h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

And there are no religious beliefs which can accomodate that?

I can name one religion where that's possible.

<>

Actually, that's more interesting as I consider it more deeply. I can't remember ever seeing a discussion of how we integrate what we perceive/learn with whatever we already believe. Queex: can you explain in a little more depth how the scientific method is used for this purpose? MaW: do you know of any other - religious? - method for "sensibly updating your beliefs in the light of new experiences"?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Yes, Pattern-chaser, it's called open-mindedness. As long as you don't allow yourself to be blinded by dogma, then you pay attention to the world, and your beliefs _will_ change according to your experiences, whether you're doing it deliberately or not. They might not change very much, they might change a lot - it all depends on what your starting point and experiences are I guess, plus a big dose of your own personality mixed in to confuse everything.

Self-Paradoxical:
The scientific method *doesn't* assume that god doesn't exist. As I said, many liberally religious people start with the assumption that god exists and employ the scientific method. In fact, the body of scientific knowledge doesn't even assume the non-existence of God. What it does assume is that we can understand the universe (mostly) by careful observation and clear thought. Whether there is a god or not is rarely considered. The body of scientific knowledge has yet to prove god exists, but it also has yet to prove that it doesn't exist. Theism or atheism is not tackled by the science; it's not designed to deal with those sorts of issues and shouldn't be used to. It may well contradict some parts of some religious beliefs (pi=3, world is flat and has 4 corners etc.) but it is not incompatible with them in general.

That is why it is not a belief system; it makes no claims about religious beliefs. If you burn yourself, you take care not to touch a hot frying pan again. The learning process is the scientific method.

I'll happily agree that the body of scientific knowledge (as crafted by the scientific method, mostly, anyway) is a belief system. But it can be grafted onto most religious belief systems with few casualties.

The scientific method is no more a belief system than a spade is a hole in the ground.

As an aside, the scientific method does provide a means of enforcing coherence in your beliefs. You could postulate a self-contradictory beliefs (such as some fundamentalists), but that type of paradox makes a mockery of any decisions you make. The scientific method does, at least, prevent contradictions in your beliefs. It's not unique in that regard, however.

Pattern-chaser:
Subjective viewpoint is the only viewpoint of consequence. We can never directly observe an objective reality (even if one exists). The scientific method allows us to update our subjective beliefs. In some cases, there may not even be an objective reality behind out subjective ones (such as musical tastes). This is not a drawback. We make decisions from our subjective viewpoint. This is why personal prejudices are just as important as 'facts' in our daily lives.
The issue is not how closely our subjective realities match with some notional objective reailty, rather how well our subjective realities help us in our daily decision-making.

I disregard certainty in all but the most limited contexts. Maths, for example, has certainty. Astrophysics and metaphysics don't.

The scientific method tends to follow the pattern:

We currently believe this is the case. If we see contradictoy evidence, we will examine the matter more closely until we are reasonably confident again.

Or:

Current evidence is insufficient to form any opinion about this matter. We must gather more evidence quickly.

Or:

This matter does not yield itself up to scientific analysis. We will not waste our time trying.

Practically, the second rarely occurs as anyone will have some preconceived ideas on a given topic. For a peek at one of the formal methods that follow this pattern, you could look at A792560. The trick is to make sure you have the right sensitivity to new information.

Sure, many people will employ the scientific method without ever realising it. The formal defintions of scientific method tend to be mired in very narrow fields. They give very detailed descriptions of how to be 'scientific' about very narrow topics. In light of the rise of Bayesian statistics it becomes apparent that there is really no difference between regimented scientific method and sensible open-mindedness.

<>

So is light a wave or a stream of particles?

<>

Damn! How can we have a good discussion when we all agree.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

OK, MaW, nothing to dispute there. So how do you cope when confronted with apparent evidence (i.e. perception) that the real world conflicts with your internal model of it? I don't mean something trivial, I mean something more central; fundamental (sorry for the filthy language!) even.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P.S. Have fun in Sweden! Work or play?

"So how do you cope when confronted with apparent evidence (i.e. perception) that the real world conflicts with your internal model of it?"

I know the question wasn't directed to me, but I'll answer anyway. Got a problem with your internal model? Change it! Better to have fluctuating beliefs than incorrect ones.

I hope no one objects to the use of "correct" in that last sentence. "Congruent with one's perception of reality and truth" is cumbersome.

s and s,
~Wes

"<>

So is light a wave or a stream of particles?"

Hee hee. Good one. Although it is really neither. It is a type of thing we don't have a pat word for that exhibits some behaviour of both. Not so much a contradiction as a different entity entirely.

BTW, didn't someone come up with a definite reason for this peculiar behaviour in quantum mechanics? I can't recall. Does anyone remeber this or is it my imagination?

PC: <<"So how do you cope when confronted with apparent evidence (i.e. perception) that the real world conflicts with your internal model of it?">>

ELD: <>

Correct (IMO), and easy to say; maybe not so easy to do. Let me home in a bit more on the nasty example I'm thinking of. Let's just say that you perceive something that conflicts with beliefs in which you have a significant personal investment.

You are probably human , and so you aren't an inherently logical creature. How do you balance the need to retain your existing beliefs with the new discovery you have made? The decision just to abandon your former beliefs is not an easy one; it may not even be possible for some people (assuming sanity is to be maintained!) Subjective and emotional issues are part and parcel of being human. To dismiss them in considering the conundrum I'm proposing is not logical (for a human).

Over to you, ELD, or anyone else who cares to offer an opinion....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Q: <>

PC: <>

Q: <>

Well, OK, but doesn't science currently teach that it is both? I was certainly taught that this is a logical inconsistency that we simply can't resolve at present....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Pattern-chaser: "Let me home in a bit more on the nasty example I'm thinking of. Let's just say that you perceive something that conflicts with beliefs in which you have a significant personal investment."
---
Do you have a specific nasty example in mind, or just nasty stuff in general?

------------
Ex Libris: "Got a problem with your internal model? Change it! Better to have fluctuating beliefs than incorrect ones."
---

Perhaps "change" is the wrong word, or at least always isn't the right one. I think "include" might be better. If it isn't possible to totally alter your belief system, maybe you can tweak it a little so it's a little more "correct", more inclusive to your new experiences and perceptions.

Say there's a guy who believes in nothing that hasn't been scientifically proven, published, generally agreed on, etc. For him there are no ghosts, no spoon-bending, no gods. One day God peeks out of the clouds and speaks to him, telling him the Christians (pick a sect, any sect) are absolutely perfectly right, that their Bible really is the word of God.

This hypothetical guy has more ways to change his belief system than just getting born again. Perhaps he didn't see God, he's just crazy. (He never believed he was crazy before, did he?) Or someone telepathically planted the experience in his mind. Or he really did get spoken to by an all-powerful, all-knowing being, but said being was lying--not just the Christians are, but *everyone* is right and all the religions are equally valid.

Now, these new beliefs are not the best, most logical ones that could arise from a situation like this. They're just some stuff I pulled out of my head for an example. Hopefully you can see the point I was trying to make with them. If you didn't, or I didn't answer your question at all, speak up. I'll admit, I'm not sure I really understood what you were asking with your final paragraph...

"A thousand years ago everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth. Five hundred years ago everyone knew the earth was flat. And two days ago you *knew* we were alone on the planet. I wonder what you'll know tomorrow?"
(Credit Self-Paradoxical and Men in Black for that one)

s and s,
~Wes

Pattern-chaser: <>

ELD: <>

I think what I said is specific enough. I'm putting forward the hypothetical example that you perceive something that directly contradicts something(s) that you *really* believe, and would find difficult to set aside.

The detached view makes it easy to see what to do: update your beliefs to conform to the real world, and carry on with your life.

A more human view sees you between a rock and a hard place. An emotional attachment to a belief isn't a simple thing to break. Must we just accept that there are some things we are unable to accept - because our beliefs don't allow it - even though they more accurately model the real world?

ELD: <>

I assume that's directed at me, and at this:

PC: <>

My point, other than that which I've already expanded above, is that when dealing with humans, one must (logically?) consider all their foibles, including emotional attachments and subjective viewpoints. To pretend that a human is a sort of robot that can and will behave objectively/logically is a cop-out; it ducks the question, which is about how *humans* feel and act.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ooh, ooh, this is fun: cognitive dissonance. My cousin is working in that field right now. For now, I'll just put forward what I know...

The psychological concept of cognitive dissonance can be loosely defined as a contradiction between either two beliefs or a belief and a behavior. This dissonance causes discomfort, which the subject alleviates in one of several ways. The subject will sometimes verbalize exceptions from the conflicted belief, subconsciously realizing that they remain contradictory. Sometimes the subject will distract him or her self with another thought. There are many other dissonance reducing devices, none of which I remember . The most effective way of reducing dissonance, however, is to confront the conflict and change a belief or behavior. If this is not done, it can lead to degeneration in health, both mental and physical. Thus, the scientific method can be used as a dissonance removal device (which might explain why some people come to be obsessed with it.) So kids, remember, science does the body good.

Ah yes, cognitive dissonance - that's what it's called. I'd forgotten the correct term. Can you pass on any more of what your cousin knows - or is doing - in this area, Art?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well right now he's working on the effects of cognitive dissonance on relationships. Somehow, that takes him into a remote bit of Arizona, where I'm having some trouble reaching him. So that's all I have to offer, i think

Please go to my home page to find a link (not allowed here!) to a review of "Religion Explained: The Human Instincts That Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors", a book by Pascal Boyer, reviewed by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Haifa. Interesting.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Q: <>

PC: <>

Q: <>

PC: <>

I thought the justification for saying it is both was that it displayed behaviour of both. From that angle, you could just as easily say it was something else with appropriate behaviours. The inconsistency arises from expecting it to be one or the other.

I'm a little hazy on the details; but I seem to recall that the contradiction arises because in different experiments it behaves in different ways. Although it's behaviour is peculiar, it is at least consistent with itself.

I don't see a contradiction here. In any case, the body of scientific knowledge is saying 'we don't really know what's going on' and the scientific method is waiting to receive further input.

Anomalies like this aren't really inconsistencies; they are more like patches of uncertainty. What I meant was that subtler contradictions can be avoided. This sort of subtle 'incoherence' is talked about in decision analysis. An obvious example is someone saying the probability of an event is 0.5, and the probability of it not happening is 0.3. In a similar way, when some people state beliefs they are not internally consistent (particularly where numbers are involved). The details are a little dry. Try: Decision Analysis, A Bayesian Approach by Jim Q Smith as one place to find out more. The scientific method enforces a rigorous numeric formality that prevents such incoherence when applied properly.

[[Ongoing discussion of wave-particle duality in light.]]

<>

Is this an inconsistency? The concepts of 'wave' and 'particle[-stream]' are mutually exclusive. Of course, we can always postulate some new thing which exhibits the properties of both, which gets rid of the contradiction, as you suggest.

<>

It's worse than that. If, in any particular experiment, you assume that the light is a wave phenomenon, and measure it as such, you obtain the measurements you expect. Equally, if you assume it's a stream of particles, and carry out appropriate measurements, you still get what you expect!

Best of all is the famous double-slit experiment. If you reduce the amount of light entering the experimental apparatus so that only one photon passes through at a time, it *still* passes through *both* slits, and interferes with itself to produce the well-known interference fringes on the experimental detector. And if you close one of the slits, the pattern disappears, so the photon 'knows' whether or not the second slit is open.

<<...it is at least consistent with itself.>>

Isn't everything?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"