For ChrisV

[bunny]

Since it seemed quite off topic and I'd be interested in your thoughts...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is also entirely possible (and I would think very likely) that you have a whole bunch of beliefs which arent derived from evidence - I'm thinking of the consequences of cultural, political, psychological or emotional differences that exist between people for example. My comment arose from considering this situation. The question then is, what would happen if one of those was pointed out to you? I'd be skeptical of anyone claiming the ability to "switch off" a belief if they suddenly became aware that there was a gap in their evidence chain (though I expect it would gradually disappear over time).

[/ QUOTE ]

There are beliefs that I hold that don't have anything to do with the objective world. For instance, I believe that it is good to refrain from hurting people for no reason. That belief is concerning a subjective judgement, not an objective fact. To my knowledge (excluding axiomatic beliefs such as that there exists an objective world at all) I don't hold any beliefs about the objective world which I realise are unsupported by evidence. You can suggest some possible ones I might hold if you think I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
[As an aside: I think the category of axiomatic beliefs is important to recognise, even though I would agree with you (I think) that such beliefs are inevitable and that all we can do is make the set as small as possible.]

With regard to some possible, specific examples, it's hard given that I hardly know you. As a start perhaps consider a couple of situations - these arent intended to be examples of what I was talking about, but they will hopefully lead there.

Have you been in a situation where you hear bad things about a person you like and you have a "Oh I cant believe they'd do that" response? Sure you may be able to justify your position through the use of evidence (ie your history with them) but I would suggest that's not how you form the view.

You start work in a new place, slightly out of your depth, with a one-week handover with the guy before you who bombards you with processes, procedures, etcetera together with a hodge-podge of justifications for why this is the best way to do it. Over time, you settle into the job, make the improvements you think are required as to how it should be done to boost efficiencey/accuracy/whatever is required by the job and you leave other procedures the same. Several years later, you leave and, in the handover to the next guy, he queries some of the processes that have survived from your predecessor. Would you think that some of your justification for why it seems best is just that you got into the habit of doing it that way and not that you actually sat down and critically evaluated every single one on the evidence?

Someone you respect and admire, with a better memory than you disagrees on some personal interaction between you. You can remember it, clear as day, being fundamentally different than how he recounts it. Have you been in the situation where you (at least intially) stubbornly persist in your version of events, even though the other guy is more usually right than you (or perhaps even though there are several people telling you you're wrong)?

With all of these situations, I think one can eventually realise that the evidence doesnt support your beliefs and then change them. However, I dont think it happens with a snap of the fingers as soon as you review the evidence. The class of beliefs I am referring to are those we have formed for other reasons (because it is inefficient to evaluate evidence every single time - rather we form mental habits as shortcuts) and havent yet realised are incorrect, even though we have been presented with the evidence which will eventually persuade us.

[As a second aside, there is also the class we believe, despite contradicting evidence, because we havent yet got around to looking into it and noticing that the evidence contradicts our belief. I think these are important to recognise too, though your initial claim regarded knowingly believing which excludes this class.]

[David Sklansky]

These tough questions go to Tom Cowley now.

[TomCowley]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you been in a situation where you hear bad things about a person you like and you have a "Oh I cant believe they'd do that" response? Sure you may be able to justify your position through the use of evidence (ie your history with them) but I would suggest that's not how you form the view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming the person telling you the story has any credibility with you, then the story *is* evidence. It's not as strong as firsthand evidence, but it still changes the price. If the person telling you the story is known as a total BSer, has an obvious agenda, or is just flat out mentally insane, then the price would change very little, if at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Someone you respect and admire, with a better memory than you disagrees on some personal interaction between you. You can remember it, clear as day, being fundamentally different than how he recounts it. Have you been in the situation where you (at least intially) stubbornly persist in your version of events, even though the other guy is more usually right than you (or perhaps even though there are several people telling you you're wrong)?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all evidence. The fact that the guy remembers it differently changes the price. His confidence in his version changes the price more. Any independent corroboration changes the price even further. Eventually the price will be that you're most likely wrong. It doesn't occur instantly or without some emotional response, as it's normal human tendency to question things that contradict your beliefs much more than things that confirm them.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you been in a situation where you hear bad things about a person you like and you have a "Oh I cant believe they'd do that" response? Sure you may be able to justify your position through the use of evidence (ie your history with them) but I would suggest that's not how you form the view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming the person telling you the story has any credibility with you, then the story *is* evidence. It's not as strong as firsthand evidence, but it still changes the price. If the person telling you the story is known as a total BSer, has an obvious agenda, or is just flat out mentally insane, then the price would change very little, if at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Someone you respect and admire, with a better memory than you disagrees on some personal interaction between you. You can remember it, clear as day, being fundamentally different than how he recounts it. Have you been in the situation where you (at least intially) stubbornly persist in your version of events, even though the other guy is more usually right than you (or perhaps even though there are several people telling you you're wrong)?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all evidence. The fact that the guy remembers it differently changes the price. His confidence in his version changes the price more. Any independent corroboration changes the price even further. Eventually the price will be that you're most likely wrong. It doesn't occur instantly or without some emotional response, as it's normal human tendency to question things that contradict your beliefs much more than things that confirm them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are essentially reiterating my point. There are situations where we believe something to be true, even though we are in possession of evidence which will eventually persuade us to alter that belief. Thus, no matter how rational you are - there are some things you currently believe even though the evidence you have available to you indicates you shouldnt. (Because of time required to assimilate the evidence, emotional attachment to an idea, habits of thought, etcetera etcetera)

[TomCowley]

Agreed. There's a difference between believing something even though evidence to the contrary is available and still believing something after doing a serious evaluation of that evidence.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you been in a situation where you hear bad things about a person you like and you have a "Oh I cant believe they'd do that" response? Sure you may be able to justify your position through the use of evidence (ie your history with them) but I would suggest that's not how you form the view.

You start work in a new place, slightly out of your depth, with a one-week handover with the guy before you who bombards you with processes, procedures, etcetera together with a hodge-podge of justifications for why this is the best way to do it. Over time, you settle into the job, make the improvements you think are required as to how it should be done to boost efficiencey/accuracy/whatever is required by the job and you leave other procedures the same. Several years later, you leave and, in the handover to the next guy, he queries some of the processes that have survived from your predecessor. Would you think that some of your justification for why it seems best is just that you got into the habit of doing it that way and not that you actually sat down and critically evaluated every single one on the evidence?

Someone you respect and admire, with a better memory than you disagrees on some personal interaction between you. You can remember it, clear as day, being fundamentally different than how he recounts it. Have you been in the situation where you (at least intially) stubbornly persist in your version of events, even though the other guy is more usually right than you (or perhaps even though there are several people telling you you're wrong)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is all missing the point a little - there's no question that I hold incorrect beliefs. It is also very likely that ego or force of habit prevents me from recognising that my beliefs are unsupported by evidence. What I can't do is simultaneously hold in my mind a belief and also the notion that I have no reason to hold that belief. I can certainly be wrong; I can even be wrong after I've been exposed to evidence which contradicts my beliefs. But I can't know that my beliefs have no basis.

[ QUOTE ]
With all of these situations, I think one can eventually realise that the evidence doesnt support your beliefs and then change them. However, I dont think it happens with a snap of the fingers as soon as you review the evidence. The class of beliefs I am referring to are those we have formed for other reasons (because it is inefficient to evaluate evidence every single time - rather we form mental habits as shortcuts) and havent yet realised are incorrect, even though we have been presented with the evidence which will eventually persuade us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - but that's my point. After my brain manages to absorb and process that evidence, then my beliefs will change. Unless I am misunderstanding your beliefs, what you are saying is that you realise you have no basis for believing that there is a God, but believe it anyway.

I think I understand what this might be like. A few years ago I suffered from panic attacks and generalised anxiety subsequent to recreational drug use. If I were experiencing anxiety about something, I think it would be possible for it to be logically demonstrated to me that I had nothing to worry about and yet continue to worry about it. Under normal circumstances though, I don't think anything like this is possible.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is all missing the point a little - there's no question that I hold incorrect beliefs. It is also very likely that ego or force of habit prevents me from recognising that my beliefs are unsupported by evidence. What I can't do is simultaneously hold in my mind a belief and also the notion that I have no reason to hold that belief. I can certainly be wrong; I can even be wrong after I've been exposed to evidence which contradicts my beliefs. But I can't know that my beliefs have no basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I understood your initial claim it was that you dont knowingly hold any beliefs unsupported by evidence. The scenarios I suggested were instances where I think people in general do form beliefs for other reasons (typically mental shortcuts of one version or another). I think rational people often confuse how they justify beliefs with how they form them. If you were challenged on any belief (including ones similar to those I mentioned) I have no doubt you would justify them with reference to evidence. Should you become aware that it was not well justified, your belief would no doubt shift - although it wouldnt be instantaneous. My contention is that the process of forming them is different and furthermore that there are a whole bunch of beliefs (some correct, some false) which you currently hold irrespective of any evidence you have for or against. You've been led to them by virtue of mental shortcuts and have just never examined why you believe them. I understand that should you examine them and find them groundless, they wouldnt remain beliefs for very long.

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed - but that's my point. After my brain manages to absorb and process that evidence, then my beliefs will change. Unless I am misunderstanding your beliefs, what you are saying is that you realise you have no basis for believing that there is a God, but believe it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not quite - I do have a basis, but it's very weak evidence and even worse admits of a much simpler explanation (or three). To be clear though, I'm not trying to say "See, you atheists do it too!" since I dare say if you had a belief challenged for which you could find no objective support you would abandon it very rapidly. That hasnt happened to me in the "God makes funny feelings in my head" belief.

I think belief forming and changing is more complicated than people generally give credit for. I dont think it's as simple as "Only believe something if there's evidence" - I dont know anyone who does this (though concede you may only continue believing something if there's evidence). From time to time a post on this board comes up setting out belief forming as some sort of difference between atheists and theists. I think it's more correct to identify a difference in how persistent our beliefs are. (Perhaps trivial, but I think important).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
As I understood your initial claim it was that you dont knowingly hold any beliefs unsupported by evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he knows that he holds beliefs unsupported by evidence, but he doesn't hold any belief that he knows is unsupported by evidence. The claim could be interpreted in either way.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I understood your initial claim it was that you dont knowingly hold any beliefs unsupported by evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he knows that he holds beliefs unsupported by evidence, but he doesn't hold any belief that he knows is unsupported by evidence. The claim could be interpreted in either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm beginning to see it that way too - perhaps I was jumping at shadows.

[KikoSanchez]

Many people believe you can justifiedly hold beliefs with non-evidential support. The opposite (evidentialists) would claim:
You have a justified belief that P iff you believe P on the basis of undefeated evidence for P.

So, in our case there is an important distinction we must understand between unsupported and undefeated evidence.