nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Evidence is not the answer

[Deleted User]

I followed a group of very erudite scientists and researchers online, their aim was to debunk alternative medicine and the like using evidence-based research. As time went on I realised a lot genuinely though evidence-based research would change the minds of antivax believers or it would change the minds of those who want to treat their cancer with alternative medicine. It is the same with atheists addressing religion with evidence.

Very few seemed to grasp that it's not about evidence it's about belief, basically, people believe what they want to believe.

Slavoj Zizek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj theories that we are all aware of gaps and contradiction we just turn a blind eye to them we fill in the gaps and contradiction to suit ourselves. He was talking about ideology but it is very similar.

So who are the rational evidence-based believers or the atheists addressing themselves to?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bear1

*opens thread*
*reads it twice*
*doesn't get it*
*walks back out slowly*

o1s1n

mariaalice wrote: »

So who are the rational evidence-based believers or the atheists addressing themselves to?

So what would your alternative be? Scientists drop evidence based argument and replace it with some kind of cult like brainwashing?

'vaccinations are good because...the leader says so and if you don't follow him you will burn for eternity'

Cordell

There is no alternative medicine.
There are scams, pseudoscience, and scams dressed-up as pseudoscience.

[Deleted User]

o1s1n wrote: »

So what would your alternative be? Scientists drop evidence based argument and replace it with some kind of cult like brainwashing?

'vaccinations are good because...the leader says so and if you don't follow him you will burn for eternity'

No I don't know what the answer as regards scientific evidence and medician is, I suspect the avowed atheists are justs talking to themselves and other atheists.

o1s1n

mariaalice wrote: »

No I don't know what the answer as regards scientific evidence and medician is, I suspect the avoid atheists are justs talking to themselves and other atheists.

All you can do is continue on as is, factually, in the hope that some of these eejits see through their lunacy and embrace reality.

[Deleted User]

bear1 wrote: »

*opens thread*
*reads it twice*
*doesn't get it*
*walks back out slowly*

in simple form addressing antivaxx or alternative medician or religion with evidence is nieve at best, because of its not about evidence it's about belief.

I just threw in the bit about Slavoj Zizek to make myself sound intelligent obviously did not work.

Grayson

We're all idiots. Every last one of us. I've made a point of studying belief and how the human brain works. It stemmed from a study of logic. How to work out if an argument is correct, and that led down the rabbit hole of why humans are illogical sometimes. We like to think that we're rational creatures but we're not. We're filled with bias. And our brains are designed not to change their minds.
It's actually discomforting to be faced with contradictory evidence so we either avoid it or just claim that it's wrong. When it happens to me I even notice an uncomfortable feeling in my stomach.

Science is good because it attempts to strip away the bias but it can creep in. Think back to the eugenics of the first part of the 20th century. So yes, we should be critical of science, but only to the extent where we examine it for inaccuracies, not whether it fits into our bias and beliefs.

El_Bee

kneemos

People believe in a flat Earth. It's an Illness.

nozzferrahhtoo

My own experience, anecdotally at least, is that the only people who have a problem with evidence are the ones who do not have any. People who then, when the subject changes to something they do have evidence for, are suddenly all too happy to use it and also to demand it of others.

Stacking the deck a bit I guess.

I am always fascinated by the people who, like in the OP, claim to be able to believe what they want to believe though. An ability that has been denied me as every belief I hold was compelled in me by the substantiation for it. Every belief my brain has rejected has been because no substantiation was available.

The idea I could just choose to believe or not believe something, like flicking a button intentionally, is alien to me. It is just not how I work. What does it even feel like? How labile is your credulity? Can you literally stare at a patently empty box and just BELIEVE by choice it is full of money?

Fourier

Grayson wrote: »

We're all idiots. Every last one of us. I've made a point of studying belief and how the human brain works. It stemmed from a study of logic. How to work out if an argument is correct, and that led down the rabbit hole of why humans are illogical sometimes. We like to think that we're rational creatures but we're not. We're filled with bias. And our brains are designed not to change their minds.

At least in my reading of the subject there's a good deal of back and forth on exactly how illogical we are. One team says they find an example of bias, another team can't see it in the data. An example I looked into recently was the backfire effect (relevant to the OP) where the evidence is quite poor.

Also in other bias examples whether we're biased or not depended on the details of the probability model the researchers were using.

Logic is of very little utility in evaluating the truth of anything due to the requirement of knowing things are absolutely true or false. You more need probability theory and from studies babies are very good at using probability theory (the technical term being Bayesian Inference) naturally as they navigate the world.

So I'm genuinely not sure we're idiots or what standard you'd compare us to in order to evaluate that. The most interesting thing to me is that even the most solidly identified biases are dampened massively after a short course on biases and even machine learning algorithms develop bias.

So idiots or is there no other way of navigating this world where we have limited information, but with a bit of education we can improve?

Birneybau

Thread maker par excellence

MrFresh

You can't reason someone out of a position that isn't based on reason.

amcalester

If alternative medicine worked, it wouldn't be called alternative medicine, it'd just be medicine.

Cordell

MrFresh wrote: »

You can't reason someone out of a position that isn't based on reason.

True, for a position like "I believe in red tailed unicorns and I don't care if no one has seen one".
Getting that someone to admit that their position is not based on reason is the first step and the most difficult part.

[Deleted User]

Read Michael Shermers 'The Believing Brain', OP. Basically the belief is formed first and rationalized afterwards, and it's very hard to change someones belief when the rationalization is complete. People have different ideas of what constitutes a meaningful or convincing explanation or evidence, and the reasons are as diverse as are each individuals psychology. Although particular group identities can influence belief and a leaning to conformity can solidify it.

[Deleted User]

Cordell wrote: »

True, for a position like "I believe in red tailed unicorns and I don't care if no one has seen one".
Getting that someone to admit that their position is not based on reason is the first step and the most difficult part.

That's where the faith part comes in.

I don't need a reason to believe it, I believe it because I have faith, and faith is a gift.

It's a well recognised psychological tic, where people can not only not have to explain a position, but can make themselves appear special because they don't.

I have a gift, you don't. That's why you not only don't, but can't understand.

Cordell

Faith is fine, when you need to back it by reason it's not faith anymore, it's delusion...

[Deleted User]

Fourier : "a bit of education we can improve?" you have put a question mark so you possible know that education is not neutral and sometimes education makes no difference.

I would bet a racing certainty there are parents who have PhD's in science and still choose to not vaccinate their child for example.

So education is not always the answer because again its about belief.

One eyed Jack

mariaalice wrote: »

Very few seemed to grasp that it's not about evidence it's about belief, basically, people believe what they want to believe.

...

So who are the rational evidence-based believers or the atheists addressing themselves to?

People like that, whether they be scientists, anti-theists or politicians are basically playing to the crowd -

To act, behave, or perform in such a way as to receive as much approval from an audience or group of spectators as one can get, especially the lowest common denominator therein.

Grayson

Candie wrote: »

Read Michael Shermers 'The Believing Brain', OP. Basically the belief is formed first and rationalized afterwards, and it's very hard to change someones belief when the rationalization is complete. People have different ideas of what constitutes a meaningful or convincing explanation or evidence, and the reasons are as diverse as are each individuals psychology. Although particular group identities can influence belief and a leaning to conformity can solidify it.

Like the way someone in the US who is right/republican leaning is more likely to adopt additional right wing beliefs. There's no real connection between climate change denial and low taxation. but people who believe in one tend to believe in the other. The same with chem trails and anti vaxxers.

(Note I'm not saying everyone who believes in one believes in the other, I'm just saying that people who believe in these things tend to believe in the other. And yes, it can occur on the left of the spectrum too).

There's even been studies lately that showed that people who believed these things try to be more stringent believers. It's caused by the online bubbles people live in. They try to be the strictest adherents to their beliefs to outdo others.

Fourier

mariaalice wrote: »

Fourier : "a bit of education we can improve?" you have put a question mark so you possible know that education is not neutral and sometimes education makes no difference.

I would bet a racing certainty there are parents who have PhD's in science and still choose to not vaccinate their child for example.

So education is not always the answer because again its about belief.

I meant education specifically on cognitive biases, not that the education system is perfect.

In relation to what Candie said there is huge variability on this on a personal level. Some people when analysed are quite rational and our social context can make getting rid of faulty beliefs very difficult.

My point was more the "stupid" part. Even machine learning algorithms end up biased the way we do and similarly can get trapped in beliefs due to their "peers" and once they get far enough in there is little you can do to get them out, they've rationalised as Candie said. It's just a consequence of how reasoning works, there's even a famous result (a bit technical) that there's no such thing as an unbiased assumption to work from, so it's basically impossible to be truly neutral. So many of these problems show up in things with no emotions.

The best we can do is helping people recognise what biases are.

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

Like the way someone in the US who is right/republican leaning is more likely to adopt additional right wing beliefs. There's no real connection between climate change denial and low taxation. but people who believe in one tend to believe in the other. The same with chem trails and anti vaxxers.

(Note I'm not saying everyone who believes in one believes in the other, I'm just saying that people who believe in these things tend to believe in the other. And yes, it can occur on the left of the spectrum too).

There's even been studies lately that showed that people who believed these things try to be more stringent believers. It's caused by the online bubbles people live in. They try to be the strictest adherents to their beliefs to outdo others.

Long before online bubbles, it was a documented trend that the fewer social supports there were in a society, the more likely people were to be quite, or extremely religious. It seems humans want or need to believe there is someone or something looking after us.

The highest rates of aethism were found in Sweden, the lowest in low income locations with little State support (like some parts of the Southern US), which dovetails with the rates of religiosity.

Add peoples belief-supporting online activity into the mix, and the trend is reinforced. The internet makes it easy to come to the conclusion that however niche your belief or fetish or whatever, you are not alone, not by a long chalk. And there's no smoke without fire.

Fourier

This is a nice paper. Very long, but the abstract has the main point:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fact-checking-effects.pdf

Grayson

Candie wrote: »

Long before online bubbles, it was a documented trend that the fewer social supports there were in a society, the more likely people were to be quite, or extremely religious. It seems humans want or need to believe there is someone or something looking after us.

The highest rates of aethism were found in Sweden, the lowest in low income locations with little State support (like some parts of the Southern US), which dovetails with the rates of religiosity.

Add peoples belief-supporting online activity into the mix, and the trend is reinforced. The internet makes it easy to come to the conclusion that however niche your belief or fetish or whatever, you are not alone, not by a long chalk. And there's no smoke without fire.

Plus online you are automatically presented with more material to support your belief. If you're a racist and go on youtube it will keep suggesting more material you may like. It was found that most flat earthers had first found out about it online through youtube. And the more they watched, the more "evidence" they were offered to support their beliefs.

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

Plus online you are automatically presented with more material to support your belief. If you're a racist and go on youtube it will keep suggesting more material you may like. It was found that most flat earthers had first found out about it online through youtube. And the more they watched, the more "evidence" they were offered to support their beliefs.

The algorithms play right into a persons confirmation bias, and it's so widespread with YouTube and Facebook and other social media that it's surprising people change their minds at all.

Apparently unhappy people with poor self esteem, are least likely to change position on a given issue, and people that feel good about themselves are more open to new ideas, a scary thought considering our online world that can slam minds shut as much as open them.

Fourier

Candie wrote: »

The algorithms play right into a persons confirmation bias, and it's so widespread with YouTube and Facebook and other social media that it's surprising people change their minds at all.

Apparently unhappy people with poor self esteem, are least likely to change position on a given issue, and people that feel good about themselves are more open to new ideas, a scary thought considering our online world that can slam minds shut as much as open them.

Nothing to say, just that that's awful!

Grayson

Fourier wrote: »

Nothing to say, just that that's awful!

Facebook once bragged about how they could identify people like that and target them with particular advertising.

[Deleted User]

Candie wrote: »

Long before online bubbles, it was a documented trend that the fewer social supports there were in a society, the more likely people were to be quite, or extremely religious. It seems humans want or need to believe there is someone or something looking after us.

The highest rates of aethism were found in Sweden, the lowest in low income locations with little State support (like some parts of the Southern US), which dovetails with the rates of religiosity.

Add peoples belief-supporting online activity into the mix, and the trend is reinforced. The internet makes it easy to come to the conclusion that however niche your belief or fetish or whatever, you are not alone, not by a long chalk. And there's no smoke without fire.

Cults fester in isolation. Far-right & far-left leanings are increasingly a product of confirmation bias, which has been aided and abetted by aggressive idealogues online.

lawred2

mariaalice wrote: »

I followed a group of very erudite scientists and researchers online, their aim was to debunk alternative medicine and the like using evidence-based research. As time went on I realised a lot genuinely though evidence-based research would change the minds of antivax believers or it would change the minds of those who want to treat their cancer with alternative medicine. It is the same with atheists addressing religion with evidence.

Very few seemed to grasp that it's not about evidence it's about belief, basically, people believe what they want to believe.

Slavoj Zizek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj theories that we are all aware of gaps and contradiction we just turn a blind eye to them we fill in the gaps and contradiction to suit ourselves. He was talking about ideology but it is very similar.

So who are the rational evidence-based believers or the atheists addressing themselves to?

not to close minded idiots anyway