Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die.

[Admin]

One of my favourite aricles on the CSICOP website is this one: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die.

Many skeptics are dumbfounded when they, for example, explain the nonsense behind homeopathy or dowsing, yet people still believe in such things in spite of contradictory evidence. This can be the cause of much frustration and bewilderment for skeptics.

The answer to this problem is to understand why people hold their beliefs in the first place but also why beliefs are so resistant to change.

Although our modern environment is far more complex than our ancestors', nonetheless our brains mostly evolved on the plains of Africa and that is what they are largely adapted for. Survival in that environment.

As pointed out in the article, our brain's main purpose is to keep us alive. How it does this is of little importance with respect to truth.

From the article:

"As far as our brain is concerned, there is absolutely no need for data and belief to agree. They have each evolved to augment and supplement one another by contacting different sections of the world. They are designed to be able to disagree. This is why scientists can believe in God and people who are generally quite reasonable and rational can believe in things for which there is no credible data such as flying saucers, telepathy, and psychokinesis.

When data and belief come into conflict, the brain does not automatically give preference to data. This is why beliefs-even bad beliefs, irrational beliefs, silly beliefs, or crazy beliefs-often don't die in the face of contradictory evidence. The brain doesn't care whether or not the belief matches the data. It cares whether the belief is helpful for survival"

It may seem to be a large jump from survival beliefs on an African plain and say belief in new-age philosophies. The important point to understand is that the process of belief formation and continuation is the same. They have the same effect on our brains.

As skeptics we need to understand the hard facts on issues but that's only half the story. We also need to understand the psychology of people's beliefs to get a full picture and understanding of what we're dealing with.

We also need to realise that in the main, we're not going to change people's beliefs. We may base our opinions more on data and evidence, but it's not a requirement for humanity to do so. In fact, our ancestors who decided on the evidential, inquisitive approach may well have been less likely to survive!

This is why I am against the crusading, confrontational, antagonistic approach to skepticism.

In fact, it could be argued that it's not until people are aware of why their beliefs are so resistant to change that they will be open to actually considering scrutinising what they believe at all.

[Nucular]

It can come as quite a revelation to some that our brains just aren't very good at self-monitoring for accuracy purposes! The very premise of evolution is that, if something works, we'll keep it thanks, and if it doesn't, we'll get rid of it. And the fact that our brains have evolved, means we're stuck with that ad hoc pragmatism in the makeup of our very selves.

There's sometimes a danger in evolutionary psychology, though, to make 'just-so stories' out of these themes - to cobble together a plausible story as to why we seem to have a certain cognitive mechanism, or why we act in certain ways and call it science. It has to be accompanied by proper empirical evidence based in existing theory to actually mean anything, and some are a bit guilty I think of assuming plausibility is a substitute for evidence. There's no excuse for it now, I don't think: evolutionary psychology is coming of age, and there are now lots of researchers concentrating on producing falsifiable hypotheses, rather than evolution-flavoured fairytales. John Archer is just such a chap, having written extensively on this stuff.

But absolutely, in terms of 'changing hearts and minds', this stuff needs to be borne in mind. There's a temptation, certainly something I'm guilty of, to assume that, if you rationally point out the flaws in someone's arguments, or the problems with their conclusions, you're justified in your surprise that the reaction is "well I believe it anyway" (or more commonly, "well, shut up.").

Cognitive dissonance is a particularly annoying phenomenon: the way one's mind copes with an 'invading' thought, which challenges the ones you've invested in already. It's like the memetics idea (see e.g. Susan Blackmore's extensive writing on this) - if someone's mind is in the grip of a 'viral' idea, and you introduce a new one, there'll be a scrap to see which is stronger. And the sad fact is, that accuracy≠strength - the catchiness of the existing belief, its pithiness, congruity with existing world view, the previous investment one has made in that belief already, are all things which will beat off a new thought. Not to mention more general beliefs about what it means to change one's mind, what it means to lose an argument, etc.

An effect I've observed quite a lot of times now, though, is that critical thinking can be a sort of dormant virus. It doesn't replace the thought you were challenging in someone with no history of ever thinking critically in their lives, but suddenly, surprisingly to all concerned, kicks in when a new weird belief comes along.

Several people I've spoken to (and like you, John, I prefer a reasoned, rather than an antagonistic approach usually) have said "well look, I don't care that there's no evidence for leprechauns, I have one in my garden and that's that", and yet the next time a new belief comes along, which they haven't invested in, or built a little house for, they can boot it out straight away as daft.

Mysterious creatures, we.

[hodgy]

Good arguments but...

By the same token, there must surely be evolutionary reasons for the emergence of skepticism. I doubt if our microbial ancestors started out as miniature JREF-subscribing skeptics and evolved into fully-fledged born-again Christians due to the hunting instinct of stone-age lions. Its possible to consider this subject from 2 directions.

[The Great Bymble]

One of my favourite aricles on the CSICOP website is this one: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die.

Many skeptics are dumbfounded when they, for example, explain the nonsense behind homeopathy or dowsing, yet people still believe in such things in spite of contradictory evidence. This can be the cause of much frustration and bewilderment for skeptics.

The answer to this problem is to understand why people hold their beliefs in the first place but also why beliefs are so resistant to change..

Here's an article that gives some current input on this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090300933.html
As a hypothesis it definitely fits some of the personalities I've encountered...

[Jocky]

Thanks for the link John - that is a fantastic article.

The need to deal with 'believers' in a calm and courteous manner is of paramount importance, and this provides is an excellent science-based explanation of why. Messing with peoples' world views is potentially a perilous undertaking - there is more to this than mere debuking.

I think this also underlines the need for spreading the tools of critical thinking to as wide an audience as possible, especially among younger people. If those tools can get there before a false belief is encountered in the first place, it can save people the trauma of having to change that belief later. Prevention is better than cure!

[Scudmarx]

Doesn't the idea that 'our brains are wired to be capable of false beliefs for good reason' seem to need a counterargument? If I accept that an ability to hold false beliefs is required for survival, that would imply that holding false beliefs is at least occasionally required?

Are there criteria of usefulness of a 'bad belief' that can be applied generally?

[Araneus]

If I accept that an ability to hold false beliefs is required for survival, that would imply that holding false beliefs is at least occasionally required?

It's not the ability to hold a false belief that is necessary for survival, it's the ability to accept a belief which is helpful.

If you are a child and your mother tells you that you will get killed if you run out in front of a car, you'd better accept that belief if you want to survive. Testing it out scientifically is not going to work.

The acceptance of false beliefs is simply a by-product of the ability to accept beliefs in general.

[bindeweede]

Could someone please remind me of the correct name of the syndrome whereby people continue to believe in something, in spite of argument and evidence disproving it? I came across it a few days ago, but I just can't remember where.

[bindeweede]

Sorry, Just found it in one of JJ's posts - true believer syndrome -
page 384 of the Skep Dic.