Admin
28th February 2006, 11:29 AM
One of my favourite aricles on the CSICOP website is this one: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die. (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html)
Many skeptics are dumbfounded when they, for example, explain the nonsense behind homeopathy or dowsing, yet people still believe in such things in spite of contradictory evidence. This can be the cause of much frustration and bewilderment for skeptics.
The answer to this problem is to understand why people hold their beliefs in the first place but also why beliefs are so resistant to change.
Although our modern environment is far more complex than our ancestors', nonetheless our brains mostly evolved on the plains of Africa and that is what they are largely adapted for. Survival in that environment.
As pointed out in the article, our brain's main purpose is to keep us alive. How it does this is of little importance with respect to truth.
From the article:
"As far as our brain is concerned, there is absolutely no need for data and belief to agree. They have each evolved to augment and supplement one another by contacting different sections of the world. They are designed to be able to disagree. This is why scientists can believe in God and people who are generally quite reasonable and rational can believe in things for which there is no credible data such as flying saucers, telepathy, and psychokinesis.
When data and belief come into conflict, the brain does not automatically give preference to data. This is why beliefs-even bad beliefs, irrational beliefs, silly beliefs, or crazy beliefs-often don't die in the face of contradictory evidence. The brain doesn't care whether or not the belief matches the data. It cares whether the belief is helpful for survival"
It may seem to be a large jump from survival beliefs on an African plain and say belief in new-age philosophies. The important point to understand is that the process of belief formation and continuation is the same. They have the same effect on our brains.
As skeptics we need to understand the hard facts on issues but that's only half the story. We also need to understand the psychology of people's beliefs to get a full picture and understanding of what we're dealing with.
We also need to realise that in the main, we're not going to change people's beliefs. We may base our opinions more on data and evidence, but it's not a requirement for humanity to do so. In fact, our ancestors who decided on the evidential, inquisitive approach may well have been less likely to survive!
This is why I am against the crusading, confrontational, antagonistic approach to skepticism.
In fact, it could be argued that it's not until people are aware of why their beliefs are so resistant to change that they will be open to actually considering scrutinising what they believe at all.
Many skeptics are dumbfounded when they, for example, explain the nonsense behind homeopathy or dowsing, yet people still believe in such things in spite of contradictory evidence. This can be the cause of much frustration and bewilderment for skeptics.
The answer to this problem is to understand why people hold their beliefs in the first place but also why beliefs are so resistant to change.
Although our modern environment is far more complex than our ancestors', nonetheless our brains mostly evolved on the plains of Africa and that is what they are largely adapted for. Survival in that environment.
As pointed out in the article, our brain's main purpose is to keep us alive. How it does this is of little importance with respect to truth.
From the article:
"As far as our brain is concerned, there is absolutely no need for data and belief to agree. They have each evolved to augment and supplement one another by contacting different sections of the world. They are designed to be able to disagree. This is why scientists can believe in God and people who are generally quite reasonable and rational can believe in things for which there is no credible data such as flying saucers, telepathy, and psychokinesis.
When data and belief come into conflict, the brain does not automatically give preference to data. This is why beliefs-even bad beliefs, irrational beliefs, silly beliefs, or crazy beliefs-often don't die in the face of contradictory evidence. The brain doesn't care whether or not the belief matches the data. It cares whether the belief is helpful for survival"
It may seem to be a large jump from survival beliefs on an African plain and say belief in new-age philosophies. The important point to understand is that the process of belief formation and continuation is the same. They have the same effect on our brains.
As skeptics we need to understand the hard facts on issues but that's only half the story. We also need to understand the psychology of people's beliefs to get a full picture and understanding of what we're dealing with.
We also need to realise that in the main, we're not going to change people's beliefs. We may base our opinions more on data and evidence, but it's not a requirement for humanity to do so. In fact, our ancestors who decided on the evidential, inquisitive approach may well have been less likely to survive!
This is why I am against the crusading, confrontational, antagonistic approach to skepticism.
In fact, it could be argued that it's not until people are aware of why their beliefs are so resistant to change that they will be open to actually considering scrutinising what they believe at all.