Slashdot Mirror
[Why] Smart People Believe Weird Things
LeBain writes "This Sep. 2002 Scientific American article on 'confirmation bias' and why people believe in the paranormal reminds us, 'we need to teach that science is not a database of unconnected factoids but a set of methods designed to describe and interpret phenomena.'"
Belief should require evidence.
Then it wouldn't be 'belief' it would be 'knowledge'.
Are you trolling or stupid, AC?
I don't think we believe everything unless it can be proven wrong--I think it's more a matter of whether it can be proven. There is no proof of extraterrestrials or that we're not alone in the universe. But at some point, it can and will be proven. We will discover other beings (or more likely, evidence of their existense) or we won't. At some point, our we will have explored enough of the universe to know one way or the other. Granted we're a really long damn way from that point, but ultimately we will get there. No amount of time or exploration will provide proof either either way on God--either people believe in God or they don't--to an agnostic, it is unprovable. steve snyder
Vote Quimby.
He told us that when he was an undergrad, he got a job reading people's palms. Being an intelligent person, he at first thought it was silly and didn't believe it, but he needed the money. His employer gave him a book that described how to read palms by following a simple recipe.
He was of course leary with his first customer. He was sure he'd be accused of fraud. Nevertheless, he followed the recipe and read the guys palm. He was amazed that the customer was so enthusiastic about how accurate the reading was. This filled Ray with more confidence, and in no time he was convinced that this was working. All his customers were convinced by his readings, so he had no reason to believe they weren't accurate.
When he told a friend about how it really worked, his friend suggested that, for his next customer, he give the exact opposite reading that the book suggested. He did so, probably just as nervous as his first reading, expecting the customer to reject what he was saying. But, sure enough, the customer was impressed at how accurate the reading was. He did this again with the next few customers and soon realized it didn't really matter what he was saying. People were always able to connect his vague readings with something in their own lives.
I remember another study where students were asked to fill out a small survey. The professor then reviewed all the surveys and gave each student a customized personality profile. The students were asked the rate the profiles, and all gave them very high rankings.
The professor then asked each student to pass his profile to the student behind them (person in back passes to the front). In an instant, every student realized that they were all given identical profiles.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Similarly, it's becoming clear that humans are sensitive to pheromones, so there could be a whole realm of 'sixth sense' communication that skeptical-correctness has been unwilling to allow for. [some old thoughts on 'vibes']
Most people's exposure to science are those 30 second quips: "Scientists/doctors have discovered such and such...".
but that's science's ugliest side. the part of science that's been contracted to do studies which are no more than thinly veiled marketing efforts, which use the scientists as seemingly trustworthy information sources.
As a result of such research not being done in the true sense of research, over time it becomes obvious to a lot of non-scientific people that what they hear is often just a bunch of crap.
So if the much science one is exposed to is false people won't trust it so much to try to get a grasp of the things in life that are hard to understand.
It's ironic for science to scoff at the public's superstitions since superstition and dishonest science are equally inneffective towards describing/predicting the ways of things.
many people turn to religion to explain the unexplainabkle, but unfortunately religion is flawed, religion can be disproven,
i dont believe the bible because there is proof that many of those things didn't happen, if there wasn't proof that things didn't happen i might be inclined to believe them, personally i think theres some higher power, not necisaraly god, but something
I'm a die-hard atheist and hostile towards religion in general but I'm actually going to have to stick up for religion here. I'm not sure what your definition of religion is but it sounds like you are equating religion with "literal interpretation of the Bible" and that's just plain wrong. My understanding of relgion is that it is really more a way of living your life and contemplating your relation to the world around you. There are scores of Christians who consider themselves religious even though they don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Religion attempts to provide answers for questions that science is not designed to address such as "Is there a God?", "What is the meaning of life?", "Why should I be a good person?" and so forth. Science and religion can co-exist. However, religion should not attempt to explain the natural world and science should not encroach on theological questions.
In fact, I would argue that your "i think theres some higher power" statement means that you are religious (just not a fundamentalist Christian) even though you take great pains too separate yourselves from the faithful. Non-relgious people, such as myself, do NOT believe in any higher power.
but we cant really disprove ufos, ghosts etc
That's true but the burden of proof is on those who believe in such things. And that proof better be damn convincing. As Carl Sagan used to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's not up to scientists to disprove extraterrestial anal rapes, healing crystals, haunted houses, and so forth.
I'm no big fan of religion (and that's an understandment). But your statements about religion show a pretty big misunderstanding of what religion attempts to do for people.
GMD
watch this
One of my major complaints about the teaching of science in western academia is that it is taught without any reference to the history of science.
As an undergraduate, I was in a class that was mostly full of astrophysics grad students. One day in class, the topic of Galileo's confrontation with Rome came up. An astro student in the class raised her hand and asked "so, are you saying that there was some sort of conflict between religion and science?" Now, maybe I'm just being elitist, but shouldn't someone who is well along the road to becoming a professional scientist be aware of some of the basic history of the field?
Really, though, that's exactly the problem. Not only is the history of science not taught at the high school level, but it is unusual for working scientists to have any knowledge of the history of their own discipline, except perhaps from the last 25 or so years.
Unfortunately, when you have such a near-sighted understanding of science, you tend not to realize that there have been big scientific mis-steps (many within our own century), or that scientific laws get modified or thrown out quite frequently.
Without knowing the history, you can't really understand the method, and without understanding the method, you can't discriminate between good science, bad science, pseudo-science, and fantasy.
It comes down to a point that I kept thinking over and over as I watched the first "Lord of the Rings" movie this past week.
Science is not 'revealed.' It is not a matter of digging up some 'fact' buried in arcana. That's the fatal error that many people make. The Wizard in that movie, digging through the dusty old library, finds the ancient tomes that contain the crucial information. This, while plain romantic and a nice component to a fantasy work, misses out on the plain fact knowledge is not something 'discovered' so much as something that is reasoned out.
Knowledge seekers aren't on a quest to discover the 'lost secrets of our past' (sorry, neo-pagans). We're on a mission to learn, through trial and error, the observation of reality (rather than recorded depictions of reality coded into some language).
One of the "shocking stastitcs" they present is the following:
88% of the population "believes" in alternative medicine.
To lump alternative medicine in with such things as UFOs and ESP clearly displays the problem that most scientists are facing, and the reason that people *prefer* to be superstitious: science is an exclusive club.
If a treatment doesn't involve a synthetically created compound or cutting someone open, it falls into the realm of "alternative medicine" regardless of how effective it may be.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
I'm afraid that it is far easier to prove that extraterrestrial life exists than to prove that it doesn't: to prove the former we only need to find it, otherwise we need to:
and this is quite lots of work, even if it can be done in finite, arbitrary long time. Unless of course the universe is not finite, otherwise we just can't decide.
Anyway I believe that the problem is not with people who have faith in things that can't be demonstrated (at least now), after all it is the same thing mathematicians are doing with axioms; the problem is with people who believe in fake pseudo-scientific explanations of things that can be proved false. In my opinion the problem is the confusion between facts and matters of faith that otherwise would have each its own place in one's mind.
A packer treats knowledge as a large collection of disparate facts. These are the people who go spastic if you don't give them step by step instructions. The don't understand systems that require interaction, and get greatly frustrated when you present them with an algorithm, as opposed to the list of steps the require to be able to do a task.
A mapper is someone who has a large number of disparate facts floating around, in the background, waiting for them to fall into place on the map they make of the universe. To them a fact is of very limited value until it has been connected with others, and placed into the map. Mappers are very good at sensing when something doesn't fit, and have a keen sense of "the ring of truth" that resonates when a new fact makes many others suddenly converge into focus.
Packers treat all facts with equal value, or that of the source. They are into such things as credentials, and structured authority.
Mappers know all too well that authority is made to be abused, that systems need a swift kick to get them back on track, and that rules always drift away from the situations for which they were created. Thus mappers have issues with authority. It also makes them great programmers.
I believe that mappers keep a "grain of salt" value linked to everything they know, and are willing to change that value as facts present themselves and change the picture. For example, I believe in ESP, as a vague sort of premonition that may someday be explained by physics. While I don't know how it works, there is sufficient evidence, in my experience, to concede that it probably (not definitely) exists.
Thus, for me, I 80% believe in it. Which doesn't fit the boolean 100% required of a packer.
--Mike--
These stats they quote, or rather the tone and context in which they are used, are ridiculous.
The underlying tenet of this whole article is: "If X has not been proven and approved by the scientific community then you are a laughable ignoramus for believing it might be true."
He doesn't state this overtly, because most people would reject it, but that is the attitude he holds and is trying to convince reader to adopt.
Nothing could be more asinine. That's like the patent officer who said "everything that can be invented has been invented" in 1898 (or whatever, I forget the details). To state that nothing that hasn't been scientifically proven exists, that's living in denial.
Human scientists are still struggling to understand and explain countless things. I think you could build a reasonable argument that we're not even at the halfway point of understanding our world and universe. Just look at the human body. We still do not entirely understand all the proteins in our body and how they interact. DNA, the genetic code, and how it is used to create new complete humans with all the right parts. We don't understand how the brain works, memory, learning, intelligence. How many diseases are there that we don't fully understand yet? AIDS, Alzheimer's, cancer, the list is endless.
To look at all the simple things right in front of our eyes that we don't yet understand and extrapolate that to all the other things we don't know is perfectly reasonable. And to form our own theories about phenomena that are not yet explained by science is reasonable. How else will we ever figure them out?
Also, an expression of belief, or acceptance of something as possible, is not the same as saying it absolutely has been proven. If no one has a proven explanation of a phenomenon there is nothing even unscientific about me guessing about the causes. That's called a hypothesis, and it is the foundation of the scientific method. If sticking a bunch of tiny needles into people in certain spots seems to have some sort of consistent positive result, let us theorize about the possible causes of that, not mock the 88% of people who "accept" that there might be something there.
So I say Brad Hines, ram your head just a little bit farther up your ass, so it covers not only your eyes and ears, but also your mouth. Then we won't have to hear you spewing this bullshit.
Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
Mr. Shermer's list is very interesting, and is missing a few of the more controversial ones that he could have said. However, had I been given a survey with those flimsy descriptions, I would have answered, "yes" to several of the items.
Let's go down his list, shall we?
No, not really. There have been so many hoaxes and misinterpreted natural phenomena that my natural reaction to UFO reports is, "nah". However, the rules of logic say that if "X is true most of the time" it does not follow that "X is true all of the time". I accept that there is a slim chance that we have been visited, beause I have not been able to personally discount each and every case. So, depending on how vague the wording on the survey is, I may have had to answer "yes".
First, you have to define "ESP" before this question makes sense. Although many forms of ESP have been discredited over the years, I have nagging doubts that there may be *something* that is valid somewhere in the whole morass, so I have not fully discounted the possibility of ESP. I do, however, happen to agree with Dr. Feynman about ESP - it would take a lot of convincing for me to start believing in a specific form of ESP - maybe 10,000 tests with identical results, and surviving scrutiny of the Amazing Randy.
Yet still, I have not discounted ESP entirely, because I have suddenly decided to drop down to the speed limit several times, only to see the police with the radar gun a few minutes later. So I started keeping track - and to date, my "urge to slow down" ratio of "with police to no police in the area" is running about 3:1. So, I do believe.
I am quite convinced that, with 6 billion people on the planet, there will be at least one person who always chooses a number, and wins more often than an average distribution accounts for. For that person, there is a "lucky number". And, although I am not that person, his life does affect mine, as he shows up on the news, or she shows up and wins the pot, or whatever.
It is a vague connection, but again, it depends on the survey question. I do believe in lucky numbers, for a very tiny number of humans, since statistically, there *should* be at least 1 such person.
There is well-documented medical research that indicates that a patient's attitude can drastically affect their recovery from certain illnesses. Magnetic Therapy can easily stumble into this, "the patient believes that they are better, and as a result, they are better" category.
Now, having said that, I suspect that there may be something to magnetic therapy in certain cases. The trick is figuring out what those cases are. One of my teachers in engineering school proved that, as you move, you generated a slight voltage difference between your head and your feet (due to movement through the earth's magnetic field, and due to the curvature effect that causes your head to move slightly father than your feet do). Magnets will disrupt that slight field.
Is it a tiny effect? Sure. Does that tiny effect have an impact? I have no idea - I do not have the equipment necessary to tackle that kind of experiment. Can we ignore it? Well, doesn't humankind have a history of ignoring "tiny effects" as "negligable" and finding out several hundred years later than those "tiny effects" are really important? Oops, I would have to answer, "yes" again.
And with this one, he nicely cripples his own argument. There have been too many conflicting scientific studies in the medical profession; too many times the "answer" one month has become the "laughing stock" of the next.
Well, as a result, I accept that today's "alternative" medicine can, in fact, become tomorrow's "accepted practice". ALl you have to do is look back at the political cartoons that were drawn around the time that cowpox was shown to prevent smallpox - it was completely against the medical practices of the day to intentionally infect someone with a disease. Yet, as a result of someone's brazen foray into an "alternative", that disease is basically wiped out.
Hmmm. I may think that 90% of alternative medicines these days are bunk, but that leaves the others.
-------
So, here I am at the end of my rant, and I have answered a kind of a "yes" to each one of his points. I guess that I just believe in weird things.
Chivalry is not dead, it's just frequently misspelt. - M. Langley
t.