Why do people believe in things when the body of scientific evidence shows otherwise

[technodad]

This is not intended to be an attack on any denomination of belief. The aim of this thread is to try to understand why people choose to believe things, when there are far more likely explanations and why people choose to not trust the scientific opinion.

I am not particularly thinking about a discussion about religion because clearly "faith", some old books and preaching make a difference there (although, please discuss religion if it is relevant). I am thinking more about things like:

• People don't believe global is happening when the vast majority of the scientific community can provide evidence that it is.

• People believe in ghosts when their existance violates all the laws of physics and pretty much all "ghost events" (if not absolutely all) can be explained without mystery.

• People don't get their kids vaccinated (e.g. MMR), when it is clear that not vaccinating is orders of magnitude more dangerous than vaccinating.

• People think that palm reading, tea leaf reading, etc actually works...

• People believe in "alternative" medicines work, when every "alternative" medicine that actually works is now simple called "medicine"!

The rules are as follows:

1. You can say what ever you like, and I don't care if you insult me.

2. If you post something, you may have someone say something that challenges your deeply held beliefs, so please only post if this is acceptable to you.

3. No one is allowed to complain about anyone being horrible, or arrogant, based upon the fact that people will only post here if they are up for a debate (see 2).

4. There is no 4.

Maybe you missed my point - you can't really compare homeopathy to jumping out a window!

Well you can - on the basis that BOB was making the analogy.

ok, you're right, you can but that doesn't make it a good analogy. Unless you think that jumping out a window to cure hiccups is as risky as taking 'spooky water'?

I think we could go all round the houses with this one.

What if the hiccups was an indication of some serious neurological event?

No, on a like for like basis, with no other variables, it's safer to drink spooky water than jump out the window. True.

But the analogy just highlights where ignoring evidence can eventually lead. And I expect we can agree on that.

Actually curing the hiccups was a fortunate side effect. :)

I was stepping out the window because I had no reason not to. Because if you're going to ignore evidence and do what seems like a good idea at the time why wouldn't you step out of a window?

In reality we all do base most of our decisions on evidence. Even homeopathists & crystal wavers use the stairs, look each way when they cross the road, eat enough fruit to avoid getting vitamin deficiencies and so on. So when someone claims that evidence is not required in one particular instance it is inconsistent.

Oh and all analogies can look stupid if you pick at them long enough :)

I think there's an ancient chinese proverb to that effect, but it escapes me for the moment.

It's a bit like... oh wait. there I go again

See, I was going to take your analogy and run with it.....to show that drinking magic water can be as dangerous as jumping out the window.

Along the lines of:

Get the hiccups, jump out of the window, die.

&

Get the hiccups which is a sign of something sinister happening to the brain, drink magic water instead of going to A&E, die.

But you ruined that by clarifying that the hiccups was incidental in your analogy, whereas it was pivotal in mine. So now I just feel silly :(

You can't make your own critical appraisal. Well you can and as an individual, you can decide whatever it is works for you and keep doing it.

Curlew, that's it. That's why people believe in things when the body of scientific evidence says otherwise.

Yay.

Hettie, go for it :) I like the idea of hiccups as a symptom of something nasty. That might be the case. I never understood what causes them.

Disclaimer:

All of my analogies and arguments are free to re-use without cost, but I take no responsibility for any harmful effects they might have.

In particular any loss of earnings for fortune tellers, crystal fiddlers, faith healers or snake oil salesman

Oh and no fluffy bunnies are ever harmed in the making of my analogies.

Oh, I think Cote beat you to the "jumping out the window" straw man analogy Back.

She may have used the analogy. If so she can have the credit.

Feel free to look up what a straw man argument is. I don't have time to teach you even if I thought you were willing to learn.

Do we have a term for someone who says "straw man" whenever they disagree with someone? It would save time if we did.

Very few people who use the term "straw man" actually knows what it means. Annoying.

"A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds."

And while we're on the subject....ad hominem

Good example of ad hominem:

Einstein believed xyz about the universe.
Oh, well, Einstein was a crazy old mad-haired fool who cheated on his wife. So who cares what he thinks?

Not:

That is a really stupid thing to say, OP.

Useful guide to logical fallacies

Yes, like when people are arguing about belief in thing that are not backed up by science (eg. homeopathy/amber beads) and invents a straw man who believes he can fly and therefore jumps out a window.

No, that's not a straw man. That's an analogy.

I disagree, many people believe many things that are not backed up by science and are quite harmless. The belief that you can jump out a window and fly is a caricature of this position that is easily refuted, but is not the position that the opponent actually holds.

That is a really daft thing to say, Dione. That is not how that conversation went at all.

First, you said : "Belief can be rational if it benefits the individual who holds it. Therefore while there is no scientific proof for the efficacy of amber beads, the fact that it reduces the need for analgesics in the believer means that it is a rational belief.

Then I replied : "You can't have studied (thoughts, feelings and behaviours) much and/or in a formal context, if you ended up with the impression that a belief is rational if it leads to a chain of events that end up to your benefit." and I gave this as an example "You believe you can fly and jump off the balcony. Then you fall in love with the paramedic who tends your broken bones. You live happily ever after. So was "I believe I can fly!" a rational belief because all ended better than it would have otherwise? No, it wasn't. And neither is belief in healing powers of magic water and sugar pills, even if it helps some people psychologically."

It is a very valid example of how you can't deem a course of action "rational" just because it somehow leads to a benefit, like a taking a sugar pill that cons you into thinking you feel better. A valid and relevant example of something you actually said, not a Straw Man at all.

You weren't able to answer it last week and now you are trying to diss my reply by calling it a Straw Man Sorry but either you just don't understand what is being discussed here, or you are trying to muddy the waters intentionally - i.e. being intellectually dishonest.

I didn't compare using homeopathy to jumping out of a window Can you not read?

I compared:

(1) deciding to jump out of a window > meeting the love of your life as a result > a benefit

to

(2) taking a sugar pill > feeling better > a benefit

The point was to show you that you can't call a course of action "rational" just because it leads to a chain of events that somehow end up giving you a benefit. It is not rational to believe you can fly, regardless of whether or not it might end up with an unforeseen benefit to you. And it is not rational to believe that sugar pills without a molecule of active substance will cure your problems, regardless of whether or not you psychologically feel a bit better after taking them.

And that was because you said "Belief can be rational if it benefits the individual who holds it. Therefore while there is no scientific proof for the efficacy of amber beads, the fact that it reduces the need for analgesics in the believer means that it is a rational belief."

Agree with Dione.
In that case, the OP had thrush, not a cancer. ie something that can wait a bit to be treated in another way before getting some ABs, creams etc... In most cases, people just self medicate with OTC remedies anyway
And that is even before you start to wonder if the creams etc... are actually efficient when thrush comes back again and again.

Most illnesses can wait quite a long time actually before you really need to go and see a GP. If there are no red flags, I am not sure why it's different for someone to try an OTC remedy and to try an homeopathic remedy or some herbal remedy that you can find at a chemist anyway.

Perhaps you had missed my previous post to that Cote, where I said that a belief is formed after repeated beneficial outcomes following a course of action such as the amber beads thing.

You are correct of course in that I couldn't answer your post last week, but that was due to RL, not your arguement.

OP didn't have thrush.

If you are talking about edam, she didn't take homeopathy for thrush. She took it for migraines. Then got the impression that because she got one last bout of thrush and not had one since then, it must have had the side-effect of curing her of thrush forever.

And you seem to be saying that trying homeopathy is OK because it is no different than just waiting for self-limiting diseases to go away on their own. Not really true because waiting is free and homeopathic sugar-pills cost quite a bit.

It is not rational to believe you can fly, regardless of whether or not it might end up with an unforeseen benefit to you.
Agree
And it is not rational to believe that sugar pills without a molecule of active substance will cure your problems, regardless of whether or not you psychologically feel a bit better after taking them.
Don't agree because there is no way to say that the only way you can get better is by taking a molecule of active substance.
Imho, that's why the placebo effect is so strong.
This is also the case in acupuncture for example where the effect of treatment has been proven to be more efficient than the placebo effect for some conditions.

And that's the thing. At the moment, the whole system to prove that X treatment is efficient is based on the assumption that only an active substance can have an effect. The whole research system is based on that, hence the double blind controlled studies, control groups etc... forgetting that some big parts of medicine can not be 'checked' in that way. Eg how can you do a double blind control study on heart surgery, or physio or CBT??? That works only for drugs.

It's also forgetting that in most cases, the efficiency of drugs is in most part due to the placebo effect anyway.

We are not talking about how "belief is formed". We are talking about what constitutes "rational" and what doesn't.

You said a belief is rational if it ends up with a benefit, NOT a belief is formed when repeated benefit is seen. There is a big difference between these statements.

Here is your post:

DioneTheDiabolist Tue 05-Nov-13 01:11:06
Belief can be rational if it benefits the individual who holds it. Therefore while there is no scientific proof for the efficacy of amber beads, the fact that it reduces the need for analgesics in the believer means that it is a rational belief.

Errm... no it isn't and no it doesn't mean.