I notice in a summary of polls taken during the year that 39% of Brits believe in ghosts and 22% in astrology. In 1950 the figures were 10% and 7% respectively.
Even bearing in mind the usual caveats about the exact questions asked, it seems that several decades of phenomenal scientific and technological advances have made the population more superstitious. How depressing. I wonder why that is.
As a suggestion - in the 1950's people credulously believed that science would provide the answer to everything within their lifetime. Now that people are beginning to grasp that science is an infinite process of enquiry, they realise they can no longer expect it to provide them with the degree of certainty that they can bear to exist with.Originally Posted by Tony Williams
I wonder if it isn't more the decline in organized religion. Paganism is apparently hugely popular now, as was Buddhism a few years ago. Mostly, though, I think people have become more eclectic in their beliefs as they've left the churches, and mix and match together those elements from various religions and belief sets that they like, including druidism, astrology, altmed, paranormal, etc.
I think this could account for quite a few of those numbers, where any given person is not so much a believer in x, but that x is part of their individual belief system.
Yep - I think old style christianity was pretty anti ghost but as I can't remember why I think that I'm not going to try and argue the case!
Perhaps it's a consequence of the media promoting nonsense.
I think it's pretty anti too. Am thinking of the Saul/Samuel/Witch of Endor story, where Saul had got rid of all the mediums but ironically needed to consult one after getting only silence from God. The Witch of Endor conjured up Samuel, who gave Saul a mouthful for disobeying God, presumably disobeying in terms of contacting the dead.
When Jesus appeared to his friends after the crucifixion, though, they all seemed to assume he was a ghost, if I'm remembering it correctly.
Who published that study and how many people did they use?
It was a metastudy, compiled from a variety of polls whose results were published during the course of the year. Probably with holes in, as I indicated, but the differences between now and then are massive enough to be of interest.
One of my hypothesises is that in days gone by, all that most people got to see of science was either nothing, or Newton's laws of motion and the Bohr model in chemistry. These days, even if they haven't studied it, people have heard of Relativity, Quantum mechanics and String theory. Let's face it, all of these areas might as well be advanced magic.
So perversely, I wonder if the incomprehensible paradoxes of modern science have made people think that there aren't necessarily straight forward answers any more. Ghosts and UFOs are a walk in the park compared to a Quantum Eraser experiment.
Perhaps you are right. It's certainly true that the proponents of virtually every flavour of bullshit have a tendency to incorporate the current scientific buzzwords like "quantum" in their flimflam. But I don't know if the phenomenon is really new. In the early 19th century electricity was just as magical to the average man as quantum physics is today. A famous literary work of the day, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, suggests that electricity was widely associated with what they called "the life force". By the end of the century, electricity was the ultimate "cure-all" *. A few years later the scientific buzz-words, were radioactivity and radium and they were even more magical** - even the elixir of life, no less. So were things all that different then? Hasn't the leading edge of science always been hijacked by the woo-mongers?
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ets/html/5.stm
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor
I'd like to know too. No offence,but the explanation below sounds a lot like argumentum ad populum, it says nothing about the study.
To make an informed assessment, I'll need a bit more than the assurances of some person I don't know. EG who exactly commissioned the studies? (all of them) I'll need to see a list of question as well as an explanation about the sample size(s) and method of choosing the samples. IE Random or within a demographic? Where were the results published and what specifically were the claims made?It was a metastudy, compiled from a variety of polls whose results were published during the course of the year
Self reporting surveys are notoriously unreliable. They tend to imply,by showing apparent correlations.They are of limited value in drawing accurate inferences. Correlation in and of itself does not allow inference of causation.
So,at this stage I have no idea if British [or Aussie] society has greater woo factor than 50 years ago.Nor,to be blunt, do I give flying flunngle about the personal superstitions of others until they get in my face. EG I have only contempt for proselytisers of any kind,and have been known to say some very unkind things to door knocking Mormons, Jws and street preachers who invade my personal space.
It really depends what is meant by 'belief'.
There are a lot of people who think there just might be something in an idea, or who have failed to entirely dismiss it who might get counted as believers, depending how questions are phrased, but who would likely laugh at or pity people who took the idea seriously.
For things like astrology, I doubt that more than a very small proportion of the population are anything like true believers.
I don't think we are "losing" nessecarily - although I would't go so far as to say we were "winning" or even attempt to define what winning would entail... I mean as attractive as a purely rational existance sounds it would probably mean giving up supporting Aberdeen Football club an activity the masochist in me quite enjoys!
It would be interesting to see if it were possible to construct some sort of "woo belief" index that could be measured over time and differences in what people believed in monitored in some non-orwellian way.
I suspect levels of belief in "woo" total would remain reasonably constant but that there would be wide ranging variance with specific types of woo like astrology and homeopathy for instance.
Does not the title of this thread suggest that we are at war, or is it a game?
People are certainly very different in their approach to this topic.
What intrigues me is that some find woo depressing but others find a world without such
mysteries equally depressing. Why should there be this gulf between the two? Is there a link to personality traits?
The skeptical approach competes with others. You do not have to be at war or in a game to be in competition. ONe example might be a political election. It can be won or lost but is neither war or game.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks