Forming vs testing our beliefs

[bunny]

I’ve mentioned this before in side-tracks, but would be curious what people think.

An atheist friend of mine claimed the other day that he doesn’t have any irrational beliefs. In defending that, he maintained that on every issue he considers the evidence available to him (requiring more stringent evidence for controversial claims) and then forms a belief – refusing to believe one way or the other if the evidence is inconclusive. I don’t think this is correct – I think he is confusing how he evaluates his beliefs (by rationally evaluating evidence) with how he forms them (a process which I believe he has far less control over than he is aware).

The first example I gave him was his belief that his home was at such-and-such street. He maintained that he believed that because he had seen the streetsigns, driven there often, seen bills addressed to him that were delivered there, etc etc. I maintain that this process of looking at evidence only occurred once I questioned the belief and challenged him to justify it. In actually forming the belief he did none of this – he just discovered he believed it when asked a strange question “Where do you believe you live?”

The second example I gave was an experience I had several times during my days as a mathematician. It happened when I read some paper demonstrating a result which surprised me. Now given that it was a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable maths journal, I had good, rational grounds for believing it’s claim. Nonetheless my initial response was something like “Nonsense – I bet I can find a counterexample.”

The next step would be skim-reading the paper. This step doesn’t really achieve much other than familiarise myself with the kinds of areas of maths that are involved, any major results it relies on, etc etc. At the conclusion of this step I have even more evidence, yet I still don’t really believe the result.

Next comes actually checking every step (or at least the ones which aren’t intuitively obvious). This takes the bulk of the time as often the arguments are new and I’m not really clear where the whole thing is going. At the conclusion of this process, I really should have no doubt in the result as I have personally checked the author’s working as have a bunch of qualified reviewers. Nonetheless, it is often the case that I haven’t yet “seen” the argument as a whole. If pressed I would probably say something like “Well it must be true, but I just don’t believe it”.

The final step is usually an Aha! moment which comes on the second careful reading. Alternatively, I use the result in some way and see how it fits in with other theorems. At this point – I completely believe the result. It is a fundamental shift and often quite striking. Usually at that stage I feel completely dense that I didn’t get it earlier and take great pleasure in running around explaining it to anyone who will listen.

Anyhow – my claim is that my believing the result is something much more subtle than evaluating evidence. There are several stages where I have enough evidence to conclude it is true – yet belief takes something internal. Then when I finally DO believe, it is not in response to any new evidence, but rather to a clarification in my own mind. Of course, when I justify my newfound belief – it is all about the evidence, but it’s not how I form it (or not solely how it is formed anyhow).

Do you think it is semantics? (ie that I really do believe much earlier in the process, I just don’t understand or something?)

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyhow – my claim is that my believing the result is something much more subtle than evaluating evidence. There are several stages where I have enough evidence to conclude it is true – yet belief takes something internal. Then when I finally DO believe, it is not in response to any new evidence, but rather to a clarification in my own mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it possible that the process has more to do with the destruction of an old belief than the acceptance of a new one? The reason I ask, is when you first encountered the equation f=ma, didn't you look at the evidence that supported and explained the equation, rather than looking for evidence that would disprove it?

At least as far as your atheist friend is concerned, I think his idea is that it is easier to learn from ignorance than from error. With the former, you simply have to fill the cup, with the latter, you have to empty first.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible that the process has more to do with the destruction of an old belief than the acceptance of a new one?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is the cause of my reluctance I dont think so though. Surprising mathematical results are not always overturning a belief I held, often it's merely showing a connection I never imagined.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I ask, is when you first encountered the equation f=ma, didn't you look at the evidence that supported and explained the equation, rather than looking for evidence that would disprove it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I only had evidence which supported it (in the form of my physics teacher) although I always found it amusing that the experimental results of my undergraduate physics never matched what the theory would predict - we just waved our hands and said "friction...experimental error...etc". I only took experimental physics cos I had to - then we ignored it when it contradicted our theory anyhow.

In passing, I've never seen an explanation for F=ma, it's just presented as a brute fact about the world.

[Skidoo]

Is one's reasoning process itself derived through a process of reason?

You can see where I'm going with that.

[Praxis101]

A quote from Nietzsche comes to mind (only because Nietzsche one of the very few authors I've read): learning is the process of making the conscious unconscious. I think this is where the evaluation/formation line comes about. The conscious considerations must still become incorporated into the individual's system of thought. Consciousness only extends so far - we can't force acceptance within ourselves. We've only got so much control.

Consciousness can evaluate and produce models, but the models don't apply unless the unconsious mind (the animal) accepts them as valid. I think sleep plays a major role in this process - organization of thoughts. The prefrontal cortex (I think) is the simulation center of the brain - where the mind can experience without the physical body. I suppose - because consciousness is so weak during this phase - that the unconscious mind simulates experience and integrates/organizes conscious considerations during sleep.

The math makes logical sense, the ideas appear plausible and evidence suggests validity of the ideas: the model has been rationally formed. Integration is now possible. At some phase of sleep - or other periods of strong unconscious activity - these considerations will either integrated into one's own nature or rejected.

Perhaps nature is a poor choice of words... second nature might be what I'm looking for.



Basically, I think the formation of belief is less linear, less straightforward, and takes time to sink -in/"digest."

and

[ QUOTE ]
The first example I gave him was his belief that his home was at such-and-such street. He maintained that he believed that because he had seen the streetsigns, driven there often, seen bills addressed to him that were delivered there, etc etc. I maintain that this process of looking at evidence only occurred once I questioned the belief and challenged him to justify it. In actually forming the belief he did none of this – he just discovered he believed it when asked a strange question “Where do you believe you live?”

[/ QUOTE ]
This is right on. Consciousness needs a trigger of some kind to evaluate the already-formed belief.

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible that the process has more to do with the destruction of an old belief than the acceptance of a new one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this -
This method keeps things simpler. The more deeply beliefs are founded, and the more complex the systems of beliefs become intertwined: the harder it becomes to integrate and re-evaluate new potential beliefs. If the acceptance of one belief must force the reconstruction of a host of already-existing beliefs, the entire process becomes quite involved (less simple.) Part of the process of forming beliefs is the interconnection between all of the beliefs: considering the implications of each one to form general knowledge.


[ QUOTE ]
I think his idea is that it is easier to learn from ignorance than from error. With the former, you simply have to fill the cup, with the latter, you have to empty first.

[/ QUOTE ]
Filling the cup works to some extent; however, the cup may become full only to find that the glass has a huge crack [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

When you've got lots of little cups, adding/subtracting the fluid becomes simpler, smoother, and less painful! Perhaps, in this sense, personal education should focus in-part and largely on challenging existing beliefs, simplifying the entire process (+EV in the longrun IMO [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])