Can people comprehend assertions without believing them?

[Augustus]

"Is there a difference between believing and merely understanding an idea? Descartes thought so. He considered the acceptance and rejection of an idea to be alternative outcomes of an effortful assessment process that occurs subsequent to the automatic comprehension of that idea... if one wishes to know the truth, then one should not believe an assertion until one finds evidence to justify doing so... One may entertain any hypothesis, but one may only believe those hypotheses that are supported by the facts.

According to Spinoza, the act of understanding is the act of believing. As such, people are incapable of withholding their acceptance of that which they understand. They may indeed change their minds after accepting the assertions they comprehend, but they cannot stop their minds from being changed by contact with those assertions. [He believed] that (a) the acceptance of an idea is part of the automatic comprehension of that idea and (b) the rejection of an idea occurs subsequent to, and more effortfully than, its acceptance."

(From: You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read - Daniel T. Gilbert, Romin W Tafarodi, and Patrick S. Malone & How mental systems believe - D Gilbert)


Whose view do you agree with? Do we withhold judgement until we choose to accept or reject an idea, or do we accept an idea until we choose to reject it? Are we affected by everything we read/hear as it is impossible to have no belief about any concept that we can understand?

If Spinoza is correct, do you believe that this has significant consequences for our beliefs (especially as we are living in the 'information age')?

What do you think?

[I believe Spinoza has it more correct, but won't go into details yet]

 

[Baladas]

I think that Spinoza is more correct as well.
To answer your question: I think that being challenged has always been a part of being open-minded.
In today's world, we have so much access to such a huge amount of information that it is possible to have one's beliefs or views challenged quite regularly, and in different ways.

This leads us to either open our minds, being willing to understand new or different (even opposing) ideas, or to close our minds and become rigid and set in our ways.
Obviously, this has always been the case. Today though, it happens much more often.

 

[bobhikes]

As some one who over analyzes it would have to be Spinoza otherwise Jokes would never work.

 

[Augustus]

In today's world, we have so much access to such a huge amount of information that it is possible to have one's beliefs or views challenged quite regularly, and in different ways.

If the default is to believe something unless we overrule it, does exposure to lots of information, much of it false, simply fill our heads with lots of false beliefs?

As such, more information (noise) can actually make us less intelligent.

Think of watching breaking news on a terror attack. 80% will be false information, but most people will end up believing much of what they heard.

If we want to be trully informed should we not take steps to limit our exposure to poor quality information (such as the mainstream media)?

 

[Baladas]

If the default is to believe something unless we overrule it, does exposure to lots of information, much of it false, simply fill our heads with lots of false beliefs?

As such, more information (noise) can actually make us less intelligent.

Think of watching breaking news on a terror attack. 80% will be false information, but most people will end up believing much of what they heard.

If we want to be trully informed should we not take steps to limit our exposure to poor quality information (such as the mainstream media)?

Yes, we should definitely take steps to ensure that we are not getting large amounts of information from the mainstream media, or other questionable sources.
Quality of information is key.
Thus we have the phenomenon of large groups of people being so absorbed in social media that they seem to have lost touch with reality.
Jumping at every rumor, panicking at each hysterical news story; or alternatively, simply amusing themselves with trivial sorts of information.
Alternatively, we have those who use this easy access to information to read books and educate themselves.

As a side note, I would say that with so much information available, another issue is laziness.
A lot of people want to be told what is correct, not research and compare articles and other information.

 

[LuisDantas]

If I had to choose, I would choose Spinoza. I do however wonder if there are ideas that we are literally unable of understanding and therefore of believing in. Or perhaps vice-versa?

 

[Augustus]

If I had to choose, I would choose Spinoza. I do however wonder if there are ideas that we are literally unable of understanding and therefore of believing in. Or perhaps vice-versa?

There are ideas people can't understand. If someone speaks an unknown language is an extreme example. It can also happen anytime you don't gain any real meaning from the words you read/hear. If I read a specialised paper on quantum physics, I'm sure there are plenty of passages that would just confuse me.

The 2nd point, do you mean an idea we can't believe, so we refuse to comprehend it?

I'm not sure that is possible. To refuse to believe would first require comprehension to provoke the reaction would it not?

 

[Jumi]

Can people comprehend assertions without believing them? Yes, they can.

All red cars are yellow. We understand what it means, but we don't believe it. Moving on to more complex assertions, someone can understand a detailed description of an animal described by a medieval scribe yet not believe the description when they know more about the animal today.

 

[LuisDantas]

The 2nd point, do you mean an idea we can't believe, so we refuse to comprehend it?

I'm not sure that is possible. To refuse to believe would first require comprehension to provoke the reaction would it not?

I honestly don't know.

However, I have fairly often found people presenting me with ideas that they swear to make sense of, despite my sincere perception that it would not be possible to do such a thing.

 

[Augustus]

Can people comprehend assertions without believing them? Yes, they can.

All red cars are yellow. We understand what it means, but we don't believe it. Moving on to more complex assertions, someone can understand a detailed description of an animal described by a medieval scribe yet not believe the description when they know more about the animal today.

The negation of belief can happen almost instantly though. You understand it as true, then reject it straight away based on other knowledge you possess.

Another quote from one of the above articles:

Spinoza argued that comprehending an idea did entail accepting that idea, however briefly. "Will and intellect are one and the same thing," he wrote, and thus, "I deny that a man makes no affirmation in so far as he has a perception" (1677/1982, pp. 97 and 99). Although Descartes's assumptions about the symmetry of acceptance and rejection and the disunity of comprehension and belief have silently dominated scientific thinking about these issues, psychological evidence suggests that Spinoza's hypotheses may have been closer to the truth. Findings from a multitude of research literatures converge on a single point: People are credulous creatures who find it very easy to believe and very difficult to doubt. In fact, believing is so easy, and perhaps so inevitable, that it may be more like involuntary comprehension than it is like rational assessment."

How Mental Systems Believe, Daniel T. Gilbert (February 1991 • American Psychologist)

Saying that, I'm not quite sure what happens when you read something you have already rejected as being false in another situation. So do you recorrect yourself each time, or does it only needs to be done once?

Anything novel though needs to be accepted before being rejected.

 

[Kirran]

I voted Descartes, although I think Spinoza's view is certainly often how it works in practice. But I think one can comprehend without accepting, even if it doesn't always, or maybe even commonly, happen that way.

 

[Jumi]

Saying that, I'm not quite sure what happens when you read something you have already rejected as being false in another situation. So do you recorrect yourself each time, or does it only needs to be done once?

I'm not sure about that either, since I've never experienced such a process. It seems theoretical to me.

Anything novel though needs to be accepted before being rejected.

Definitions of them may be accepted, but not their truth values. I explored various mutually exclusive afterlife beliefs without accepting any of them.

 

[Augustus]

Definitions of them may be accepted, but not their truth values. I explored various mutually exclusive afterlife beliefs without accepting any of them.

This is the overall point, do you withhold judgement until making a decision one way or the other, or do you believe first, then correct what you judge needs correction (even if correction occurs in <1s).

Think of it this way: if you watch breaking news, you know that much of it will later shown to be false. I'd say that you have to actively try to correct the information you hear though. With breaking news, even though you know it is likely false, you lack the information to correct it. You need to replace false information with something else. You can't simply go from false information to no information.

In situations you are more familiar with, you can replace the false information with something else, even if this means being 'uncommitted'.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Good beer and pizza discussion.

Based on my own experience, I would say that yes, it is possible to understand something without believing it to be true. I've understood many concepts, some of which I believed when first encountered, other disbelieved while understood only to be accepted later, and others understood but never believed. I can accept premises and arguments as a system without agreeing with them. Much better at it now than when I was young.

As for HOW that happens (that is, Descartes or Spinoza's arguments), I'm not sure of the value of speculating about it myself; I think it would be better to research what cognitive psychology has found. Not that I care that much to do it myself.

 

[Augustus]

As for HOW that happens (that is, Descartes or Spinoza's arguments), I'm not sure of the value of speculating about it myself; I think it would be better to research what cognitive psychology has found. Not that I care that much to do it myself.

Although I'm not going to hold myself up as an expert and am open to being corrected, it seems to agree with Spinoza.

Not believing is the result of correcting your initial belief.



"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." (Carroll, 1872/1983, p. 54)

The folk psychology of belief is fraught with paradox. Some- times people talk as though they can control their beliefs: "You should believe in God" or "You must not believe those awful rumors" or "Please believe that I love you." At other times people are amused by the absurdity of such a suggestion:

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "One can't believe impossible things

Can anyone believe six impossible things before breakfast? The Queen's paradoxical claim plays on the mistaken assumption that belief can only follow the analysis of an assertion's plausibility. It seems absurd to insist that one can believe what one has already deemed implausible, but not so absurd to suggest that one may believe the impossible before its plausibility is calculated. This, of course, was Spinoza's (1677/1982) point. People do have the power to assent, to reject, and to suspend their judgment, but only after they have believed the information to which they have been exposed. For Descartes (1644/ 1984), being skeptical meant understanding an idea but not taking the second step of believing it unless evidence justified taking that step. For Spinoza, being skeptical meant taking a second step backward (unbelieving) to correct for the uncontrollable tendency to take a first step forward (believing). Both philosophers realized that achieving true beliefs required that one subvert the natural inclinations of one's own mind; for Descartes this subversion was proactive, whereas for Spinoza it was retroactive.

We have performed a half dozen experiments to examine this notion, and each has provided support for Spinoza's (1677/ 1982) retroactive account rather than Descartes's (1644/1984) proactive account.

(You can't not believe everything you read - Gilbert et al
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993, Vol. 65, No. 2, 221-233)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Although I'm not going to hold myself up as an expert and am open to being corrected, it seems to agree with Spinoza.

Not believing is the result of correcting your initial belief.



"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." (Carroll, 1872/1983, p. 54)

The folk psychology of belief is fraught with paradox. Some- times people talk as though they can control their beliefs: "You should believe in God" or "You must not believe those awful rumors" or "Please believe that I love you." At other times people are amused by the absurdity of such a suggestion:

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "One can't believe impossible things

Can anyone believe six impossible things before breakfast? The Queen's paradoxical claim plays on the mistaken assumption that belief can only follow the analysis of an assertion's plausibility. It seems absurd to insist that one can believe what one has already deemed implausible, but not so absurd to suggest that one may believe the impossible before its plausibility is calculated. This, of course, was Spinoza's (1677/1982) point. People do have the power to assent, to reject, and to suspend their judgment, but only after they have believed the information to which they have been exposed. For Descartes (1644/ 1984), being skeptical meant understanding an idea but not taking the second step of believing it unless evidence justified taking that step. For Spinoza, being skeptical meant taking a second step backward (unbelieving) to correct for the uncontrollable tendency to take a first step forward (believing). Both philosophers realized that achieving true beliefs required that one subvert the natural inclinations of one's own mind; for Descartes this subversion was proactive, whereas for Spinoza it was retroactive.

We have performed a half dozen experiments to examine this notion, and each has provided support for Spinoza's (1677/ 1982) retroactive account rather than Descartes's (1644/1984) proactive account.

(You can't not believe everything you read - Gilbert et al
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993, Vol. 65, No. 2, 221-233)

"Blimey! I'm Convinced!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Is there a difference between believing and merely understanding an idea? Descartes thought so. He considered the acceptance and rejection of an idea to be alternative outcomes of an effortful assessment process that occurs subsequent to the automatic comprehension of that idea... if one wishes to know the truth, then one should not believe an assertion until one finds evidence to justify doing so... One may entertain any hypothesis, but one may only believe those hypotheses that are supported by the facts.

According to Spinoza, the act of understanding is the act of believing. As such, people are incapable of withholding their acceptance of that which they understand. They may indeed change their minds after accepting the assertions they comprehend, but they cannot stop their minds from being changed by contact with those assertions. [He believed] that (a) the acceptance of an idea is part of the automatic comprehension of that idea and (b) the rejection of an idea occurs subsequent to, and more effortfully than, its acceptance."

(From: You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read - Daniel T. Gilbert, Romin W Tafarodi, and Patrick S. Malone & How mental systems believe - D Gilbert)


Whose view do you agree with? Do we withhold judgement until we choose to accept or reject an idea, or do we accept an idea until we choose to reject it? Are we affected by everything we read/hear as it is impossible to have no belief about any concept that we can understand?

If Spinoza is correct, do you believe that this has significant consequences for our beliefs (especially as we are living in the 'information age')?

What do you think?

[I believe Spinoza has it more correct, but won't go into details yet]

I'd say that Spinoza's claim implies certain things about the neurology of thought that he was in no position to judge reliably.

 

[Augustus]

I'd say that Spinoza's claim implies certain things about the neurology of thought that he was in no position to judge reliably.

Numerous modern scientific studies (including the ones in the OP) have provided evidence in favour of this position. If you can access a journal database or 2 they aren't too difficult to find.

Alternatively, Daniel Gilbert's studies are discussed in 'thinking fast and slow' by Daniel Kahneman which you might have read.

 

[Jumi]

This is the overall point, do you withhold judgement until making a decision one way or the other, or do you believe first, then correct what you judge needs correction (even if correction occurs in <1s).

So you're saying that you read something for the first time, you believe it for less than a second? Doesn't seem to match my experiences.

Think of it this way: if you watch breaking news, you know that much of it will later shown to be false. I'd say that you have to actively try to correct the information you hear though. With breaking news, even though you know it is likely false, you lack the information to correct it. You need to replace false information with something else. You can't simply go from false information to no information.

Lot of the time news has proven false, so the actively trying to correct it has lost it's difficulty. Either that, or I'm more cynical than most and not a good "sample" in the bell curve for things like this. Even when I was a kid a common thought was "do adults seriously believe this *".

 

[Augustus]

So you're saying that you read something for the first time, you believe it for less than a second? Doesn't seem to match my experiences.

I'm saying you might only believe it momentarily before you 'correct' yourself. On the other hand you might believe it long term if you don't.

“[Dan Gilbert] proposed that you must first know what the idea would mean if it were true. Only then can you decide whether or not to unbelieve it. The initial attempt to believe is an automatic operation of System 1, which involves the construction of the best possible interpretation of the situation. Even a nonsensical statement, Gilbert argues, will evoke initial belief.

Try his example: “whitefish eat candy.” You probably were aware of vague impressions of fish and candy as an automatic process of associative memory searched for links between the two ideas that would make sense of the nonsense.

Gilbert sees unbelieving as an operation of System 2, and he reported an elegant experiment to make his point. The participants saw nonsensical assertions, such as “a dinca is a flame,” followed after a few seconds by a single word, “true” or “false.” They were later tested for their memory of which sentences had been labeled “true.” In one condition of the experiment subjects were required to hold digits in memory during the task. The disruption of System 2 had a selective effect: it made it difficult for people to “unbelieve” false sentences. In a later test of memory, the depleted participants ended up thinking that many of the false sentences were true.

The moral is significant: when System 2 is otherwise engaged, we will believe almost anything. System 1 is gullible and biased to believe, System 2 is in charge of doubting and unbelieving, but System 2 is sometimes busy, and often lazy. Indeed, there is evidence that people are more likely to be influenced by empty persuasive messages, such as commercials, when they are tired and depleted.”

Kahneman, Daniel. “Thinking, Fast and Slow.”

Lot of the time news has proven false, so the actively trying to correct it has lost it's difficulty. Either that, or I'm more cynical than most and not a good "sample" in the bell curve for things like this. Even when I was a kid a common thought was "do adults seriously believe this *".

You probably overstate the degree to which you do this (not a criticism, I do too).

You correct yourself sometimes when you have knowledge, often we lack the knowledge to correct ourselves and aren't doing so even if we think we are.

Breaking news on a terrorist attack for example, number of attackers, reports of explosions, and all sorts of minor details are frequently wrong but I can guarantee that you will remember some of these as being true.

Also, if you read an article about a topic/place you know very well you will often notice many errors in the reporting. 2 mins later you will read another article about something you have no idea about, but you don't read it as if it is full of errors like the last article. You also have nothing to replace the false information with. You don't go from belief to absence of belief, you go from belief to replacement belief.