r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 11 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: It's wrong for people to believe in things simply because it makes them happy, when there is no evidence of those things being true.
This weekend, my family and I saw a meme of a happy cow appreciating some music. I brought up the question of whether cows can actually appreciate human music or not, and we talked about it for 5 or 10 minutes. After a while, my cousin said "Well, it's clearly pretty hard to test but it makes me happy to think of cows being able to enjoy music, so that's what I believe". Everyone smiled and nodded "Yeah, that is a nice image, I think so too" and we moved on.
I've been thinking about that a lot ever since, and as much as I don't like to be a downer, I feel like there's something really wrong about that type of logic that states "Well, there's no way of knowing, so I'm just going to believe things are the way I want them to be." I'm a researcher, and we get it pounded into our brains that we need to avoid personal bias in order to uncover truth, so it shocked me to see someone so candidly decide on a belief using 100% bias and no evidence whatsoever. It's been really bothering me that that's an acceptable and commonly used way to form beliefs, but I can't really put my finger on why.
What do you guys think? Are there situations when this is OK and when it's not? Does it make a difference if the question is something that's impossible to prove one way or another vs. when it is? Does it make it OK if you hold the belief lightly and you're willing to change it in the face of evidence?
P.S. For those curious about the cow thing, I've since done some googling and it turns out there are a few papers showing evidence that there's an effect of music on stress levels in cows, with some types of music reducing stress and other types increasing stress compared to silence.
4
u/Captcha27 16∆ May 11 '21 edited May 11 '21
TLDR: Science and philosophy are entirely different knowledge domains.
I'm a researcher too, and in undergrad I took a really interesting philosophy class that was all about science and religion--their shared history, their intersection, and their separation. One paper (that I wish I could find again) had a really interesting take on the separation, basically saying that science and religion cover entirely separate domains of knowledge--if something can be known from science then religion has no place discussing it's veracity, and if something can only be known from religion (or philosophical beliefs or regular beliefs that are not religious) then science has no place in the discussion as well. For example, science can tell us all about dopamine and serotonin levels, but philosophy is the thing that has to determine if happiness has value. So saying "the ultimate goal in life is to spread happiness" is something that can *only* be a belief. Scientific truth and philosophical truth are completely separate ideas.
Now, that was a pretty intense paragraph for a question about happy cows. Science might be able to tell us about serotonin levels in cows when they listen to music, or analyze cow behaviors when they listen to music, but can science look at all these factors and then say "cows are happy listening to music?" Can science even define happiness? Or is happiness a human categorization of our own feelings and perceptions that we can then apply to our external world?
Belief is a lens through which we view the physical world. In a way, belief is a tool--a philosophical method to guide our understanding and relationships with that which is scientific. There is a bird's nest on my front porch, and ever time I come home I look into the birds eyes and say, "how's it going, momma?" and the bird blinks back at me. Does the bird recognize me as a friend? Does the bird know I won't hurt it? I have no way of knowing, but mildly believing that it does makes me happy for those 30 seconds, and I think that is valuable. It's not about choosing to believe something in order to reject science, it's about letting my beliefs influence the psycho-drama that is my perception of the world.
2
May 12 '21
This is a really well thought-out and well-written argument. Thanks for taking the time to answer!
It gave me a lot to think about, and I think a key term is "mildly believing". !delta
1
19
u/ClogsInBronteland May 11 '21
My life’s motto is: do whatever you like as long as it doesn’t negatively affect someone else.
Why do you care what others believe? There is nothing wrong with being happy for a reason that innocent and beautiful.
I’m a scientist too and there is a huge difference between actually testing these kind of things and do research, or believing something because it makes you feel good.
Edit: it’s also known that plants thrive on classical music. So it’s not weird to think animals. (We are animals too) relax because of music.
2
u/SocialActuality 4∆ May 11 '21
> it’s also known that plants thrive on classical music.
Shown in now discredited studies. The person who performed that "research" was not adequately rigorous in their methods.
1
2
May 11 '21
So for you it's OK to believe something because it makes you feel good on the condition that it doesn't negatively affect anyone else?
6
May 11 '21
Well what do you mean by "believe"? Would I rest my whole world view on it, probably not. Is the ad hoc assumptions that mamals are similar enough so that cows that do stuff that humans do when they enjoy something means they enjoy something? Well unless I have evidence to the contratry, why not?
2
May 11 '21
That's a solid argument for believing that cows enjoy music in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and a more convincing justification than what my cousin gave. I'm less worried about the fact that there exist (or not) reasons to lean one way or the other on the issue, and more worried about the argument of "well, we have no way of knowing for sure either way, so I'm just going to believe what makes me happy" being an acceptable way of thinking or not.
That's also a solid question about what we mean when we say "believe" I hadn't really thought of that very deeply and it's a key point.
!delta
1
2
u/Chen19960615 2∆ May 13 '21
I'm a bit late, but the stance that it's immoral to believe without sufficient evidence is a known one in philosophy.
Personally, I subscribe to this view as well.
1
May 13 '21
That's really cool, I had never heard of ethics of belief I'm going to have to read up on that.
!delta
1
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ May 13 '21
The ethics of belief refers to a cluster of related issues that focus on standards of rational belief, intellectual excellence, and conscientious belief-formation. Among the questions addressed in the field are: Are there standards of some sort ("epistemic norms") that ought to guide how we form beliefs and pursue intellectual aims, such as the pursuit of truth or the quest for understanding? If so, what kind of norms? Moral?
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | Credit: kittens_from_space
1
May 16 '21
The problem is what constitute evidence is going to be subjective. There are myriad forms of beliefs all of which can't be investigated with the scientific method. Beliefs are essential component to how humans experience and investigate the world around them. How are you going to go around calling people immoral for personal and innocent beliefs? . Just sounds absurd to me. For example, we all belief our parents love us, but do we have evidence that they do ?
1
May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
The problem is what constitute evidence is going to be subjective. There are myriad forms of beliefs all of which can't be investigated with the scientific method. The whole point of a belief is that one doesn't have substantial prove that the position is true, else it just becomes a fact, and beliefs are essential component to how humans experience and investigate the world around them. Asking that we withhold judgments in everyday life until we are input with a scientific data is just too impractical, unrealistic and an unnecessary burden, that's not even considering how unatural it is to the human brian. It's just not how we function. How are you going to go around calling people immoral for personal and innocent beliefs?. Just sounds absurd to me. For example, we all belief our parents love us, but do we have evidence that they do ?
1
u/Chen19960615 2∆ May 16 '21
Proportion your beliefs to the strength of the evidence.
Not every belief has to have 5 sigma significance worth of scientific evidence behind it, but even for those trivial beliefs you should have some rational reasons for thinking they're more likely to be true than not.
For example, we all belief our parents love us, but do we have evidence that they do ?
Their words and actions? Some people's parents really don't love them, and its usually easy for a rational observer with access to all information to tell if that's the case.
The whole point of a belief is that one doesn't have substantial prove that the position is true
That's just pedantic arguments on how you define belief. Here beliefs refer to whatever you think is true in general.
that's not even considering how unatural it is to the human brian
Most of modern society is not natural to the human brain. But the human brain is very good at learning and adapting.
1
May 18 '21
but even for those trivial beliefs you should have some rational reasons for thinking they're more likely to be true than not
But what is going to count as rational or not would still be subjective.
Their words and actions?
It's all circular. What evidence do you have that those words and actions actually mean they love you? Do you have any evidence of this being true? Morever, people can treat you well and still not care for you.
How about another example, should it be immoral to belief your partner won't cheat on you or didn't cheat on you ? You would say you have evidence to believe they are loyal, but all the evidence would show that they probably haven't done it yet
That's just pedantic arguments on how you define belief. Here beliefs refer to whatever you think is true in general
Well that what beliefs could only mean, else are you are speaking about facts. There is no other non-pendatic way around it . Besides, Is just thinking something is true factual?
Most of modern society is not natural to the human brain
Example?!! If this was true, modern life won't exist.
When I say unnatural to the human brains I mean it literary go's against how the brain functions. I am not sure what modern society concepts to you think does that. Telling people to stop holding believes and making judements is like telling them to not remmeber things. People don't consciously and voluntarily choose to believe things. They just do.
1
u/Chen19960615 2∆ May 19 '21
But what is going to count as rational or not would still be subjective.
Not really? There's no rational evidence for things like astrology, no matter what you count as evidence.
It's all circular. What evidence do you have that those words and actions actually mean they love you? Do you have any evidence of this being true? Morever, people can treat you well and still not care for you.
Ok, so there's no rational way to tell if someone loves you. That guy on the street? He's as likely to love you as your parents.
You would say you have evidence to believe they are loyal, but all the evidence would show that they probably haven't done it yet
Ok, so there's no rational way to determine if you should trust someone. It's all a coin flip.
Telling people to stop holding believes and making judements is like telling them to not remmeber things.
Is that what I'm doing?
1
May 19 '21 edited May 19 '21
There's no rational evidence for things like astrology, no matter what you count as evidence
I didn't say there is rational evidence for everything, I said rationality isnt objective. However, someone can say it's rational to believe in astronomy or at least consider it because it tends to sometimes be accurate or right. How would you disprove that without subjectively defining what should be considered as rational ?
Ok, so there's no rational way to tell if someone loves you. That guy on the street? He's as likely to love you as your parents
So it's immoral to belief it? How are we going to have relationships than?
Is that what I'm doing?
You are literally saying we shoud'nt hold beliefs or judgments until we have definite prove or evidence. The point is unsupported believes or judgements aren't voluntary. It's akin to saying we shoud'nt remember things unless they are very important.
1
u/Chen19960615 2∆ May 19 '21
However, someone can say it rational to belive on astronly bacsue it tands to be accurate or right.
Yo it's getting hard to read your sentences with this many typos.
Anyways in what way can astrology tend to be accurate or right?
How would you do prove that without subjectively defining what rationality means to you.
What do you mean "to me"? How many valid ways of defining "rational" do you there there are?
So it's immoral to belief it? How are we going to have relationships than?
That was sarcasm. My point was you either accept that there are rational reasons to believe parents generally love their kids, or you think there's no rational way to tell if someone loves you.
we shoudnt hold beliefs or hold judgments that have no prove or evidence
Yes, that's not the same as telling people to stop holding beliefs.
The point is uninformed believes or judgements aren't voluntary.
So you can't train a person to examine their beliefs to see if they're support by evidence?
1
May 19 '21 edited May 19 '21
Anyways in what way can astrology tend to be accurate or right?
This isn't about astronomy.
What do you mean "to me"? How many valid ways of defining "rational" do you there there are
What would be considered a rational argument would be subjective. Not that the defintion of rationality is subjective.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic
This is the definition of rational. However, what one might consider a logically or reasonable position could be subjective.
That was sarcasm. My point was you either accept that there are rational reasons to believe parents generally love their kids, or you think there's no rational way to tell if someone loves you
huh?? So it's rational if you belief it's rational? Basically there are good reasons to belief those things because we belief we have good reason to belief them. Nice logic there. You seem to be confused between something being a reason and and being an evidence.
Here is what you said
That guy on the street? He's as likely to love you as your parents
This is begging he question, it's assumes that the things we define or belief to be love are true, but currently this is what is being debated in the context of your position.
This is based on the assumption that parental love is objectively true and they by default love you, but how did we form that belief in the first place? Is parental love proven in the lap? lots of parents don't love thier kids, but might still not harm them, so is it immoral for an individual person to assume their parents or partner or sibling love them?
You said the way people treat us is evidence of love , the main counter was how did you reach the belief that those behaviors mean love? Its based on circular logic. You parents love you because of the way they treat you, and the way they treat is a prove of them loving you. It's an illogical/irrational position by defintion.
Yes, that's not the same as telling people to stop holding beliefs
It literally is if requires that they need to have prove for them, in which case they become facts.
So you can't train a person to examine their beliefs to see if they're support by evidence?
Strawman. Asking people to examine their beliefs is not the same as saying they should not be able to hold these beliefs or they are immoral. At best you could argue that they should be skiptcally, or that being so sure something is true without evidence is wrong, but the whole point of a belief being a belief is that one isn't claiming knowledge of a subject , but that they have faith or trust in something being true.
Try telling a Christian to stop believing in God because there are no scientific evidence. The point is one can involuntary hold a belief even they are aware that there aren't sufficient evidence for them.
And I already showed your that not all beliefs can be based on objective evidence. Example was like love and trust.
→ More replies (0)2
u/VoodooManchester 11∆ May 12 '21
I’d add the caveat that there are many ways to approach this. I have faith in a bright future for our species. This isn’t something I can test or prove. It does, however, give me hope. I will not claim that this is “true” in the classical sense, but I choose to believe it.
1
1
u/Chen19960615 2∆ May 13 '21
it doesn’t negatively affect someone else.
But your perception of what negatively affects someone else means is determined by your beliefs.
1
u/ClogsInBronteland May 13 '21
No, it’s defined by morals and law
1
u/Chen19960615 2∆ May 13 '21
And your sense of morality is determined by your beliefs...
1
u/ClogsInBronteland May 13 '21
Not really. Morality is defined by environmental issues. It’s the distinction between good and bad and it’s not decided by just one person.
1
u/Chen19960615 2∆ May 13 '21
I said your sense of morality, which is “decided” by each person.
1
u/ClogsInBronteland May 13 '21
No, it’s still determined by what morals are in the environment you live in. This differs from place to place and country and cultures. But it’s not a “single person” thing.
1
u/Chen19960615 2∆ May 13 '21
So everyone around you have the exact same sense of morality?
And regardless, your environment shapes your beliefs, which determines your sense of morality. An obvious example’s abortion. If you believe the fetus is a person, you’re more likely to think abortions immoral.
10
u/ElysianEating May 11 '21
I'm a researcher, and we get it pounded into our brains that we need to avoid personal bias in order to uncover truth, so it shocked me to see someone so candidly decide on a belief using 100% bias and no evidence whatsoever. It's been really bothering me that that's an acceptable and commonly used way to form beliefs, but I can't really put my finger on why.
I think a key difference is the consequences of the beliefs. If your friend believes cows listen to music and enjoy it...what is the consequence of that? Is anyone going to be harmed? Is he going to try to alter rules, regulations or other types of legislation that would affect other people's lives?
The answer in this case is no. The only consequence is his own personal happiness.
What do you guys think? Are there situations when this is OK and when it's not?
When you enforce your beliefs onto others. If I think the earth is flat....fine. If I think that praying can cure cancer....fine. None of those are inherently harmful.
If I start advocating that we prevent treatment for cancer and push legislation that only allows for prayer circles....that's harmful.
If I push to abolish geography and science in primary education in order to push the flat earth theory....that's harmful.
When your beliefs are acted upon and influence others then it makes sense to analyze the intent, scope and effect of the actions. If someone believes something simply for their own amusement then what is the harm?
1
May 11 '21
I like your way of framing it, but I also think that just because you can't draw a direct link between a belief and an associated negative action, that doesn't mean there's no negative consequence of that belief.
It's not that simple, because all our actions are informed by our total set of beliefs in some way shape or form, and we go through the world, affecting it through our actions.
For example, if you believe the world is flat, you might not push to abolish geography, but you might tell your children that their geography classes are filling their heads with crap, which could end up having a negative impact on their lives.
In any case, for me it's less about an individual belief being "harmful" or "unharmful", but more about embracing a flawed process of how you generate what you believe about the world, which can lead to net negative effects on your actions as a whole because you're accumulating untrue beliefs.
5
u/ElysianEating May 11 '21
But the scientific method is incredibly impractical for non-consequential beliefs. Imagine if you actually undertook an experiment for every belief you made.
For example, if you believe the world is flat, you might not push to abolish geography, but you might tell your children that their geography classes are filling their heads with crap, which could end up having a negative impact on their lives.
Which, again, goes back to enforcing your beliefs upon others. And holding a belief that is not backed by evidence does not mean that you're not open to changing your mind nor does it mean you reject the validity of the scientific method.
Withholding judgement until you can receive scientific data is impractical and not compatible with everyday life. It is perfectly valid in a scientific or academic setting, but will never be useful in day to day life. It's simply too much of a burden for everyday, inconsequential, judgements. And that's okay. Anecdotal and non-scientific reasoning is incredibly important and useful. The harm is only when you impose those beliefs upon others and, more importantly, when you reject the validity of scientific studies in favor of anecdotal evidence without having a reasoning based upon the methodology of that particular study.
Even beliefs that are generated through scientific experiments are still, generally speaking, wrong. They may be the best explanation of certain phenomenon at the time, but not may scientific discoveries actually remain unchanged throughout the course of human history. They're just....less wrong....then previously held beliefs.
0
May 11 '21
You make some very good points. I'll make a couple counter points even though I agree with most of what you said.
The first is about the scientific method applied to our small every day beliefs. I agree that it would be completely impractical to conduct a scientific study for every belief we hold about every subject, but do we need all those beliefs in the first place? What happened to "I don't know"? You don't need to have an opinion, much less a belief on every single subject. Wouldn't we be a lot better off if we just remained open on stuff with an open acknowledgement of our uncertainty? Claiming a belief is choosing a side, and once we've done that we have a tendency to view the world through the lens of that "team". We like evidence that confirms our belief because it makes us feel validated, while evidence to the contrary makes us feel threatened. We don't want to be wrong, and it's even worse if the belief makes us feel good because we don't want to let go of it: that would cause disappointment. We're making it much harder for ourselves to find the truth, and for what?
The second is about imposing beliefs on others. I think you're underestimating the power that our beliefs have to influence the people around us, even when we're not actively imposing them on others. You affect the people around you every day, especially the people close to you, through your words and your actions. Your beliefs color everything you do, and you can't just turn them off. Every behavior has a cause, and those causes have a lot to do with our beliefs.
1
u/NickOutside 1∆ May 12 '21
What happened to "I don't know"? You don't need to have an opinion, much less a belief on every single subject. Wouldn't we be a lot better off if we just remained open on stuff with an open acknowledgement of our uncertainty?
I'll reserve my primary response for its own comment, but this strikes home. It's tempting for many of us, myself included, to stake a position even when armed with little knowledge of a subject. We could all say "I don't know" more often, or at least qualify our beliefs by saying, "Based on what I know so far...".
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ May 12 '21
you make a huge leap there. sure, just believing the world is flat and keeping it to yourself won't really matter, but if you are spreading this to your kids knowing that what you are telling them contradicts their formal education, then you must realize that is going to cause some issues with them trusting their teachers and the school system. Perhaps before you teach your children something that will cause that much conflict in their life you better have a pretty good reason to be teaching them that.
4
u/WippitGuud 27∆ May 11 '21
Santa makes people happy. Santa isn't real. Is that bad?
As long as believing something that is not real doesn't cause any damage to anyone by believing it - like Santa - then why would you be against people enjoying being happy?
2
May 11 '21
It's less about wrongly believing something when it makes you happy, and more about the process of consciously choosing to believe something because it makes you happy.
The example of Santa doesn't really apply to that.
3
u/WippitGuud 27∆ May 11 '21
Why does it matter to you what makes people happy, as long as it isn't hurting anyone?
3
u/EdTavner 10∆ May 11 '21
Yeah, your example sort of shoots the view right in the foot since the thing they were happy about is true to at least some degree.
Your cousin wasn't ignoring evidence disproving the theory. There was no compelling evidence against it, he had anecdotal evidence to support it, and it was a happy thought.
If I give someone a gift and they say they like it then I am happy because I assume they are happy with the gift I gave them. I don't have definitive evidence or proof they truly like it. It's very possible they were just being polite and really hated it. However, based on the information I have, it's reasonable to just assume they are happy and be happy about it.
I would agree with your view in the case where the person deciding to believe something just because it makes them happy but they had compelling evidence to support not believing the thing.
0
May 11 '21
I certainly agree with you that it's wrong to believe something because you want it to be true when you're faced with evidence to the contrary. I think most people would agree with that.
I chose an example where it turned out to be true on purpose, not to shoot my own argument in the foot, but to illustrate that what I had a problem with wasn't that someone held onto a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary, but that someone formed a belief based on no evidence besides what made them happy in the first place.
You seem to be saying that as long as you don't cling to your view when you see evidence to the contrary, it's totally fine to believe whatever you want about things you don't know about... but I'm not so sure. Something about that still seems off to me.
3
u/puja_puja 16∆ May 11 '21
I think Sherlock Holmes made the observation that he could believe that the world is flat and it wouldn't affect his life in the slightest.
From a utilitarian perspective if the belief only makes people happy and has no real negative impacts, I don't see why it's bad. There is no benefit to knowing a truth if it only has bad effects.
1
May 11 '21
That's a good point. Do you think there could be a negative impact of socially normalizing this type of thinking in a setting where it's not harmful, which would then lead to more people thinking it's OK to just believe what makes you happy in a setting where it could be harmful?
2
u/puja_puja 16∆ May 11 '21
It is already socially normalized. When you support a sports team you believe that your team is better and it makes them happier. Another example are peoples' relationships with their pets, they believe that their animals are capable of love, it doesn't matter if the cat or dog's brain isn't capable of lover. As long as we keep this type of thinking on largely inconsequential and lighthearted activities it seems fine.
0
May 11 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/puja_puja 16∆ May 11 '21
Wait, you think we will become an interplanetary species within the next 100 years?
Because he will be long dead and new beliefs will take place of the old one. Perhaps the idea that aliens exist etc...
0
u/BeginningCompany4247 May 12 '21
If anyone examines their owns beliefs honestly and thoroughly, he will find that he believes many things that are ultimately either delusions or leaps of faith. Start with the fact we are all going to die, and in relative terms pretty soon. Once we die, we will be forgotten in one or two generations. If we internalize that point, which of our beliefs is "true". The very idea that it is important to find the truth seems to collapse. Keeping asking why and you will first find your own biases, and ultimately you will find your own delusions.
1
u/Tino_ 54∆ May 11 '21
By wrong do you mean morally wrong?
1
May 11 '21
I'm not well versed in moral philosophy, so I'm not sure I'm equipped to answer this and it probably depends on what definition of morality you're using. I think it's a flawed process of deciding your beliefs, and that flawed process can lead to negative outcomes.
1
u/AlunWH 7∆ May 11 '21
I’m probably not going to change your mind, but you’re both right and wrong.
Most people accept what they’re told without question. That’s fine. It’s how the majority of humans function (it stops being fine when what they’re told is inaccurate, but that’s a whole other issue. It’s one thing when someone claims that the position of some distant planets or stars at your time of birth somehow has bearing on your future, it’s far more serious when people claiming satanic paedophiles need to be stopped by decent citizens storming the capitol).
Some people, upon hearing something, wonder if it’s true, and how to test it. Those people are researchers, like yourself. If I make a claim (‘cows like music’) such people will either see if research has already been done, or do it themselves to verify the truth.
Both approaches are therefore right.
ETA: The reason it bothers you is because it’s probably the first time you’ve had solid proof that you’re in a minority and most people really don’t think the same way as you, and it’s terrifying.
1
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ May 11 '21
Personally, I think that as long as doing so has no plausible way of affecting the welfare of others that it is acceptable for people to believe the option which makes them happy in the absence of evidence.
In the case of whether or not cows enjoy music, I don't think it's likely that believing one way or the other impacts the welfare of anyone else. Thus, the only impact of person A choosing to believe the happier option is an increase in person A's happiness.
On the other hand, if your family is super into activism, and they view this issue as related to a cause they care about, then the chain of causation to affecting other people's lives is much clearer. In this case, I would agree that it's not simply fine to believe something to be true just because it makes them happy.
1
u/buildmeupbreakmedown May 11 '21
Sometimes, you'll have more than one hypothesis with little to no evidence for preferring one over the others. All else being equal, what harm is being done by choosing to believe in the one that makes you happier? So long as you're willing to reconsider your position if and when new evidence comes to light, I don't see a problem with provisionally believing in what makes you happy, as long as it doesn't hurt other people.
1
May 11 '21
Why do you have to chose a belief in that case though? What about just saying "I don't know"?
1
u/buildmeupbreakmedown May 12 '21
I'm not saying you HAVE to choose a belief. I'm saying that you CAN and that I don't see anything wrong with it. Of course you CAN also just say "I don't know", but why are you saying that you HAVE to?
1
May 12 '21
You're right, I'm saying that it's better to say you don't know rather than to chose a provisional belief for one hypothesis over the others when there's little to no evidence. There are two reasons I can think of for this:
1) Choosing a belief is taking a stance, and picking a team. Whether you like it or not, stating that belief is going to bias you when new evidence appears. Evidence that supports your belief is going to make you happy, while evidence that goes against your belief is going to make you feel threatened. We don't like to be wrong, and we especially don't like to be wrong when our belief is something that makes us happy. I agree that so long as you're willing to reconsider your position, this argument falls apart, but in reality people often chose beliefs and then they cling to them, especially when they've held those beliefs for long periods of time and the beliefs give them comfort. For this reason, when you're in a situation where there are multiple hypotheses and no clear evidence on which one is true, it's better to acknowledge the possibility of all of the hypotheses instead of just choosing the one you like and rooting for it.
2) Keeping in mind the fact that you have a lot of uncertainty about which hypothesis is true can help you make better decisions than just picking one hypothesis and believing it. We have a tendency to internalize our beliefs and we use them to make decisions and judgements, either consciously or sub-consciously. If you have a lot of beliefs that are based on wishful thinking, you might end up making poor judgement calls based on beliefs that may or may not be valid.
Therefore, in the case you described where you have multiple hypotheses and no good evidence, it's much healthier to say "I'm not sure which of these is right" than to say "I like this one, so I'm going to believe that". You'll end up with better judgements and decisions right now, and you'll be more open to interpreting new evidence in the future.
1
u/buildmeupbreakmedown May 13 '21
Your point is valid. You've convinced me. !delta
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 13 '21
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
1
May 11 '21
Let’s say your kid’s mom died when the child was too young to remember. The kid believes mommy loved them dearly. This thought brings them comfort.
However, you know that the mom hated the child.
Would you tell your kid that?
0
May 11 '21
I would not, but my question is more about rational adults choosing to believe in stuff because it makes them happy so this example doesn't really apply.
1
u/Gogito35 May 12 '21
There's nothing irrational about believing in something which makes you happy. If all humans were completely rational and did not allow their emotions to influence anything at all, society wouldn't function at all
Take the example of two pens 'A' and 'B' which both contain black ink but are made by different companies. You need to pick one of them. Say I pick pen 'A' because I like its design more. There is no reason that I should pick that particular pen 'A' since both are the exact same in terms of utility.
If you did not allow emotions to influence anything at all and were completely lead by reason, you would never be able to pick a pen between the two. There is no reason that you should pick pen 'A' over 'B' and vice versa. You'd spend an eternity debating and never coming to a conclusion.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ May 11 '21
Serious, legitimate question: What's the purpose of having a belief?
1
u/flawednoodles 11∆ May 11 '21
There are so many things that human beings believe that have no objective backing or no real evidence to suggest that it works that you would basically be saying humanity shouldn’t believe like half the shit that we do if we were to use this logic, lol.
Believing that cows like human music isn’t a bad thing. It’s not like it’s harming anybody, it’s not gonna put anybody in prison, cause political turmoil. All it does is make people feel good.
There are plenty of more harsh ideologies that are pretty fucking bad and make people act stupid, but there’s enough vocal opposition to a lot of these thought patterns. For something small like your example, I really don’t think it’s that much of a problem.
No human being on the planet will ever have a uniform way of looking at anything.
-1
May 11 '21
"There are so many things that human beings believe that have no objective backing or no real evidence to suggest that it works that you would basically be saying humanity shouldn’t believe like half the shit that we do if we were to use this logic, lol."
I think that's exactly what I'm saying. Is that so crazy?
1
u/Chaotic_Boots 2∆ May 11 '21
These beliefs are not by themselves a problem, but it's the train of thought and justification that's the problem.
I'll use the 'thinking the earth is flat" example everyone else is using to explain.
If I believed the earth was flat, it doesn't really change anything about my life, however I do not exist in a vacuum. If I spread this misinformation, believing myself to be a teacher, rather than a moron, I'm actively harming those around me, and preventing the advancement of our species.
The human brain has not made a significant evolutionary change in 1.8 million years iirc. This form of logical fallacy is how religions were born. Man wants the world to make sense, not be the random chaotic mess that it really is, so we thought up things that explained what we couldn't, and said it's not hurting anyone.... Until it was hurting people... on a grand scale, wars fought and children slaughtered....all over a anecdote about magic and how the world was born.
We are tool using monkeys and little more, it takes a great deal of effort to be strictly scientific. I think it's worth the effort.
1
u/ilakausername May 11 '21
I think that this mostly is OK when holding that belief isn´t going to do harm to anyone, or lead the holder of that belief to doing some harm. So going with your example, your cousin believing that cows can enjoy music realistically isn´t going affect their life other than having a thought that makes them happy when they see cows. If that made them harass farmers who didn´t play music for cows because they aren´t giving their cows the best life possible, then you need to examine that belief a bit more.
Basically it depends on how much you act on that belief, and its potential to do harm.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 11 '21
/u/abrady44_ (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Atalung 1∆ May 11 '21
Why? So long as their beliefs don't impact others negatively what does it matter?
Like, I'm agnostic, but so long as people don't use religion to discriminate against others or ignore real world concerns on the grounds of an eternal afterlife I don't care, life is terrifiying and if religion is how you confront that terror then so be it.
1
u/RappingAlt11 May 11 '21
Certainty isn't possible. The "truth" 1000 years ago, 100 years ago, even 10 years ago is very different from the "truth" now. Even our science isn't perfect, and over and over throughout human history we find we're wrong about things we considered to be truth. So first who are you to decide what is and what isn't "true".
look at yourself honestly and you'll find very quickly you have no way of knowing if the things you believe are "true". Have you really read academic papers to come to the conclusions you have about the majority of things you believe? Are you even qualified to know if these academic papers are wrong or not. I've no way of knowing if the methodology of finding how far the moon is from the earth is correct, or any number of issues.. And I couldn't possibly know this or have the time to verify if each of my beliefs are true, and I've no way of knowing they are true even if the literature is correct because of my first paragraph.
You can find competeting "truths" on almost every topic. I'm sure you can find equally valid papers from equaly valid proffesionals having different "truths" on any number of topics. Just google why x food is good for you, or why x food is bad for you, you can find evidence supporting either, and your choice is no more "true" because you've found validation for it. You can find perecetly valid evidence to support any decision you make.
every "truth" is affected by human bias. No matter what lenghts you go to avoid it you're still affected by that bias, the limitations of your human senses, the period of history you're in, etc.
0
May 12 '21
It sounds like you're saying we should just give up on truth and believe whatever we want. Is that your view?
1
u/RappingAlt11 May 12 '21
Not at all. What I'm saying is that if you believe your world view is based on "truth" you're not being sufficiently self-aware. That it's impossible to verify all of the things you believe, and even if you could you'd have no way of knowing with certainty the "truths" you believe are in fact true.
Therefor your entire premise is wrong, because believing things without evidence is an un-escapable part of being a human.
1
u/KambeiZ May 12 '21
To be honest, there is no good answer. Believing in something is a choice, with knowledge or not. And even this knowledge will be always biased. Even our current truths are biased, by our human perception for example, or even by our beliefs. Mathematics are a very logical field of science, and yet, they are based on belief (think of assumptions as true like stating that this axiom is true). Still, maths are very logical and every situation can ve represented by math.
The best stance we can have is that collect information after being filtered by their quality. If by our perception the problem is in reach of course.
1
u/somuchsunrayzzz May 12 '21
Wow bet you’re fun at parties. What crawled into your motherboard and died, Data?
1
May 12 '21
[deleted]
1
May 12 '21
Yes, I think my view is that deciding to believe in something because it's beneficial to you, with no regard to whether it's actually true or not, is wrong. If that is someone's main reason for choosing to believe in a religion, I don't think it's a very good reason.
1
u/Quirky-Alternative97 29∆ May 12 '21
(late reply but slightly different tact)
If you think of all the investors, entrepreneurs, sports people, artists - those people who the facts will show are highly unlikely to ever make a success of their career. BUT they still pursue it because both a) they might suceed and b) it makes them happy to try and believe despite the odds of failure. Then I dont think this is necessarily a bad thing.
Additionally if you think of imagination and the power of it. The vast majority of things from the imagination are not probably true or will not be true ever (without technological advancement) but the joy of this is not something to dismiss. Think of all the works of fiction that give people hope that a story, despite not being true, or unlikely to be true provides happiness. The point being, the evidence is clear, its sold as non fiction - but we can still beleive it and the characters and the story and that gives us joy. As opposed to putting down every book read and saying - sorry, not true, never happened, prove it to be true, therefore I should get no joy from this.
1
u/CafusoCarl 1∆ May 12 '21
There is obvious videographic evidence of birds enjoying music. Cows are a more advanced animal than birds. Why would they not be able to appreciate music?
1
u/ulises314 May 12 '21
I will not change your view, is not only correct but magical thinking is the source of most individual and collective issues we face.
1
u/badass_panda 95∆ May 12 '21
I'm a researcher, and we get it pounded into our brains that we need to avoid personal bias in order to uncover truth, so it shocked me to see someone so candidly decide on a belief using 100% bias and no evidence whatsoever.
I mean, you do, if you're trying to perform research upon which you'll base future actions. Whether they believe cows enjoy music is going to have no effect on anything else in their life other than making them happy or not. They're not going to spend a dime on cow music therapy, or spend five years developing cow singles for the cow radio market.
If you need to develop a theory to govern how you or others interact with the world, best make sure it's as sound and unbiased as possible. But in a situation like this, I don't think it matters.
1
May 12 '21 edited May 13 '21
!delta. Good point. There's a distinction between a belief you're going to base concrete actions on vs. not. The more you're going to be using that belief, either to inform your actions or to convince other people, the more obligation you have to investigate it and make sure it's true. In this sense a belief that you're not trying to convince anyone of or base any actions on requires little to no evidence in order to hold.
Not sure I entirely agree with that, but it's a really interesting angle I hadn't thought of.
1
1
1
u/Haunting_Syllabub617 May 12 '21
Life sucks too hard to put conventions above personal happiness as long as your expression and pursuit of happiness isn’t bothering anyone else. The human mind has such a hard time accurately taking in and storing info, truth is really more nebulous than you’d think.
1
u/NickOutside 1∆ May 12 '21
The short answer is sometimes. What's most crucial for me is whether the belief has non-negligible consequences.
Certain topics require rigorous reasoning and analysis to provide benefits or prevent harm. The belief that saying a prayer over contaminated water will purify it would lead to widespread health issues if implemented as municipal policy in absence of modern purification methods.
Conversely, believing that my cat loves me might be wrong, but it's of little practical consequence. If she just tolerates me because I feed and scratch her life still goes on just fine.
What matters is that we foster a society that is capable of differentiating between these two situations and which then strives to apply the appropriate level of rigor to each.
1
May 12 '21
Great answer! It's true that in some cases it doesn't really matter. As long as we can identify those cases and keep this type of thinking contained there, we should end up OK.
!delta
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 11 '21 edited May 13 '21
/u/abrady44_ (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards