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.

"Gosts etc: do you have any idea of what happens after death? Can you prove it? Can you prove Gosts do not exist? The reality is that you can't do one it the other so why us your explanation better than the Gosts believers?"

We don't need to. As always, the onus of proof is on the one who claims their existence and the negative is not possible to prove, as in most cases.

It is Ghosts, by the way. Not "Gosts".

back to the main bit:

people believe in a lot of nonsense because, I'm afraid, we haven't bred out the bone-headed. Knowing any science is seen as 'geeky' and it is seen as much 'cooler' to believe in what is beautifully known on here as 'woo'.

primitive man came up with explanations such as holes in the sky with lights behind because he didn't have the science to find out what was really going on. This still goes on; people think their horoscope must be right because something in it happened, forgetting the days when this didn't apply. Scientific method and thought is either unfashionable or just too difficult for all too many people.

Also, people also like to believe in higher powers as a way of trying to handle the bad things that happen - loved ones dying, good people getting hurt, bad people going unpunished etc. The alternative of 'shit happens' is true but not really very comforting.

or, in short; human nature!

Specialsubject, it's true. Humans don't like not knowing everything. They are arrogant and think they should know. They use the supernatural to try and fill the gaps or give them all the answers.

Lots of people believe in a lot of nonsense. I have been taken aback more than once when someone you think who is very intelligent, suddenly comes out with some whacky belief.

I think many people want to believe. They distrust real scientific evidence and instead fall back on their own prejudices and deepest desires.

You see Treen, here's the thing; you said: 'Specialsubject, it's true. Humans don't like not knowing everything. They are arrogant and think they should know. They use the supernatural to try and fill the gaps or give them all the answers.'

I think that people who have an absolutist view of science do exactly the same thing.

I think a lot of it has to do with fear. People often turn to religion when there lives are out of control because they need to feel that there is a bigger reason, same with various wonder cures, tarot readers, etc. We want them to help us and be a crutch to lean on.
The other thing fear creates is a herd mentality - the mmr vaccination issue is a perfect example of this. We dont have access to 'the truth' so it easier to follow the masses than have to make a dangerous decision.

Holo - There are plenty of people like myself who believe in the value of scientific evidence, who also know that there is a lot we can't explain at the moment. And that is fine.

Yes Grennie, that's what I think too. I'm slightly sceptical about the idea that history = progress, so I'm not convinced that we'll ever have all the answers we need.

Jimjams's post is a great example of how the questions we ask determine the quality of our answers and knowledge about any given subject.

Holo - I said that psychology is of course a science. Any field where you can gather knowledge through the scientific method is a science. "Ex:" means "Example:".

And yet psychology can be really subjective, can't it? I must repeat that I am not dead set on discrediting science, I just want to recognise its complexities.

To say 'here's the scientific method, do this and no reasonable person could disagree' is just a bit simplistic IMO. The scientific method is the best way we have of acquiring certain sorts of information, yes, but it's not a hermetically-sealed, omnipotent, omniscient, above and beyond human fallibility, absolute thing. In other words, it's not God. It's human and therefore represents hopefully the best thinking that humans can do, which is always going to be limited.

I think you need to define what you are talking about a bit better.

'Psychology can be subjective' - Not when you are carrying out proper double-blind experiments with control groups etc. That is the science part.

A less obvious example is Economy, imho.

Yes I do believe in some complementary therapy such as acupuncture or homeopathy even though I was extremely sceptical about them both. But I saw them working. On me and other people.
I do believe in rebirth and reincarnation.
I do believe that statins are the work if the devil and will never take any.
And I do believe that the universe is expanding and that there are other universes parallel to us (from some theories in astronomy), that 2 lines only cross at one point but that sometimes they also cross at 2 points (2 different theory in geometry, incompatible as such but which both lead to theory in physics that have been proven to work, albeit at different levels).
Mainly I do believe that one theory/ system will never be able to explain the complexity of our world and this the reason why mocking people for the their 'beliefs' just doesn't make sense. Chances are that on 10, ,20, 100 years time what we take as THE truth will be looked as a naive belief. And what I snow seen as just stupid will be proven later on. Te same that Einstein was told his theory of Relativity wasn't acceptable until we could prove it.

Sorry lots of xpost.
And yes sorry about Gosts and ghosts...

Holo - i didn't ask earlier as it didn't seem particularly relevant, but since this thread has gone off at so many tangents do you mind if i ask what it is in archaeology that you are critical of (just curious)?

Ooh, will answer that later Lurchers - just off out now. :)

Can someone explain me what they mean by scientific evidence?
Because as far as I know we are using in science results from 'validated and strong research' that unfortunately ca not be replicated. At least in the medical field.

Take this issue with the placebo effect. For most people, incl some researchers, the placebo effect is well... Just a psychological effect and therefore dismissed as annoying and unhelpful. What it is however is a big bag with all the outside influences we can't quite control, which certainly doesn't they should be dismissed.
So for some people you can only validate a treatment if you gave included something to take away the placebo effect. Easy to do with meds. But with very hands in physical therapies? It's impossible so any research on these therapies is sees as 'nit strong enough or good enough' to be taken into account. Why???

Is it hard to examine some things - yes it is.

The point about science is that if we can't tell what's in the box then we don't say "it must be an apple". It's perfectly fine to not know the answer at this time.

In religion if you don't know what's in the box you must choose to have faith that it is an apple. Or if you are surrounded by violent 'Believers in The Banana" and don't want to be burnt at the stake you must have faith it's a banana.

LadyInDisguise I see that you believe in lots of things including some that have been proven not to be work. How did you choose them?

Did you write down
rebirth
reincarnation
homeopathy
fairies
expanding universe
crystals

And just stick a pin in several times.

Good thread technodad. I love a debate about beliefs!

I don't believe in global warming though. I think there is increasing evidence to show that man's impact is less significant than we think and that the weather is largely driven by solar activity.

I also don't believe that a low fat, high carb diet as recommended by most health professional is good for you. There is increasing evidence to show that a higher fat low carb diet is good for you.

However, those are tangible things about which we can all argue the toss about, digging out evidence, refuting the evidence, bringing out counter evidence etc etc etc.

Faith is something completely different, as there is very little proof for any kind of faith. I completely fail to understand how faith works & this is despite 18 years of Catholic indoctrination. I am both intrigued and repelled by it all at the same time.

I personally don't believe in ghosts, spirits or super natural beings of any type or description. Therefore, I think I am unlikely to ever see anything like that. I think you have to believe the possibility of something before you can imagine or believe you have encountered it, IYSWIM.

Back do we really have a proof that reincarnation doesn't exist? Could you direct me towards a research with control group etc?
I mean I was asked what I believe in. Faith is part of my belief and as a Buddhist I believe in reincarnation and karma. It's a faith and a belief.

The astronomy stuff is science. But the sort if science where you develop an hypothesis and run it to check if it's congruent with experience. So you can get lots of different theories, some of which aren't compatible but because the experience doesn't say they are wrong, some very clever scientist do spend their day developing them and trying to prove they are 'right'.
That for me is a belief (you actually haven't proven it's right. Just that nothing has proven it wrong iyswim) but still classify as science.

Which then makes you wonder about other areas such as medicine where unless X has being proven using A&B methods, it's not considered valid and acceptable even if the treatment can not possibly allow for the use of method A&B

ok I think you have misunderstood about the scientific method, but someone will be along to explain that I'm sure.

What I was curious about is how you selected your beliefs. Given that there's no proof why did you decide to believe in reincarnation and not fairies or talking teapots or an infinite number of other beliefs?.

DO you believe in talking teapots? and if not WHY not? Could you direct me towards a research with control group etc that shows talking teapots don't exist?

There are an infinite number of things one could believe and I've yet to see any basis for choosing one other than sticking a pin in a list.

For the record I have no beliefs. I have things that I know and things that are likely to be true based on things that I know, but I don't believe in any of them.

The point about science is that if we can't tell what's in the box then we don't say "it must be an apple". It's perfectly fine to not know the answer at this time.

But it can matter. Using my example about breast cancer and diet, a woman has to either eat dairy or not eat dairy - she has to make a choice and can't just wait until science comes up with a conclusive answer. So, where the evidence is contradictory she may make the choice based on other factors as well. These other factors may be unscientific things like other peoples anecdotal experiences, gut feeling, personal preferences.

So it is with the other grey areas i talked about earlier. No-one has to choose to have a faith in the way they may have to choose medical treatment or make lifestyle decisions, but it is entirely natural to wonder about the bits that science doesn't have answers for and to come to philosophical conclusions that do not have a basis in physical evidence. Most people will change the way they think when presented with clear evidence - these days most people see a rainbow as an optical phenomenon, not as a message from god. People may not change their mind when all that is presented is a lack of evidence.

There are of course plenty of exceptions. I think this discussion would be clearer if there was a distinction between people who do believe in things contrary to the evidence (like homeopathy) and those who believe in things for which there is currently no proof, like life after death or dark matter!

Now I am interested to see what I have misunderstood about science [very interested emoticon]

And agree about the fact sometimes you need to choose. Actually we choose all the time, it's just a lot of the time we don't take the time/energy to think about it deeply. These are actually beliefs but are showing up as cultural habits for example.
Eg a friend of mine in the UK thinks biscuits and sweets are bad for young children as it will rotten their teeth. Another in France thinks that crisps should never be eaten by young children as they are too high in salt and fats.
Neither have made the research. They believe what their culture think is better for you. In the UK crisps are seen as safe. In France, no one would be worried about their dcs teeth because if a few biscuits.

Back could you define what a belief is? Just curious to know how you can have I beliefs at all.

This is what I struggle with too BackOnly - with faith, how do you choose?

I was raised a Catholic - not believing was not an option. I had to believe, whether I believed or not!!!!!! As I got older, I couldn't understand how Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Jews etc could all believe that theirs was the one true faith. How could that be? I also didn't understand how men & organised institutions could work out lots of very complicated man made rules, which could all be different & yet somehow based on the teachings of one person. I then struggled with how religions had changed & how in the very early days there had been many gods, now there seem to be monolithic religions etc. Who was right, would we all be believing something completely different in another 1000 years.

I guess the problem is I just don't have any faith. I'm not sure why not but even as a little girl, I just didn't get it & I still don't now.

People develop beliefs based on what repeatedly works for them. It's like personal micro science. As long as they are not trying to force you to believe it, I don't see the problem.