"Lack of belief"

[Willamena]

Could you elaborate on this? Suppose I am told by one person that lead pencils are a health hazard, and then five seconds later is told by a different person that lead pencils are not a health hazard am I supposed to

1. Believe both at the same time?
2. Believe one of them is right and believe the other is wrong?
3. Not believe any of them until I have learned enough about it to believe one of them?

You will believe (accept as true) what is in accord with your understanding. You will reject (disbelieve) where your understanding differs.

 

[Willamena]

I understand your claim; I just disagree with it. I think you're reading WAY too much into one bit of pop psychology.

Pop philosophy.

 

[ArtieE]

You will believe (accept as true) what is in accord with your understanding. You will reject (disbelieve) where your understanding differs.

But what about the headline of the study? "You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read". So if I read that lead pencils are a health hazard and the next paragraph says that lead pencils are not a health hazard I must believe both right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pop philosophy.

No, I meant psychology.

 

[Ouroboros]

I understand your claim; I just disagree with it. I think you're reading WAY too much into one bit of pop psychology.

Didn't know they had pop psychology in the 17th century. *shrugs*

 

[Willamena]

No, I meant psychology.

I'm sure you did.

 

[Augustus]

I understand your claim; I just disagree with it. I think you're reading WAY too much into one bit of pop psychology.

If you understood it then why ask a question that demonstrates that you didn't understand it? Or do you mean you now understand it whereas you didn't before?

Something I've noticed is that 'rationalists' are very quick to dismiss scientific evidence that goes against their preconceived opinion. It's even 'pop' psychology, rather than genuine scientific research, published in a peer-reviewed journal and forming part of a larger body of evolutionary psychology, closely related to the heuristics and biases research of Kahneman and Tversky (widely considered the 2 most important psychologists of the 20thC) which is widely considered to be one of the most important recent developments in the field. Research that is backed up with significant amounts of empirical evidence.

Anyway, which part of the article do you disagree with? In what way do you find the conclusions flawed?

Bonus question: In what ways do you believe I'm reading 'too much' into it? You didn't even understand the basics last time.

 

[Augustus]

Pop philosophy.

The linked article is actually from an academic journal (or perhaps a 'pop' academic journal); the philosophical discussion I quoted from functions as a background to the later scientific study.

 

[Willamena]

But what about the headline of the study? "You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read". So if I read that lead pencils are a health hazard and the next paragraph says that lead pencils are not a health hazard I must believe both right?

That's the "pop" part, to grab the audience. The premise is that when you read something, you take it at face value until something in your mind goes, 'No, wait, that's not right...'

With Descartes, it was suggested that there was a steady sequence: you read, understand, and then assign a value of "yeah, that's right" or "no, wait..."

With Spinoza, the sequence is: you read, you understand, and in understanding you have taken it at face value until something goes, "no, wait..."

I'm not sure I agree with the latter. I would have to read some more.

 

[ArtieE]

With Descartes, it was suggested that there was a steady sequence: you read, understand, and then assign a value of "yeah, that's right" or "no, wait..."

But "no, wait..." isn't a "value" or position. "Yeah, that's right" or "No, that's wrong" is...

With Spinoza, the sequence is: you read, you understand, and in understanding you have taken it at face value until something goes, "no, wait..."

Yes, "no, wait..." and not "no, the opposite is right".

 

[Willamena]

With Spinoza, the sequence is: you read, you understand, and in understanding you have taken it at face value until something goes, "no, wait..."

I'm not sure I agree with the latter. I would have to read some more.

Actually, I am ambivalent about Spinoza, because I'm quite sure that I don't understand Spinoza. So maybe Spinoza has a point...

 

[Willamena]

But "no wait..." isn't a "value" or position. "Yeah, that's right" or "No, that's wrong" is...
Yes, "no wait..." and not "no, the opposite is right".

You're making too much of it, Artie.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't have a red car because nobody has convinced me that a red car is any better than a car with some other color. I haven't chosen a red car.

Exactly. You haven't chosen a red car. You have made the conscious decision to not have a red car. You even have an argument and reasons for why you don't have a red car.

You aren't simply lacking a red car. You are choosing to not have a red car.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's more like choosing to not buy red cars (rejected belief) but then claiming that you merely happen to not have a red car (lack of belief).

Sure, it is true that you happen to not have a red car. But it is not accurate to imply that this had nothing to do with your own actions. You do not have a red car because you chose not to have a red car.

I should have known better than to use an analogy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you understood it then why ask a question that demonstrates that you didn't understand it? Or do you mean you now understand it whereas you didn't before?

Something I've noticed is that 'rationalists' are very quick to dismiss scientific evidence that goes against their preconceived opinion. It's even 'pop' psychology, rather than genuine scientific research, published in a peer-reviewed journal and forming part of a larger body of evolutionary psychology, closely related to the heuristics and biases research of Kahneman and Tversky (widely considered the 2 most important psychologists of the 20thC) which is widely considered to be one of the most important recent developments in the field. Research that is backed up with significant amounts of empirical evidence.

Anyway, which part of the article do you disagree with? In what way do you find the conclusions flawed?

Bonus question: In what ways do you believe I'm reading 'too much' into it? You didn't even understand the basics last time.

Before I answer your questions, there are a few from ArtieE waiting for a response:

Could you elaborate on this? Suppose I am told by one person that lead pencils are a health hazard, and then five seconds later is told by a different person that lead pencils are not a health hazard am I supposed to


1. Believe both at the same time?

2. Believe one of them is right and believe the other is wrong?

3. Not believe any of them until I have learned enough about it to believe one of them?

They're very similar to questions I asked you a while back... that you also ignored.

 

[Noitall]

It does not apply to the atheist here. For, I do not lack belief in God. I do not even believe that there is no God.

i know that God does not exist.

Ciao

- viole

Finally...someone with a brain. I had defined myself as a super atheist. I know that people including myself would feel better if there was a God and a heaven with fluffy white clouds where I could meet my parents again and where my enemies would burn in hell...serves them right! The fact of the matter is that humans invented religion and God. It serves a good purpose except where they interfere with the progress of science. Where was God and religion the 4 or 5 billion years prior to humans inhabiting this earth?

 

[ArtieE]

Exactly. You haven't chosen a red car. You have made the conscious decision to not have a red car.

I haven't chosen a red car. That doesn't mean I have chosen to not have a red car.

 

[Augustus]

Could you elaborate on this? Suppose I am told by one person that lead pencils are a health hazard, and then five seconds later is told by a different person that lead pencils are not a health hazard am I supposed to

1. Believe both at the same time?
2. Believe one of them is right and believe the other is wrong?
3. Not believe any of them until I have learned enough about it to believe one of them?

They're very similar to questions I asked you a while back... that you also ignored.

The answer is in the same passage.

Acceptance, then, may be a passive and inevitable act, whereas rejection may be an active operation that undoes the initial passive acceptance. The most basic prediction of this model is that when some event prevents a person from "undoing" his or her initial acceptance, then he or she should continue to believe the assertion, even when it is patently false. For example, if a person is told that lead pencils are a health hazard, he or she must immediately believe that assertion and only then may take active measures to unbelieve it. These active measures require cognitive work (i.e., the search for or generation of contravening evidence), and if some event impairs the person's ability to perform such work, then the person should continue to believe in the danger of lead pencils until such time as the cognitive work can be done.

Depends on the individual. You evaluate the initial statement after comprehension/acceptance and choose how you wish to view it based on whatever criteria you want.

The default state is acceptance though, not neutrality, as is demonstrated in the experimental part of the paper.

 

[Falvlun]

I should have known better than to use an analogy.

Oh but you know I love them so! Let's bring it back to reality then.

None of you are merely lacking belief in the existence of gods. You are all choosing to not believe that gods exist. This is an active position, complete with reasons, arguments, and rationalizations.

I believe it's leaving out rather pertinent information to claim that you guys merely "lack belief in gods". And it is blatant misrepresentation to further claim that this "lack of belief in gods" is a non-position.

 

[Falvlun]

I haven't chosen a red car. That doesn't mean I have chosen to not have a red car.

Yes you have. You have chosen to not have the belief the gods exist.

(You have also chosen to not have the belief that gods don't exist.)