Would Law of Averages Work in Determining the Truth?

[rational experiences]

When humans use sayings like I'm going to break the ice or let's break the ice.

We state ice newly born on earth reborn end of every year. Can't go wrong believing what you claim.

Human I will. My will. I freely will. A human. We are all humans first.

Creation is all creation first before a Human says I'm first. Creation wins.

No argument.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

Here's The Truth
Seeing youreself as you really are. It brings with it a sense of humilty.
Loving others as yourself. You overlook the errors of others in seeing the errors in yourself.
Being grateful. Stop and think how fortunate you are.
These and many more were expressed by Jesus in his sermon in Matt 5,6 and 7.
This is what the Gospels mean by 'Truth.'

 

[stvdv]

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

Contradictio in terminis
You don't call them "beliefs" if you "know"

That being said, How many of us have this statement in mind when talking to others about their beliefs?

I don't have this in mind when talking to others. It's their personal connection with God/Truth

I'm fine if others believe "I know the Truth". And who am I to know if their choice is right or wrong for them. More productive to solve my own than pointing and criticizing other's Faith

AND

Similar others have no right to make claims about (criticize, belittle) my (other's) Faith

Doing this (criticizing and or belittling faith and or feelings of others) is one of the major causes of all the problems in the world.

Jesus has been clear about this when He said "Thou shall not judge others (faith)".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This just sounds like an Argumentum ad Populum with extra steps to me.

Our current best approximation of truth, which has come out of thousands of years of debating epistemology, is the scientific method; inductive logic with empirically-verifiable premises to arrive at conclusions that have a high likelihood of being accurate. To me, this really is the only way to arrive at any truth.

ETA: Also, this is a misunderstanding of the Law of Averages. The Law of Averages states that the longer something occurs the closer the average of all of its occurrences gets to the truth.

The big issue here is that there are a lot of exceptions to this rule. In this specific instance, bias will skew the results greatly. Nobody has a religion telling them how many candies they should guess are in a jar. This is not the case for faith-based beliefs.

Aside from that, all you would be measuring here is the occurrence of belief. That's very different from the occurrence of a measurable event, which is specifically what the Law of Averages applies to.

I think @Jacob Samuelson is just using the wrong term - it's the Wisdom of Crowds, not the Law of Averages. It really is a thing, but @Jacob Samuelson is misusing it, IMO. Here's a summary of the idea:

It was in 1906 that Galton made his discovery of what is known as the wisdom of crowds. He attended a farmers' fair in Plymouth where he was intrigued by a weight guessing contest. The goal was to guess the weight of an ox when it was butchered and dressed. Around 800 people entered the contest and wrote their guesses on tickets. The person who guessed closest to the butchered weight of the ox won a prize.

After the contest Galton took the tickets and ran a statistical analysis on them. He discovered that the average guess of all the entrants was remarkably close to the actual weight of the butchered ox. In fact it was under by only 1lb for an ox that weighed 1,198 lbs. This collective guess was not only better than the actual winner of the contest but also better than the guesses made by cattle experts at the fair. It seemed that democracy of thought could produce amazing results.

However, to benefit from the wisdom of crowds several conditions must be in place. First each individual member of the crowd must have their own independent source of information. Second they must make individual decisions and not be swayed by the decisions of those around them. And third, there must be a mechanism in place that can collate these diverse opinions.

Internet search engines are a good example of the wisdom of crowds in action. It is the reason the pages you search for come up near the top of the search engine list. In general terms the more people are linking to a page and the more popular it is the higher it comes. Another highly visible example of crowd decision making can be found in the television game show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. When the player does not know which one of four answers is correct, they can ask the audience. Each member of the audience makes a separate and individual vote for the answer they favour. These votes are then collected and the results displayed. Often it is obvious from the result that one particular answer has found favour. And that is the one the player generally goes along with. In 95% of cases it is correct.

The Wisdom of Crowds by Francis Galton

What @Jacob Samuelson is overlooking, I think, are the factors needed for the "wisdom of crowds" to apply. As highlighted above:

1. Each individual member of the crowd must have their own independent source of information.
2. They must make individual decisions and not be swayed by the decisions of those around them.
3. There must be a mechanism in place that can collate these diverse opinions.

Sounds like @Jacob Samuelson is proposing something that would give us #3, but religious tenets generally can't hold claim to #1 or #2.

 

[Ella S.]

I think @Jacob Samuelson is just using the wrong term - it's the Wisdom of Crowds, not the Law of Averages. It really is a thing, but @Jacob Samuelson is misusing it, IMO. Here's a summary of the idea:


The Wisdom of Crowds by Francis Galton

What @Jacob Samuelson is overlooking, I think, are the factors needed for the "wisdom of crowds" to apply. As highlighted above:

1. Each individual member of the crowd must have their own independent source of information.
2. They must make individual decisions and not be swayed by the decisions of those around them.
3. There must be a mechanism in place that can collate these diverse opinions.

Sounds like @Jacob Samuelson is proposing something that would give us #3, but religious tenets generally can't hold claim to #1 or #2.

This is a fascinating new concept for me, thank you. I stand corrected.

 

[anna.]

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?

By enormous sample, do you mean a global sample weighted by population or a western civilization sample?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

By enormous sample, do you mean a global sample weighted by population or a western civilization sample?

I think a global sample would be the best, however, a more reliable sample would have to come from countries with freedom of speech, religion, and thought. Yet theoretically, I believe every individual has their own beliefs separate of the whole they come out of, including religion. So people in North Korea still might be included, provided they are not heavily afraid or have no consequence of answering outside of their government's ideology on the ideas of creation and the world around them.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

This whole thing sounds like an argument ad populum in disguise, tbh

That is not the case at all. The average does not always equal the Mode. The majority of the world belongs to Christianity, yet not every member of Christianity is a Christian according to "Christians". Even in my Church, which I believe has the least amount of schisms or internal disagreements than most Churches each individual might have a more orthodox or traditional view of God and others will have a more liberal view of God. Since every person has a different experience of how they view God or religious doctrines, Even many member of Christianity might have a more Islamic view of God than other Christians, and People in Islam might have a more Christian view of God than most muslims. Because of this, there has to be a way to evaluate individual beliefs apart from the census of religious organizations as a whole.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

As a generality, each believer holds that her or his religion is the 'true' one, and that the others are not 'true' religions. (Religion appears to have always been part of tribal identity going way back, so that's not so surprising.)

So I fear that a logical result of your experiment may be to promote that disbelief in other religions to disbelief in all religions.

I don't believe that would be the case. I think the logical result would be to dismiss the evaluation altogether and to continue believing as if no experiment ever happened. If science was able to prove that a truer religion exists using laws of mathematics and universal laws of physics. It wouldn't mean much to the traditional believers as they do not rely on science as much anyways for their beliefs rather than experience and indoctrination. What I believe would be the most impactful result of the theory, would be to those that have need of belonging to a scientifically true religion founded on scientific data and could be home to those who dislike the boundaries set by the classification of Religious Majorities in General. It would give the power to the individual to understand God as what the Laws of the Universe dictate uniting beliefs that are in common rather than focusing on what keeps others apart.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

It works for gumballs... but the reason it works for gumballs is that we each have a lifetime of experience of going "looks like there are 10 cookies left in the bag" but then finding out there were 12 (or 9, or whatever).

We get real feedback that improves our estimating skills for stuff like that. The only feedback we get on religious beliefs is pareidolia, so religious beliefs don't improve over time.

I disagree. Religious beliefs have been improving over time. In Judeo-Christian culture, we used to be barbaric and rely on sacrificial animals to cleanse our souls, That changed with Jesus and destruction of the Temple, and now we have baptismal cleansing, and for others more simplistic cleansing. Belief has been evolving and expanding to a point where everyone can theoretically believe they know exactly how many gumballs are in the machine. We are constantly changing methods of counting what is in the machine but it comes to a conjecture in the end, No one can know exactly what is in the machine but we have had thousands of years to look at it.

 

[anna.]

I think a global sample would be the best, however, a more reliable sample would have to come from countries with freedom of speech, religion, and thought. Yet theoretically, I believe every individual has their own beliefs separate of the whole they come out of, including religion. So people in North Korea still might be included, provided they are not heavily afraid or have no consequence of answering outside of their government's ideology on the ideas of creation and the world around them.

It wouldn't work any other way than a hypothetical global sample. You can't search for a law of averages with only part of a population sampled, it would corrupt your calculations from the very start. How do you make a law of averages by picking and choosing what part of a population to sample - that is, picking only the parts of the population that meet your criteria?

 

[blü 2]

Because of this, there has to be a way to evaluate individual beliefs apart from the census of religious organizations as a whole.

My own view is that any worldview that promotes decency, respect and inclusion between humans and groups of humans is on the right track, whether it involves supernatural beliefs or not; so that's how I'd perform your evaluation.

I can make a sort of utilitarian argument for this point of view, but a lot of people would disagree, not least those to whom the idea of inclusion is threatening. We've evolved as gregarious primates, and our tribalism is more than skin deep, as recent events in the US and present events on the Ukraine border illustrate.

One can but try.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

It wouldn't work any other way than a hypothetical global sample. You can't search for a law of averages with only part of a population a sampled, it would corrupt your calculations from the very start. How do you make a law of averages by picking and choosing what population to sample - that is, picking only the parts of the population that meet your criteria?

Like I said an entire global sample would be best in theory. Yet if we were to implement this at the present moment, I couldn't see everyone answering honestly rather in fear of retribution from political oppression. While I don't think most religious organizations hold that much tyrannical power over their followers where they would taint the sample if done anonymously from their view, I do think people suppressed politically would taint the sample as they must collectively believe pricisely the exact way or else they would be killed or worse for participating in thought experiment.

I suppose this means that the average 2000 years ago, would likely be different than the average today based on tyranny and subjugation to political thought. (Crusades, Religious Wars, and Royal Decrees) Yet the average today having more freedom of thought and religion would get us a much better answer and closer to truth where it not still the exact truth.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

My own view is that any worldview that promotes decency, respect and inclusion between humans and groups of humans is on the right track, whether it involves supernatural beliefs or not; so that's how I'd perform your evaluation.

I can make a sort of utilitarian argument for this point of view, but a lot of people would disagree, not least those to whom the idea of inclusion is threatening. We've evolved as gregarious primates, and our tribalism is more than skin deep, as recent events in the US and present events on the Ukraine border illustrate.

One can but try.

Agreed, yet Russia and Ukraine are still barbarians in their beliefs and have restricted theism for over a half of a century, only recently having issues over property becasue of the sudden fall of the Soviet Union. Every United Nation, United Kingdom, and United States are proof to me that we are evolving out of the primitive thought of segregation. We don't need to become all one nation, but should be united in belief in doing good for each other regardless of our past or differences. I think that future is very possible.

 

[blü 2]

Agreed, yet Russia and Ukraine are still barbarians in their beliefs and have restricted theism for over a half of a century, only recently having issues over property becasue of the sudden fall of the Soviet Union. Every United Nation, United Kingdom, and United States are proof to me that we are evolving out of the primitive thought of segregation. We don't need to become all one nation, but should be united in belief in doing good for each other regardless of our past or differences. I think that future is very possible.

Fingers crossed!

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think a global sample would be the best, however, a more reliable sample would have to come from countries with freedom of speech, religion, and thought. Yet theoretically, I believe every individual has their own beliefs separate of the whole they come out of, including religion. So people in North Korea still might be included, provided they are not heavily afraid or have no consequence of answering outside of their government's ideology on the ideas of creation and the world around them.

How do you account for the bias introduced from education/indoctrination, given that the vast majority will probably receive this, and few will likely escape from such later on? The 'norm' that we are supposedly born with such beliefs (that there is a God) is decidedly questionable, and mostly overridden by education/indoctrination during childhood, whether via parents or schooling. There cannot be a true impartial sample while such a situation exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not the case at all. The average does not always equal the Mode. The majority of the world belongs to Christianity, yet not every member of Christianity is a Christian according to "Christians". Even in my Church, which I believe has the least amount of schisms or internal disagreements than most Churches each individual might have a more orthodox or traditional view of God and others will have a more liberal view of God. Since every person has a different experience of how they view God or religious doctrines, Even many member of Christianity might have a more Islamic view of God than other Christians, and People in Islam might have a more Christian view of God than most muslims. Because of this, there has to be a way to evaluate individual beliefs apart from the census of religious organizations as a whole.

The way to evaluate beliefs is by examining the evidence in support of it.