechanisms to test the truthfulness and veracity and correspondence with reality of theories. Only thus are we moving towards an ever-better understanding of reality, and do we gain an approach to truth that is constantly improving and refining itself.

In religion, the same mechanisms ought to exist to ensure that we are not deluding ourselves, and that in fact we are not building magnificently architectured mental scaffolds that however do not correspond to factual external reality. (Literature is replete with such elaborate scaffolds, which do not however lay any claim to veracity - they only try and teach us about ourselves, via beautiful fictions - aka, ultimately, lies.)

In their claim to actuality, why do not most religions (*) then accept a simple process of discussion, debate, testing, of "kicking the tyres", and of identifying what can really be, what is perhaps possible and what can absolutely not be, no matter what?

It seems that proceeding by ukases, peremptory affirmations and imposed leaps of faith is a particularly unacceptable modus operandi when we try to determine who we are, what is this universe we live in, and what Godhood can or can not be ......

(*) https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/12/opinion/our-faith-in-science.html

There are some beliefs that are passed on through generations, but even in that case, people have confidence in the source or the intermediary.

Interesting question! believing on non proven things are based on three things that i can say, one is personal human weakness, secondary, ways of living for some people and third is social and cultural influences. what i can say hear find Albert Einstein words '' A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death'.

Some people live in a rhythm of life where proof is not essential, and good estimation is more than enough reason.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Culture is what is transmitted from generation to generation by copying behavior of individuals and by natural or formal education in the family and in the society.

It happens mostly unconsciously. No matter what kind of things we are speaking off: bad habits, bad customs, bad concepts, bad opinions, bad convictions, bad religions, bad leadership, bad laws, bad whatsoever.

A fortiori this applies to beliefs of all sort. And beliefs are believed to not require evidence or proofs.

This is the most troublesome mental trap, or pitfall, of all. Because it is too easy to forget about the hypothetical claims by which you started off. Any following claim will be taken for granted, because the conditional clause of the claim is left out. Poor thinkers ....

I believe that the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" is much more difficult to define or interpret than most people give credit for.

Kirk, I think that there is a psychological necessity to believe in something. Even alone but especially in a group. It allows to plan life and to perform reasonably well. Imagine that you are at a new planet (or even in a new country with unknown language and traditions), know nothing, but see something. Then you work out some hypothesis about the structure (what is where, how long the day lasts, what can you eat, can you go where you see an unknown sign, etc) - and this is better for planning than to believe nothing. As soon as you find something wrong - you change those beliefs.

There are many facts (and with TV, internet and social networks their quantity is increasing all the time) that can neither be proved to be correct nor rejected, or it takes a lot of efforts to do that.

Sometimes science cannot yet give an answer to an important question - and you believe in one or other outcome. Remember that thousands years ago people believed that the Earth is like a disc, and the Sun and planets are rotating around it. Before the first trip round the Earth this false belief did not influence people's life significantly. There are more dangerous false beliefs, like thinking that to meet a tiger or to drink acid is safe. Here one risks own life for the wrong belief.

It is much cheaper for our mind to trust everything pronounced in TV, read in newspapers or networks, than to spend a lot of time checking if it is false. In politics, our wrong beliefs do not change world and do not bring us at the edge of death, but they simply can give scores to some (bad) politicians who spread lie over TV or networks and exploit this component of our psychology.

Beliefs by themselves are difficult to prove

If many or the great majority share the same belief, as in a God, then for that group, the only shared belief is a substitute for the Truth.

At other times, certain beliefs or convictions such as moral, ethical and spiritual values; or even some knowledge of natural phenomena, can be subjected to the test of formal or syllogistic logic, or the thesis and antithesis of dialectical discourse.

After the induction-deduction, or the syllogistic operation, or confrontation of opposites, a conclusion, synthesis or agreement is reached; that occupy the place of Truth.

It is due to superstition as well as there is no further hope from scientifically proved power.

Yes. It is puzzling. Our world is imaginary, because it is run by super natural power. This is every person belief.

Why are many people so confident in beliefs that can't be proven, on any reasonable definition of proof?

This may be due to ignorance and lack of knowledge of people.

Hi,

Some beliefs are true and can be proved in an intangible way, ie, indirectly, for example, by feeling their existence as in the presence of God, mentally stabilized and physically clad. Others believe that they are wrong and healthy. People follow beliefs according to their minds and the facts they have.

Good luck

People usually have two kinds of beliefs. One kind is based on false notion which can never be proven. Another kind is based on their faith in some person or persons who himself/herself has experienced the proof, but because of the quale nature of experience and because of the extraordinary effort required in having such experience, it cannot be easily made to manifest in another person. So till the other person is fit and ready to have such experience, the only thing he can do is to have faith in the person who has experienced the proof. Now scientists are also facing similar situation with respect to experimental proof of a phenomenon, even though such proof are not quale in nature. For example, existence of Higgs Boson and Gravitational Waves were experimentally verified only by few scientists. Rest of the scientific community is just the believer. This is because it is not possible for every scientist to conduct their own experiment on Large Hadron Collider or Gravitational Wave Detector.

Believe in something even if it does not exist gives strength to live. Human nature.

@Vikram Zaveri: Very convincing argument. I believe you ;-)

Yes, we scientists and philosophers often forget about the conditional nature of all our "truths" and "facts". With conditional I mean what I wrote here 4 days ago ...

More of such examples pls. Am enjoying this........

It depends on the belief. Some are wrong but some are right. I give you this example. If we see smoke coming from behind a wall, we will certainly believe that there is fire behind the wall. Did we see the fire?

@ Abderrahmane Khechekhouche: You wrote: "Believe in something even if it does not exist gives strength to live." Yes, it often does. If the belief turns out true, by own validated experience or by trust in another faithful person, we feel strengthened in it.

But the phrase "... turns out true ..."" is misleading. It is utterly misleading and deceptive. All depends upon continued verification of our experience and continued trust in the faithful person.

• On the day that verification or trust breaks down, we will feel disappointed and very weak. Because we realize once again that all of our knowledge consists of temporary beliefs, so far as we can tell.

There is no absolute guarantee that beliefs can be decided upon, or that any belief that was decided upon - false or true - may not be overhault later by more plausible beliefs.

• It depends not only on so-called facts (but when is something a fact and not merely another plausible belief?) but also on many other adopted beliefs, what we scientists call "current theories" or "standard models".
• Facts as well as beliefs are always temporary, "to the best of our knowledge". This phrase says everything.
• Whether we feel strong or weak is a matter of perception. It is like the glass that is half full or half empty ...

Yes, You are absolutely correct Dr Kirk but it is a strong sentiment and beliefs of people rather than proofs.

Paul Hubert Vossen

Yes you are right. I do not want to go into details. I like the short answer.

There is also a meta-problem. People differ over what counts as reasonable, reasonable doubt, and proof. This even occurs at a high level e.g. with intuitionistic logicians rejecting nonconstructive proofs such as reductio ad absurdum. Even what counts as mathematical certainty is in dispute.

First we believe, then we try to prove, and when proof fails we try again.

(we don't change our believes, we try to prove in an other way, or by other means)

It is more difficult to abandon something we believe in, than to believe a proof against someting we believe in.

We are irrational beings trying to be rational sometimes, because it looks good, seems "objective" and materialism has somewhat moved forward historically.

The questions is: what can be useful as rational proof (rational decision making is not always necessary - think of people you love )

And as prof. H.G. Callaway shows:

If what we believe is the question, do others believe the same? (believing indeed means social cohesion, even value and power)

And: what can "believing" mean in the practice of our every day life?

Does our believe enlightens us - or blinds us?

In our time, it is not essential to provide proofs to support beliefs, it is sufficient to furnish the evidence. The concept of proof in the traditional sense survived only in Mathematics provided we forget about the Gödel incompleteness theorem. This situation was anticipated long time ago, at the beginning of modern empiricism and rationalism. The essence of my conjecture is articulated in the following quote from Hume:

“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

― David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

The interpretation of what is admissible as evidence is often subjective and it is not surprising that some people have "confidence in beliefs that can't be proven". This observation applies to both the scientific and emotional spheres.

The argument for tangible or at least scientifically-conceivable proof being a pre-requisite for us to hold any one concept as 'true' is a relatively recent idea.

Prior to our empiricist age, belief was very much based upon the recurrent human experience across space and time, whereas ‘believing’ was based more on the identical (or at least similar) motivational/emotional significance of the subject matter to individuals and generations across the span of time, that is to say that the meaning of the subject matter (and the belief derived thereof) was inferred from the behaviour elicited in the individual by the manifestation of the subject matter, rather than by the rationalist experimentation projected onto the subject matter by the individual.

A prime example is the universal concept of the unknown which is (at least in approximation) taken to mean the foreign chaotic elements (tangible or abstract) which can at any time materialise into our known, familiar, secure environment. This is a concept known to all cultures, but known in the sense of a behavioural knowledge (rather than a declarative, descriptive knowledge), as in the way we react to all that which is unpredictable and therefore cannot be empirically defined, which is usually a mix of awe, fear, and a strange sense of curiosity, a phenomenon present cross-culturally since the dawn of consciousness.

The fact that we cannot actually pin this particular concept down to any set of scientific dimensions by no way means that we do not ‘believe’ it exists.

We all know what it is by virtue of our collective experience when confronted with it.

The same goes for many of our 'beliefs'.

The recurrence of that same human experience across different generations within the same cultures/nations is what brings about group-based beliefs, which are then consolidated (across all cultures) in the form of religion, myth, and stories, bequeathed from generation to generation.

The meaning derived from such belief systems are indispensable to the survival of man (for the alternative is a downward descent into nihilism) and that same meaning hold so much value to the individual and the society at large that it is never a simple question of dismissing it on the basis of a scientific method.

Mike Tabone: Very insightful answer, close to the erudite comment of Janusz Pudykiewicz . Both your views (should) have profound consequences for the business of doing science (any kind of it) and the self-awareness and self-perception of those doing science.

In my view, there is too much emphasis, especially in the social sciences, on the business of "getting facts" (empiricism) at the cost of "getting theories" (rationalism) - in the false belief that both are irreconcilable.

Empiricism needs rationalism, and v.v.

• Empiricism without rationalism is no more than applied statistics, which is better than nothing but not enough, because it doesn't automatically converge and globally leads to incoherent and inconsistent belief systems.
• Rationalism without empiricism is no more than applied philosophy, again better than nothing but not enough, because it may drift away from our immediate experiences ("reality") and turn into self-confirming doctrines.

What is missing is a proper balance between empirical and rational research. The negative consequences can be seen clearly in scientific branches very close and very important for us human beings, e.g. medical research. See e.g. John Ioannidis and his team in Greece.

How can this balance be restored? I don't know, I'm not sure, but I surmise that it will take another great methodologist of the stature and power of Karl Popper, but one who is less dogmatic than he was.

Links:

• Popper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery
• Ioannidis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis
• Ioannidis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ioannidis_(2005)_Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False.pdf

Dr Kirk MacGregor, from my opinion, belief continues to develop when we are really determined and desperate.

Why waiting until we are desperate ... scienctists should be cleverer than politicians who surf on the waves of fear and desperateness ... scientists should be able to foresee or at least predict with a certain plausibility long before the unfortunate event happens .... But perhaps you meant something else .... ?

Every belief has some basis and I think it's wrong and offensive to think and assume that one's beliefs are unfounded and baseless.

Dickson Adom : Single beliefs aren't the (main) problem. Belief systems are the problem. Two of the most prominent and well-known problems of belief systems are:

• Inconsistency: Without constant re-appraisal, belief systems may easily fall victim to inconsistency, i.e. you believe A and you believe B, but A and B are irreconcilable. It may not be immediately clear or believers may not easily detect that they hold inconsistent beliefs, e.g. because A and B are seldom discussed at the same time, or they are phrased superficially in quite different words. You may have to look very closely to both at the same time to find out that you can't believe A and B at the same time.
• Circularity: Without constant re-appraisal, belief systems may contain circular beliefs, i.e. beliefs may be grounded on other beliefs (and facts), which in turn are grounded on other beiiefs, etc., until one comes at a point, where the previous ground turns out to be the belief, you wanted to ground. At that point, your whole belief system is in danger and may fall apart. In fact, your belief system may turn out to be almost completely decoupled from reality, i.e. undisputed facts.

These are not new problems of belief systems, and they aren't the only ones. We have known these threats to human knowledge for at least a century.

We can live with one false belief, probably it doesn't matter so much, but we should be utterly worried to find that we hold several beliefs which are inconsistent, circular, etc.

I guess, many people don't take the effort and trouble of critically questioning their own belief system; instead, they borrow large parts of their belief systems from "authorities" (other people, leaders, authors, etc.), hoping (in vain) that the latter did their homework ...

That this is not just speculation may be evident from the so-called "loophole" flaw in the US constitution discovered by Gödel. Nobody knows for sure, whether Gödel really found it and whether the whole story around it is true, perhaps it is just a typical "city legend", but that's not the point here. The point is, that halfway complex legal or other important "documents" may indeed contain such unwanted and unforeseen consequences, if you are not careful enough ...

Link:

• https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-flaw-Kurt-G%C3%B6del-discovered-in-the-US-constitution-that-would-allow-conversion-to-a-dictatorship

Indeed, we must thoroughly and critically question our beliefs, with constant justifications on why we must hold them dear. You are utterly right @ Dr. Paul. However, I was rather referring to individuals who ignorantly talk abusively about other people's beliefs. Such persons may not have necessarily and diligently searched to understand the other people's beliefs and yet unjustly criticize them. Kind regards

The belief systems serve as a psychological function to reduce uncertainty for mortal human beings; fear and guilt are the driving psychodynamic factors of this rigid human behavior. Our intuitive and creative self can only grow in a healthy way, if we learn to live with uncertainty and develop our human potential, without such pathological impedements.

Could it be ~ just a question ~ that some people at some times mix up "beliefs" and "facts" out there in the world of human beings with "hypotheses" and "verified claims" in the world of science?

A categorical error, because we are speaking about distinct levels and systems of knowing and acting. To put it in an extreme form (to point out the difference more clearly):

• as human beings who live in an adverse environment (as all biological creatures) we may "hold" any beliefs and facts about our environment (physical as well as social) which help us to survive (hopefully). Of course, that doesn't make those beliefs or facts in any sense "true": sometimes false beliefs and facts may turn out to be helpful, in the given circumstances. Each of us may have experienced that now and then.
• With science, it is quite the opposite: false hypotheses ("beliefs") and claims ("truths") may hamper the advance of science for years/decades/centuries. No sincere scientific person will accept and tolerate that the body of knowledge in the scientific sense is polluted by gratuitous claims not based on rigorous scientific research and theory. We invented all kinds of mechanisms and processes to detect erroneous assumptions, interpretations, conclusions etc. etc. and their dissemination. For science, this is essential.

That doesn't imply however, that we should apply the same rigorous approach which is good for science to the realm of human beings who just try to be that: human beings, not researchers, scholars, scientists, whatever you like to call that subspecies (defined by role-playing) who devote at least part of their life to a higher-order mission: to understand, explain and predict our environment (self including) free (as far as possible) from bias, prejudice, premature conclusions, etc. etc.

I repeat, because it seems to me to be so crucial: it is a categorical error to treat ordinary systems of beliefs and facts on the level of single biological/psychological living beings with the body of knowledge created by scientists and philosophers of all kinds with the tacit but implicit goal of global coherent certified understanding of the world we live in.