Thread: Purpose of beliefs

We all have political beliefs, and sometimes just can’t understand another's insistence on a different position. We might not comprehend why someone likes Beyonce when we prefer Bach. Some people are religious, others not, and never the twain shall meet. We hold and debate beliefs over just about everything.

If we were totally rational, we would educate and correct each other instead of incessantly arguing. But then again, perhaps our differing beliefs and arguing about them is exactly the way in which we translate personal experience for the good of the tribe. Perhaps all these differences and tribal affiliations serve for our survival.

Has any research been done on this?

(Noting that philosophical debate is not very useful, since we need some objective means to stand outside of our own beliefs to work out what is going on.)

Even if we were totally rational we would still need beliefs because being rational is not the same thing at all as having all the evidence necessary for certainty about anything. I can think of at least four kinds of beliefs:

1. Beliefs based on empirical evidence, such as my belief in evolution by natural selection, or that the bus will come at ten to six.
2. Beliefs based on empirical evidence but extrapolated mathematically beyond what the evidence can currently support. I suggest string theory would be in this category.
3. Beliefs based on limited evidence, or evidence selectively perceived and interpreted. Political and economic beliefs might be in this category.
4. Beliefs based on no evidence, which would include all religious beliefs.

I would suggest the reason we need beliefs is that we don’t have all the evidence and even if all the evidence was available we don’t have the capacity to assimilate all of it. So we have to extrapolate in order to get along in our daily lives. Mostly this works.

People only believe in theories, people won’t believe in purple elephants.

People don’t believe in chaos.

(Although you can make a person believe anything)

There are two forms of belief. One, usually described as evidence based, is healthy, eg.
Before the moon landings their was dispute about whether the moon was ever volcanic. Two opposing groups formed, but when the astronauts brought back basalt the non volcanic group changed their stance.

The other form of belief brings reality down to your own taste. As if the non volcanic scientists simply denied the existence of the basalt, just to maintain their earlier position.

This is what religious people do regarding evolution etc, or all the conspiracy theorists, from 9/11 to Diana. -Deny the obvious to maintain a belief.

Reality is down to your own taste/opinion in this second form of belief.

There is a kind of pseudoscience lip service evidence game played by these believers, for the benefit of those without their visionary status. Evidence requirement must still be rather annoying to these believers though because they arrived at their conclusions in advance of any evidence.
A criteria for reality like this means that you should really believe any old thing.

Actually i'm pleasantly surprised that out of all the 100.000? moon landing workers there was'nt one dubious person who came forward and said:" You know I operated the camera on the film set" or something. They would have least got a pay day from some newspaper.

Originally Posted by tuppence

We all have political beliefs, and sometimes just can’t understand another's insistence on a different position. We might not comprehend why someone likes Beyonce when we prefer Bach. Some people are religious, others not, and never the twain shall meet. We hold and debate beliefs over just about everything.

If we were totally rational, we would educate and correct each other instead of incessantly arguing. But then again, perhaps our differing beliefs and arguing about them is exactly the way in which we translate personal experience for the good of the tribe. Perhaps all these differences and tribal affiliations serve for our survival.

Has any research been done on this?

(Noting that philosophical debate is not very useful, since we need some objective means to stand outside of our own beliefs to work out what is going on.)

You should read up on memes. Strange little idea that maybe such 'beliefs' have an evolutionary power in and of themselves.