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.

mean

I disagree, many people believe many things that are not backed up by science and are quite harmless....except when they're not. Tell Jacqueline Alderslade that the homeopathy potion she was advised to take instead of her Ventolin was harmless. Again, you can't because she died of an asthma attack in 2001 here

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

No - it's an analogy.

The connection being:

Belief in homeopathy = ignoring evidence based reason

Believing you can fly = ignoring evidence based reason

Definition of analogy: a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification

Lady - I can't really follow your last post because some of the stuff you say just doesn't follow.

"because there is no way to say that the only way you can get better is by taking a molecule of active substance"

You can of course feel better by having your head stroked, a hug, a manicure, whatever.

However, the only way chemical reactions happen is through the presence of active substances. If you intend for something to physically happen in your body (rather than just "feel" better), you need to put something physically present in it.

This is not even an argument for you to agree with or not. It is the basic reality of the world we live in.

OK got mixed up re edam and thrush/headaches.

Tbh, a good friend of mine had cancer. Twice. She had acupuncture and homeopathy during her treatment. She took some homeopathic remedy to help with the pain of a particular procedure. She did because she had been in agony repeatedly and as soon as she took that homeopathic remedy, she never experienced pain during that particular treatment.
Her comment is 'I don't care if it's proven. I don't care if it's placebo effect or something else. It's working for me and helped me with the pain the same way that acupuncture helped me with the nausea and the anxiety'.
Now are you telling me that that friend should have never had homeopathy or acupuncture because it's not rational or proven even though it made a difference to her? Even though it also meant she coped better with the cancer treatment therefore making it more efficient? Are you really serious in saying it would be better to leave that person in pain/anxious? Just because... you want to prove a point and 'it doesn't work anyway'?

Many people don't consider £0.05 per pill "quite a lot" of money Cote. Especially those who use homeopathy to help them give up cigarettes which are very expensive.

Do sugar pills cost more where you are?

However, the only way chemical reactions happen is through the presence of active substances. If you intend for something to physically happen in your body (rather than just "feel" better), you need to put something physically present in it.
Wrong.
You don't put substance in your body when you have CBT or surgery. Or physio.
Some treatments such as acupuncture do create changes in hormones, brain etc... even though they do not involve giving a substance to the patient. There are quite a lot of research on that actually.

Cote I think it would be very tedious if I were to repeat all my posts on a thread before posting a new one.

Oh, I am reminded Cote, you said that meditation is not considered Woo. Not now maybe, but it certainly was considered Woo by western science. It is only recently that this has changed.

"Now are you telling me that that friend should have never had homeopathy or acupuncture because it's not rational or proven even though it made a difference to her? Even though it also meant she coped better with the cancer treatment therefore making it more efficient? Are you really serious in saying it would be better to leave that person in pain/anxious?"

I haven't said any of the above.

You see, that is a Straw Man. "Are you telling me..... Are you really serious in saying... etc" when referring to stuff I have never said and then proceeding to attack them.

For the record, of course I have never said people in pain should be left in pain Who on earth would say that? They would of course seek help from all corners.

I lost a friend to lung cancer in her early 20s. In her desperation, she sought help from a charlatan woman who claimed to be sending her energy every night so she could breathe easier and sleep. Of course, she would seek help from anywhere and anything It is not her I would attack, it is that evil bloodsucking parasite of a charlatan who preyed on my poor vulnerable dying friend and took what little money her family had

Dione - I wouldn't have to quote your previous posts if you had a reliable memory of what you actually said in them.

Do you now understand and acknowledge that you said "Belief can be rational if it benefits the individual who holds it", which of course is an incorrect statement?

Lady - Of course we are not talking about surgery or physio We are talking about swallowing a pill. And when swallowing a pill, you are physically putting something into your body and expecting some sort of reaction to come out of it, so there needs to be an active ingredient in that pill to lead to a chemical reaction in the body.

I shouldn't have needed to explain all that, because you really should know that we were talking about homeopathic (sugar) pills. Look at the conversation below:

Cote: 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.

Lady: I 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.

Cote, I know what I said in that post. I know what I said in previous posts to that one. Are you saying that everytime I make a post regarding belief on this thread, I need to quote all my previous posts regarding belief as well?

I think it would probably be better if people RTT rather than attempting to misrepresent an argument by repeatedly quoting a single post.

How do I manage to "misrepresent" what you said when I quote you, in your opinion?

It will be interesting to see you wiggle & attempt to twist reality to explain this one

You are misrepresenting an argument consisting of numerous posts by quoting a single post. So are you being disingenuous or do you really think that I need to quote all my posts on this thread each time I add another?

And I am still waiting for you to explain how you think I manage to "misrepresent" your posts by quoting them.

Cote you are saying that because something hasn't being proven, it's not rational to use that treatment in the hope for relief/cure. Did I get that right?
In that case, no one should ever have homeopathy according to you. It whatever other treatment that hasn't been proven.
What I am saying is that some people do find relief from treatment/therapies that haven't been proven and denying them that possibility, esp when they actually ARE getting relief from that therapy isn't an acceptable answer.

What I am saying is that only 15% of treatments on the NHS have actually been proven to work. The same % have been proven to be detrimental to the patients. But no one would question a treatment from a consultant or GP even though it is highly likely not to have been proven but it isOK to be very sarcastic with people who say 'I have used this or that and it helped' because it wasn't prescribed by the GP.

It also seems that you missed my point re treatments aren't always about taking a pill with an active substance. My point is that it could be homeopathy is working on a different level than having an active chemical component. The same way that acupuncture or CBT who both affect the chemicals in the body wo any active substance in sight.
But I am [shocked] hie this is OK to say to people who have seen differences from homeopathy that they are just crazy for even trying it (as they are not rational at all are they?)

"What I am saying is that only 15% of treatments on the NHS have actually been proven to work."

References please?

Lady - I'm just wasting time going "Nope, I didn't say that" "No, I didn't say that, either" to most of your posts. Please read mine and respond to only what you see there. Quoting what you are replying to might help.

LadyInDisguise, patients regularly dispute treatments from consultants and GPs. You should get yourself over to the prolapse threads to see the many different types of treatment MNers consider and argue for to have their bits repaired.

Medical science is advancing and changing all the time & quite often treatments are used because they are cheaper - not the best! So, of course, we should disagree if we don't believe we are getting the best treatment available!!!!!

So your argument is not a valid one.

People will argue over conventional treatments as well as unproven stuff like homeopathy & reiki!

I already have Cote. Numerous times and without stooping to personal attacks.

Quotes quite difficult to do on the phone... So sorry if I can't quite you word to word.
So I will now bow out of this thread where people are refusing to engage and listen to the ones who have a different pov. Not really a discussion.

curlew again on phone do can't make links. But do a search ont BJM. There is a study that comes out every year to check exactly that. I am not inventing it :)

And I am sure that some people argue that their treatment wasn't adequate. But how many people actually argue about it before hand? How many people are actually able to? Come on, very very few.

What i haven't seen addressed the ethical side of telling people they shouldn't have X or Y because it's not proven even if it is making a difference to them. A shame.

technodad - the existence of one thing doesn't not prove the absence of another.

I work in a "fact" based industry and just in my lifetime I have seen theorems stand on their head. So it's not good to quote absolute facts on what we know... I always think this should be suffixed with 'now'.

Hope that adds another perspective to the debate and to quote the Buddha..

"“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Wow- the Buddha was on the side to critical thinking, science and the Enlightenment! How fantastic.

"So I will now bow out of this thread where people are refusing to engage and listen to the ones who have a different pov. Not really a discussion."

Not sure who you mean by this.