Two strategies of forming beliefs

[greenfairy]

"William James observed that the passion to get truth and the passion to avoid falsehood are two distinct passions, and they lead to different strategies. The passion to get truth leads to more risk-taking than the passion to avoid falsehood, which leads to a more conservative strategy. One can ensure that one has no false beliefs by believing very few things and making sure that what one does believe satisfies the most stringent standards; but in doing so, one not only avoids false beliefs, one also forgoes many true beliefs. The passion to get truth, in contrast, will lead one to have more beliefs, some of which may be false. The standards of the person dominated by the passion for truth will be somewhat looser than the standards of the person dominated by the passion to avoid falsehood. James thinks that the passion to get truth is as rational as the passion to avoid falsehood. Reason cannot determine which passion should dominate, since both are, after all, passions. Neither should dictate one's entire belief-forming life, but it is not irrational for one of them to be more important than the other."

Quoted from an excerpt from Linda Zagzebski's On Epistemology.

Thought provoking.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Could it then be said that those who follow the path of avoiding falsehood would naturally be more skeptical, and those for finding truth more open minded?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Our beliefs are formed in childhood and are laid down into our subconscious, because they are below our conscious understanding, for the most part. Our ego's main objective is to protect our beliefs and see that they are upheld. This then drives all our overlying thoughts and feelings, which drives our actions.

The problem is that these beliefs were our parent's beliefs, or the rules of the products of our care providers' agenda. We naturally adopt them because as children we must, to survive and stay safe. However, it is when we become older, and attempt to become our own person that these beliefs, some or many of which might be false for us individually, can hinder our true growth. Even if we want to effect change, it is difficult because we often don't even understand what these subconscious beliefs are which are driving our behaviors.

And I'd posit that we cannot form new beliefs to supercede the old beliefs, but that old beliefs are firmly rooted first and foremost, and hold the most sway over our ego.


So, forming new beliefs isn't really what it's about. It's more about taking stock and inventory of our beliefs, then keeping those that jive with us individually, and throwing out that that don't, and forming new ones, which is where growth as a person comes in.

But the ego is not going to let that happen easily. Its ego's main job your whole life up to that point has been to maintain a functioning body and mind by informing the conscious realm. The ego is strong! It must be moved away to even see what our most firmly held beliefs are, because the deepest and most powerful are also the most buried. Doing this is difficult because the ego can become set and firm, and cannot open with discomfort.

 

[greenfairy]

Could it then be said that those who follow the path of avoiding falsehood would naturally be more skeptical, and those for finding truth more open minded?

Yes. Of course people should follow both, but often there is an emphasis on one.

 

[Society]

while this very accurately describes my own spectrum, as i tend to move back & forth between the two (though lately I've being more on the side of scrutiny)... i don't know if this spectrum gives leeway to the majority of belief systems within the human population, a.k.a. "my faith is right and says all your faiths are wrong".

how does traditional religion fit into this spectrum?

 

[greenfairy]

while this very accurately describes my own spectrum, as i tend to move back & forth between the two (though lately I've being more on the side of scrutiny)... i don't know if this spectrum gives leeway to the majority of belief systems within the human population, a.k.a. "my faith is right and says all your faiths are wrong".

how does traditional religion fit into this spectrum?

Hm, difficult question. I'd say it's somewhere in the middle, but in an unhealthy way. It's really more on the side of avoiding false beliefs if you think about it, because they tend to be close minded. They may have a lot of opinions, but they are clustered around a small number of rigidly held principles. The beliefs are not conscientiously held, that is governed by a concern for the truth- they don't rigorously examine the beliefs they have, only ones different from their system (and even then not without bias). That's my opinion. What do you think?

You're right; I think some ways of forming beliefs have nothing to do with concern for truth, and are more for emotional security, so they would not fit into either category.

 

[Society]

What do you think?

hrm, i've looked for ways to devil advocate that religion can some how fit into this, but otherwise i'm pretty much in agreement.

i remember a research linked in a cracked.com article showing surveys that people will tend to define infidelity in a completely different way for themselves vs. for their partners, and i thought of drawing some equivalent here with scrutiny, but i can't seem to find the article... beyond that possible point of exploration to extend the convo into, i pretty much agree with you.

(we seem to have a knack for short conclusive conversations)

 

[greenfairy]

i remember a research linked in a cracked.com article showing surveys that people will tend to define infidelity in a completely different way for themselves vs. for their partners, and i thought of drawing some equivalent here with scrutiny, but i can't seem to find the article...

Yeah, it's messed up, isn't it?

(we seem to have a knack for short conclusive conversations)

Which I think is a good thing.

 

[Society]

Yeah, it's messed up, isn't it?

Which I think is a good thing.

found the research and the article (#3). and yes, it's pretty screwed up, and very similar to what happens with religions in your spectrum (one foot in scrutiny and one foot in acceptance).

Which I think is a good thing.

an intellectual disagreement resolved in two posts? it's an internet miracle

 

[KDude]

I prefer the burning bush.

 

[Mycroft]

Well, seeing as we can only ever be certain of the truth of a theory in degrees, precluding knowing what's absolutely "the truth", it seems more logical to me to avoid wrongful thinking.

 

[ygolo]

Well, considering that I have changed my own beliefs many times, and considering that I have seen others change their beliefs many times. I think it is definitely possible to do so.

I think beliefs should be flexible. How else can one function in new environments?

Epistemology is something I think about often.

As far as avoiding falsehood, and pursuing truth, a qualitative understanding (as is the case with many things) will be superficial at best. I think the main issue that most philosophers have is that they eschew the richer styles of thinking given by quantitative reasoning.

If the only way you can model something is in an "either this or that or something in between", you can do mental gymnastics for ages and never conclude anything meaningful. Consider how much more information a sliding scale (with an ability do distinguish values on the scale) gives you as opposed the the binary or ternary thinking style one has while using words alone.

"Fuzzy Logic" or "Fuzzy Sets" may not be absolutely necessary for thought, but it certainly makes thinking easier. Yes, a continuum, can, in some sense, be represented through a finite configuration of symbols. But that is not the point.

Bayesian inference, statistical reasoning, stochastic modeling, ... all give much more rich theories of epistemology in a few sentences than the meaningless pages of mental gymnastics I have found in books on philosophy.

 

[greenfairy]

Well, seeing as we can only ever be certain of the truth of a theory in degrees, precluding knowing what's absolutely "the truth", it seems more logical to me to avoid wrongful thinking.

Yeah. I tend to err on this side. I can believe everything in a way, but it's complicated. To be on that side of things you have to be aware of proper boundaries and conditions and disclaimers and all that, like certain things exist only in people's minds, and having explanations for how things would work and such.

 

[greenfairy]

Well, considering that I have changed my own beliefs many times, and considering that I have seen others change their beliefs many times. I think it is definitely possible to do so.

I think beliefs should be flexible. How else can one function in new environments?

Epistemology is something I think about often.

As far as avoiding falsehood, and pursuing truth, a qualitative understanding (as is the case with many things) will be superficial at best. I think the main issue that most philosophers have is that they eschew the richer styles of thinking given by quantitative reasoning.

If the only way you can model something is in an "either this or that or something in between", you can do mental gymnastics for ages and never conclude anything meaningful. Consider how much more information a sliding scale (with an ability do distinguish values on the scale) gives you as opposed the the binary or ternary thinking style one has while using words alone.

"Fuzzy Logic" or "Fuzzy Sets" may not be absolutely necessary for thought, but it certainly makes thinking easier. Yes, a continuum, can, in some sense, be represented through a finite configuration of symbols. But that is not the point.

Bayesian inference, statistical reasoning, stochastic modeling, ... all give much more rich theories of epistemology in a few sentences than the meaningless pages of mental gymnastics I have found in books on philosophy.

Yeah, I know. Sometimes in class I'll just get to the point where I think people are wasting their time and they should get out into the world and stop gazing at their navels. I haven't gotten that far into things, but my intuition and common sense says that not everything can be put into language and analytical terms, so binaries and continuum are only so useful. I say the answer is almost always either both or something off the scale. There's always an option C- you just have to find it.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I think every bit of 'knowledge' that we have is all based on perception, and as such, even what we 'objectively know' is, at least on some level, a belief; this is because we don't even know if we're perceiving our world with the right 'clarity of vision'.