Would Law of Averages Work in Determining the Truth?

[Jacob Samuelson]

I'm going to break the ice for everyone and say I absolutely know that my beliefs are the most correct. This is based on thousands of years of data and hundreds of hours research on my end to come to this determination and no one can or will convince me otherwise.

That being said, How many of us have this statement in mind when talking to others about their beliefs? Does it really get us anywhere with anyone else? So how can we determine using only real facts and not just feelings and interpretations of Scripture or textbooks?

I was introduced a theory in my mind that perhaps there is a numerical way of determining which Faith is absolute truth or at least close enough to absolute.

The Law of Averages came to mind. How I understand the Law of averages is that if we were to take the sum total of every guess that people have about a particular thing and take the average of all of the guesses, the actual answer would eventually appear dependent of course on the sample size.

For example if I were to have a gumball machine filled to the brim and I were to ask 1000 people how many they thought were in there. If I take the average of everyones answers I would probably be off by only 2 or 3 gumballs.

Would there be a way to calculate this as a belief system? Like if I asked a 1000 people, How possible is there to be only one God 0 to 100 percent? I would imagine I would get an array of numerical data and the average would confirm a doctrinal point that belongs to a specific Religious organization or group.

Once you are able to ask every doctrinal point of every belief that exists from as many perspectives possible, you could compare which average coincides closest to a particular faith or belief. The true faith or belief would be the faith or belief that holds strongest to the averages in doctrine.

Although the questions would have to be psychologically diverse enough to allow an array of responses despite someone belonging to a particular faith already. For example, instead of asking how much do you believe in the First Pillar of Islam?, a better question would be Out of every commandment, How important is it to pray five times a day from 1-100. An average Muslim may recognize this as the first pillar question, but may not think it the most important item out of all commandments and therefore even as a Muslim may give a more subjective answer rather than an institutional one.

Theoretically, if the controls were made with psychologically sound questions and were given to an enormous sample, could we determine which faith would be the closest to absolute truth?

Let me know of any potential issues with either the operation or basis of this theory.

 

[ChristineM]

Can a guess ever be truth?

 

[oldbadger]

I'm going to break the ice for everyone and say I absolutely know that my beliefs are the most correct.

Well thank heavens for that! At last!
I've been waiting for you.......

This is based on thousands of years of data and hundreds of hours research on my end to come to this determination.............................

Yes! Yes! The answer! After all these years (I'm just about as ancient as @Revoltingest ) You have brought it to us......... the truth.

That being said, How many of us have this statement in mind when talking to others about their beliefs? Does it really get us anywhere with anyone else? So how can we determine using only real facts and not just feelings and interpretations of Scripture or textbooks?

I was introduced a theory in my mind that perhaps there is a numerical way of determining which Faith is absolute truth or at least close enough to absolute.

The Law of Averages came to mind. How I understand the Law of averages is that if we were to take the sum total of every guess that people have about a particular thing and take the average of all of the guesses, the actual answer would eventually appear dependent of course on the sample size.

Yes yes yes........... and the truth is....? *shivers*

For example if I were to have a gumball machine filled to the brim and I were to ask 1000 people how many they thought were in there. If I take the average of everyones answers I would probably be off by only 2 or 3 gumballs.

Oh Hell............. bloody gumballs............. again.

 

[exchemist]

I'm going to break the ice for everyone and say I absolutely know that my beliefs are the most correct. This is based on thousands of years of data and hundreds of hours research on my end to come to this determination and no one can or will convince me otherwise.

That being said, How many of us have this statement in mind when talking to others about their beliefs? Does it really get us anywhere with anyone else? So how can we determine using only real facts and not just feelings and interpretations of Scripture or textbooks?

I was introduced a theory in my mind that perhaps there is a numerical way of determining which Faith is absolute truth or at least close enough to absolute.

The Law of Averages came to mind. How I understand the Law of averages is that if we were to take the sum total of every guess that people have about a particular thing and take the average of all of the guesses, the actual answer would eventually appear dependent of course on the sample size.

For example if I were to have a gumball machine filled to the brim and I were to ask 1000 people how many they thought were in there. If I take the average of everyones answers I would probably be off by only 2 or 3 gumballs.

Would there be a way to calculate this as a belief system? Like if I asked a 1000 people, How possible is there to be only one God 0 to 100 percent? I would imagine I would get an array of numerical data and the average would confirm a doctrinal point that belongs to a specific Religious organization or group.

Once you are able to ask every doctrinal point of every belief that exists from as many perspectives possible, you could compare which average coincides closest to a particular faith or belief. The true faith or belief would be the faith or belief that holds strongest to the averages in doctrine.

Although the questions would have to be psychologically diverse enough to allow an array of responses despite someone belonging to a particular faith already. For example, instead of asking how much do you believe in the First Pillar of Islam?, a better question would be Out of every commandment, How important is it to pray five times a day from 1-100. An average Muslim may recognize this as the first pillar question, but may not think it the most important item out of all commandments and therefore even as a Muslim may give a more subjective answer rather than an institutional one.

Theoretically, if the controls were made with psychologically sound questions and were given to an enormous sample, could we determine which faith would be the closest to absolute truth?

Let me know of any potential issues with either the operation or basis of this theory.

If you had performed this calculation in 50AD you would have concluded that Christianity was false.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

If you had performed this calculation in 50AD you would have concluded that Christianity was false.

Perhaps, but my sample size would not be nearly as big as it is today. Plus, not many people had freedom of thought anyway back then with the large majority as serfs and peasants. Of course, I think it is better to consider from a more civilized free society where diversity exists in every type of belief out there.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Can a guess ever be truth?

Individually I don't think so, but if you evaluate from many different guesses, you might get really really close if not exact. Who knows? That is my question.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Well thank heavens for that! At last!
I've been waiting for you.......


Yes! Yes! The answer! After all these years (I'm just about as ancient as @Revoltingest ) You have brought it to us......... the truth.


Yes yes yes........... and the truth is....? *shivers*


Oh Hell............. bloody gumballs............. again.

Yes! You will never escape the gumballs, no matter how far you travel in the universe, the gaseous stars and planets will only remind you of gumballs and nothing else. Plus, the answer to my question of how many gumballs there are in the machine is 42. Voila, you need not worry about anything else in the universe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm going to break the ice for everyone and say I absolutely know that my beliefs are the most correct. This is based on thousands of years of data and hundreds of hours research on my end to come to this determination and no one can or will convince me otherwise.

That being said, How many of us have this statement in mind when talking to others about their beliefs? Does it really get us anywhere with anyone else? So how can we determine using only real facts and not just feelings and interpretations of Scripture or textbooks?

I was introduced a theory in my mind that perhaps there is a numerical way of determining which Faith is absolute truth or at least close enough to absolute.

The Law of Averages came to mind. How I understand the Law of averages is that if we were to take the sum total of every guess that people have about a particular thing and take the average of all of the guesses, the actual answer would eventually appear dependent of course on the sample size.

For example if I were to have a gumball machine filled to the brim and I were to ask 1000 people how many they thought were in there. If I take the average of everyones answers I would probably be off by only 2 or 3 gumballs.

Would there be a way to calculate this as a belief system? Like if I asked a 1000 people, How possible is there to be only one God 0 to 100 percent? I would imagine I would get an array of numerical data and the average would confirm a doctrinal point that belongs to a specific Religious organization or group.

Once you are able to ask every doctrinal point of every belief that exists from as many perspectives possible, you could compare which average coincides closest to a particular faith or belief. The true faith or belief would be the faith or belief that holds strongest to the averages in doctrine.

Although the questions would have to be psychologically diverse enough to allow an array of responses despite someone belonging to a particular faith already. For example, instead of asking how much do you believe in the First Pillar of Islam?, a better question would be Out of every commandment, How important is it to pray five times a day from 1-100. An average Muslim may recognize this as the first pillar question, but may not think it the most important item out of all commandments and therefore even as a Muslim may give a more subjective answer rather than an institutional one.

Theoretically, if the controls were made with psychologically sound questions and were given to an enormous sample, could we determine which faith would be the closest to absolute truth?

Let me know of any potential issues with either the operation or basis of this theory.

Not in the universe that inhabits my mind, since I doubt whatever humans can conceive of can necessarily be the truth, hence why would I accept any kind of voting system involving humans?

Would you accept the views of these 1000 people, for example?

Religion does more harm than good - poll

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,006 adults aged 18+ by telephone between December 12 and 13. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

PS Can't say I spent so much time investigating religions and perhaps I took some shortcuts, but many of us do when we just can't be sure of the provenance of so much religious material - and perhaps we believe our time is better spent elsewhere.

 

[Altfish]

I'm going to break the ice for everyone and say I absolutely know that my beliefs are the most correct. This is based on thousands of years of data and hundreds of hours research on my end to come to this determination and no one can or will convince me otherwise.

That being said, How many of us have this statement in mind when talking to others about their beliefs? Does it really get us anywhere with anyone else? So how can we determine using only real facts and not just feelings and interpretations of Scripture or textbooks?

I was introduced a theory in my mind that perhaps there is a numerical way of determining which Faith is absolute truth or at least close enough to absolute.

The Law of Averages came to mind. How I understand the Law of averages is that if we were to take the sum total of every guess that people have about a particular thing and take the average of all of the guesses, the actual answer would eventually appear dependent of course on the sample size.

For example if I were to have a gumball machine filled to the brim and I were to ask 1000 people how many they thought were in there. If I take the average of everyones answers I would probably be off by only 2 or 3 gumballs.

Would there be a way to calculate this as a belief system? Like if I asked a 1000 people, How possible is there to be only one God 0 to 100 percent? I would imagine I would get an array of numerical data and the average would confirm a doctrinal point that belongs to a specific Religious organization or group.

Once you are able to ask every doctrinal point of every belief that exists from as many perspectives possible, you could compare which average coincides closest to a particular faith or belief. The true faith or belief would be the faith or belief that holds strongest to the averages in doctrine.

Although the questions would have to be psychologically diverse enough to allow an array of responses despite someone belonging to a particular faith already. For example, instead of asking how much do you believe in the First Pillar of Islam?, a better question would be Out of every commandment, How important is it to pray five times a day from 1-100. An average Muslim may recognize this as the first pillar question, but may not think it the most important item out of all commandments and therefore even as a Muslim may give a more subjective answer rather than an institutional one.

Theoretically, if the controls were made with psychologically sound questions and were given to an enormous sample, could we determine which faith would be the closest to absolute truth?

Let me know of any potential issues with either the operation or basis of this theory.

No because it is flawed.

If you ask what is the average number of legs a human has, the answer is not 2.

 

[Koldo]

For example if I were to have a gumball machine filled to the brim and I were to ask 1000 people how many they thought were in there. If I take the average of everyones answers I would probably be off by only 2 or 3 gumballs.

Only if we could actually look at your gumball machine before making our guesses. If you think otherwise we can make the experiment on this very forum. Send me a private message with the number you have in mind, create the topic and we can check the results after one month.

 

[ChristineM]

Individually I don't think so, but if you evaluate from many different guesses, you might get really really close if not exact. Who knows? That is my question.

Depending what you are averaging you could get close assuming your data points had basis in reality. However averaging belief/guess would still be a guess that may or may not be totally wrong.

 

[Brickjectivity]

How many of us have this statement in mind when talking to others about their beliefs? Does it really get us anywhere with anyone else?

I wonder how the LDS view the statement of Gideon's father when he says "Let Baal contend for himself if he be a god." Does it have any prominence to you as a scripture verse, or it is more of a verse you don't think about much? For me it was at one time just a connecting or background verse. Now it is something I use when people tell me that they can prove from the bible that God exists. I ask if baal must contend then surely God should be required to. I like to use it in conjunction with verses about the difficulties of communication and the uncertainty of words. Its an interesting verse to me, because I once thought that if I could just find the right argument then everyone could vine onto it. It is not the case. There is no common argument, because people don't vine onto arguments. They only shrub onto them. I wish it were otherwise.

I met a person online who heard only one thing: that the world could be a simulation; and this forever changed their mind. They could never let it go, and it was the only argument they needed. It took root in their mind like an anchor in concrete: one sentence. Admittedly I can't say for sure they truly, internally, believe; however they fight for their idea as much as anyone on RF. They try to share it, ponder it, get feedback on it.

Once you are able to ask every doctrinal point of every belief that exists from as many perspectives possible, you could compare which average coincides closest to a particular faith or belief. The true faith or belief would be the faith or belief that holds strongest to the averages in doctrine.

I think this does not provide a sure foundation, and I also think it would be an effective way to completely destroy your church. It is a seductive idea, but don't try to promulgate this. I think you will have so many problems as a result.

I like many aspects of it, but the more arguments we have the bigger a problem we become.

I think the true reasons that people convert are not arguments. People claim that they converted to or left religion because of arguments, but I don't believe that.

 

[Audie]

I'm going to break the ice for everyone and say I absolutely know that my beliefs are the most correct. This is based on thousands of years of data and hundreds of hours research on my end to come to this determination and no one can or will convince me otherwise.

That being said, How many of us have this statement in mind when talking to others about their beliefs? Does it really get us anywhere with anyone else? So how can we determine using only real facts and not just feelings and interpretations of Scripture or textbooks?

I was introduced a theory in my mind that perhaps there is a numerical way of determining which Faith is absolute truth or at least close enough to absolute.

The Law of Averages came to mind. How I understand the Law of averages is that if we were to take the sum total of every guess that people have about a particular thing and take the average of all of the guesses, the actual answer would eventually appear dependent of course on the sample size.

For example if I were to have a gumball machine filled to the brim and I were to ask 1000 people how many they thought were in there. If I take the average of everyones answers I would probably be off by only 2 or 3 gumballs.

Would there be a way to calculate this as a belief system? Like if I asked a 1000 people, How possible is there to be only one God 0 to 100 percent? I would imagine I would get an array of numerical data and the average would confirm a doctrinal point that belongs to a specific Religious organization or group.

Once you are able to ask every doctrinal point of every belief that exists from as many perspectives possible, you could compare which average coincides closest to a particular faith or belief. The true faith or belief would be the faith or belief that holds strongest to the averages in doctrine.

Although the questions would have to be psychologically diverse enough to allow an array of responses despite someone belonging to a particular faith already. For example, instead of asking how much do you believe in the First Pillar of Islam?, a better question would be Out of every commandment, How important is it to pray five times a day from 1-100. An average Muslim may recognize this as the first pillar question, but may not think it the most important item out of all commandments and therefore even as a Muslim may give a more subjective answer rather than an institutional one.

Theoretically, if the controls were made with psychologically sound questions and were given to an enormous sample, could we determine which faith would be the closest to absolute truth?

Let me know of any potential issues with either the operation or basis of this theory.

Why should anyone bother. Your mind is
immutabley fixed

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps, but my sample size would not be nearly as big as it is today. Plus, not many people had freedom of thought anyway back then with the large majority as serfs and peasants. Of course, I think it is better to consider from a more civilized free society where diversity exists in every type of belief out there.

Well OK, but now you are bringing in a variety of extra criteria. How would you apply those to the huge variety of societies we have today, in a way that anyone could agree was objective?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

No because it is flawed.

If you ask what is the average number of legs a human has, the answer is not 2.

I don't understand your reasoning. You would never ask that question for averages. You would ask how many people believe humans have two legs and then you take the average of that answer. If the average is 2 legs than we must agree that humans have two legs. There is nothing flawed in that.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Theoretically, if the controls were made with psychologically sound questions and were given to an enormous sample, could we determine which faith would be the closest to absolute truth?

I'm curious on what your take is on the 'monty hall dilemma,' and 'the linda problem.' So in those examples, are the questions fooling samples of people because they are too psychologically sound, and so does that mean you require questions that work with psychological leading of some kind? In your last paragraph, you talk about a 'better question.' But if you get the answer you want, does the resolution of that answer really meet your requirements, as perhaps people were led to it?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Why should anyone bother. Your mind is
immutabley fixed

I wouldn't say fixed. I would argue that most people want to know what truth is and they would follow it. This is just providing them a solution that doesn't involve faith or personal belief..

 

[Altfish]

I don't understand your reasoning. You would never ask that question for averages. You would ask how many people believe humans have two legs and then you take the average of that answer. If the average is 2 legs than we must agree that humans have two legs. There is nothing flawed in that.

But, when you take all the humans with one leg and those with no legs the average turns out to be 1.9995 or something like that.

 

[PureX]

The "law of averages" can only determine probability of an outcome within a given set of possibilities. Other than it being an aspect of truth (as all things are) it cannot tell us the truth of anything.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Well OK, but now you are bringing in a variety of extra criteria. How would you apply those to the huge variety of societies we have today, in a way that anyone could agree was objective?

I tried to show this in my example in the OP. Just because I'm Christian, doesn't mean than I don't pray five times a day or more. Prayer is a concept that most religious people hold onto. If we all believe in prayer, than any religion would contribute objectively to Islams Pillar of Faith. However, we must acknowledge the subjectiveness of everyone's answer as well. Not every Muslim believes prayer is the most essential which needs to be part of the evaluation process. I don't think people need to know which philosophy or doctrines apply to which religion, more than what they believe in their own personal faith system. Therefore no one would need to agree or disagree whether this belongs to Islam or Christianty etc.