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.]