"Beliefs are not facts" discuss.
What is a fact? The Meriam-Webster Dictionary defines a fact as:
1: (a) Something that has actual existence
(b) An actual occurrence
2: A piece of information presented as having objective reality.
A belief is
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid believing in a psychologically uncomfortable truth.
We all do it.
People can believe propositions with varying degrees of conviction, but believing something does not make it so, no matter how hard you believe.
So, when discussing faith it gets confusing because many bring scientific thinking to the table. But beliefs can't be refuted by facts.
So how do we discuss our beliefs?
In my view we need to acknowledge the fact ( see what I did there? 😜) that these are our beliefs and, as such, will always be subjective.
If I were brought up a Hindu my beliefs would be very different from what they are now. I may beconverted - but conversion is very much dependent on our feelings and situation, rather than being convinced by new 'facts'
I know that my faith involves suspending my disbelief - and that's OK.
1: (a) Something that has actual existence
(b) An actual occurrence
2: A piece of information presented as having objective reality.
A belief is
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid believing in a psychologically uncomfortable truth.
We all do it.
People can believe propositions with varying degrees of conviction, but believing something does not make it so, no matter how hard you believe.
So, when discussing faith it gets confusing because many bring scientific thinking to the table. But beliefs can't be refuted by facts.
So how do we discuss our beliefs?
In my view we need to acknowledge the fact ( see what I did there? 😜) that these are our beliefs and, as such, will always be subjective.
If I were brought up a Hindu my beliefs would be very different from what they are now. I may beconverted - but conversion is very much dependent on our feelings and situation, rather than being convinced by new 'facts'
I know that my faith involves suspending my disbelief - and that's OK.
Comments
In many contexts, "fact" can simply be "something generally believed to be true". Until a few centuries ago it was generally accepted as fact that the earth we live on is fixed, with only relatively small changes in where things are. Now we generally accept as fact that the earth is in motion with land surfaces attached to plates that move relative to each other with oceans that open (or close) and mountain ranges formed where plates push against each other (we could also state that it was believed that the earth was fixed with stars and planets moving around it). Though we might have difficulty seeing how the current "facts" of the way the earth behaves might be different, there's always the possibility that new understanding changes what we generally accept to be true. In other areas of science, the possibility that our "facts" may be artefacts of what we believe are probably more evident - in a few centuries people may look back and our understanding of the cosmos and the "facts" we believe about it to be naïve, just as we look back at the naivety of those a few centuries ago considered that the earth is fixed to be a fact.
If anyone wants to bring scientific thinking to the table of a discussion of facts would need to start with the acknowledgement that in science there are no objective facts - though there are things "presented as having objective reality" (and, so "facts" according to the dictionary definition), any decent scientist would recognise the subjectivity of such a presentation. Karl Popper famously posited that it's not possible to prove anything, and is then incorrectly credited with an approach that says science can falsify a theory (of course, Popper was smart enough to recognise that disproving something is just proving that something is wrong ... and if you can't prove anything therefore you also can't disprove anything).
The basic problem here is that there is no fully reliable way to tell the difference between knowing something is really a fact and believing incorrectly that it is a fact when it isn't. They are hard to tell apart. There are situations where we can be sure - there's a coffee mug on front of me, I'm wearing a jumper - but they tend to be not terribly significant to larger questions of how we should live and treat other people.
If our feelings didn't have some useful role in our reasoning process they wouldn't be able to lead us astray. (The root metaphor of feelings is knowledge by direct contact.) I think they're involved in the process to help us identify what aspects of a situation are important. Ideally our beliefs would track the facts and be refuted by facts, but practically that's hard.
I think the reason for talking as if there isn't isn't a relation between beliefs basically that the degree we can be confident in our beliefs and the degree to which those beliefs are important to the way we want to live are generally inversely related. But there's no dividing line. The same general principles apply.
😉
The most common formulation of science is that observation leads to a theory. Theory produces a testable hypothesis. Scientific experimentation then produces evidence that either supports or refutes the hypothesis. In this sense science is a search for facts. The evidence supports our understanding, which changes as more evidence is found. Newtonian physics is a very good model of how large things (like planets) behave. Einstein's Theory of Special Relatively incorporates Newtonian physics and has more explanatory power.
However, if you want to be very precise about it, science does not necessarily describe how the world works. It does give us a model which will describe real world phenomena. The model may or may not be how things actually are.
That notwithstanding, most of us hold scientific evidence as of particular value in separating objective fact from opinion. But let's be clear on what it is and is not.
However, there's a subtle, unspoken assumption here which is vital. The scientific method depends in the notion that there is such a thing as objective facts. We may or may not know what they are but we are always looking for the truth, the reality.
Ancient paganism and postmodernism do not necessarily have this assumption.
Christian Faith sits in this modernist world-view.* It depends on truth claims and an appeal to objective facts. That's not to say that following Christ is not an exercise in belief and faith. Of course it is. However, Christianity makes some specific truth claims, grounded in actual history. The Gospel accounts of Jesus's life, death and resurrection are stated as facts. Now, the gospels we have today may be unreliable or wrong and we are all free to believe whatever we wish about them but the documents themselves tell these events as facts. They are truth claims.
AFZ
*There's a very strong argument that the Judeo-Christian world view gave birth to the scientific method.
I can see what you are getting at but don't quite see it that way.
One could argue that the Papal Magisterium had 'that luxury' and much more besides until comparatively recently.
I don't think scientists and palaeontologists are presenting us with what they consider to be cast-iron and incontrovertible 'facts' about conditions in the Triassic or Jurassic (or any other geological epoch) but presenting what they believe to be the best approximation given the available evidence.
Those presentations may be modified over time as new studies take place and new evidence comes to light.
Even in my lifetime depictions of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures have changed as more studies are carried out. Those depictions were very different again back in the 19th century when serious paleontology was in its infancy.
In 50 or 100 years time there might very well be different approaches and understandingsvof the Triassic and Jurassic than those we have now.
You appear to be complaining that contemporary science has some kind of 'privileged' platform. That may very well be the case. But what would you put in its place?
If a plane flies then the basis for the theories of flight are true enough.
I will readily admit, or at least assume, that the problem there lies with me, not with @KoF. But I think it highlights a reality—dare I say a fact—that’s highly relevant in a discussion such as this one, and that’s that different people’s brains are wired differently. We process information differently, and we weigh information differently. What is meaningful or persuasive to one person may be meaningless to another.
That last sentence seems clearly wrong to me. I suspect everyone has had the experience of at least one belief—something they have trusted as true—being changed or abandoned by new factual information or evidence.
To the extent that "science" (or maybe just "a" science) is a frame of reference, scientific facts are all the knowledge and information that are generally accepted therein.
On the other hand it seems to me that the chemical composition of water is H2O, or an oxygen nucleus has eight protons, or DNA is composed of chains made from four nucleotides, are scientific facts.
I’m not sure anything I can say would help, however I essentially believe that mathematics are an objective reality. Everything else can only be partially true as measured against objective maths.
Well, we only know them indirectly. They are dependent on things like atomic theory and Avogadro's Law. If they were fundamentally flawed then the conclusion drawn using them would also be.
Not quite.
The scientific method depends on measurements being repeatable. That's a weaker statement than requiring the existence of objective fact.
As I’ve mentioned before on these boards, math and science were courses of study that I endured because they were required, and I took no math or science beyond what was required. I found them boring and, beyond a certain point, incomprehensible. (Trigonometry and chemistry, both of which I had to take in high school, made absolutely no sense to me. I seriously don’t know how I managed to get through those classes, and I knew better than to keep going and attempt calculus or physics.)
So when someone speaks of something like measuring things against objective math, I simply can’t relate to that at all; I can’t parse what it means. That’s just not how my brain works. But I know that many brains do work that way, and that’s a good thing.
And just to be clear, I don’t in the least deny the importance of math and sciences, and I’m grateful daily for the people who study them, understand then and love them. I’m just not one of those people.
In the context of the opening post, it doesn't really matter which of the two worlds is more "real" - as far as the vast majority of people inhabiting each world are concerned, the facts of their world are real, solid and reliable - they accept them.
The question (here) are the ways in which the two different sets of facts of the two different worlds affect (or don't affect) the beliefs of the people inhabiting each world. And how this contrasts with Neo's beliefs.
I would have similar to the phrases I used. The evidence suggests this, we can deuce that.
Fair enough, up to a point. Repeatable is the key and that is based on the assumption of uniformity of course. Or at least that uniformity works as long as we need it to. Again we are reaching the point of saying the science works rather than the science is necessarily true.
The analogy @Alan Cresswell referred to is an accurate reflection of where we are.
What I was reaching for is two-fold. Firstly the simple fact that there's no such thing as scientific fact - that's not how science works. And secondly, the expectation that science will work because the universe is a (closed*) system that behaves consistently. The philosophy that gave birth to that mode of thinking is based on a belief in objective realities was my point. Once again, the piles in the bog are a beautiful analogy of where we are.
What's intriguing is how science does hold a privileged place in the public discourse and how it doesn't. Both are true depending on the circumstances and the players involved.
But for me the real kicker is this one:
Strict naturalism is the philosophical position of Scientism. Just to be clear, what we mean here is that form of atheism that posits that the universe we live in is the only reality** and simply exists. We, as complex organisms with consciousness and just a result of natural forces: Firstly the physics that results in stars that enable the formation of planets and the creation of all the elements needed for life. Secondly, the chemistry needed for biological processes and Thirdly the biology of evolution by random mutation and natural selection.
Therefore our brains, consciousness and sense of logic are all the result of these processes and exist in the form they do because of these forces. Specifically are reasoning power is a survival advantage that make it more likely for our genes to survive and be passed on. To me, as an aside, Dawkins made a big mistake*** when he named his book the Selfish Gene. By anthropomorphising the unit of genetic material like this he leads readers to ask - to what purpose and end? And of course, that makes no sense. When you understand the survival of genes as a physical process whereby of course genes that are successful will survive, it makes so much more sense.
Sorry, slight side-track there, the point is that our reasoning is something we think is true but if it is simply the result of these physical forces then there is no *reason* to think that it is. The measure of our reasoning ability is not truth but survival advantage. Therefore we do not know if we can trust it.
This is directly analogous to whether we can trust maths to give us the truth.
If you talk to serious, monothesistic philosophers, this is very much their home turf. This worldview deals in objective facts, whilst accepting that we cannot know if we've found them or not. This worldview predicts uniformity in the universe and therefore makes a natural home for the scientific method.
Hence, it is coherent to believe in a creator with certain properties that means that it makes sense to turn to science to study our world. It is also the case that belief in Christ specifically depends on the reliability of the truth claims about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If there was compelling evidence that Jesus never existed then orthodox Christianity falls. (Note the small 'o' there). Conversely, following Jesus remains an act of faith beyond simple historicity.
AFZ
*Strictly speaking Christians do not believe it is an entirely closed system or at least is more complex than saying open/closed but for our purposes here we can stick to the scientific philosophy that the universe works by its own 'rules' and science is the discovery of these 'rules'.
**In this context I mean this universe and whatever multiverse may exist. That's still a physical reality in the sense that naturalism understands it. What is precluded is any sort of spiritual reality.
***I think Dawkins is an idiot anyway but this was a new thought to me that his choice of title actually undermined his argument in a slightly oblique way. What I mean by that is not that it makes his proposition incoherent of less likely to be true it does not. I mean the point of his books was to get his position accepted and the title I think prompts people inadvertently to think in a way that makes them less likely to accept the proposition. Intriguing. To me, anyway.
I think this is exactly reversed. It's not some philosophy that gave birth to people thinking that the universe behaves consistently, it's the observation that the universe behaves consistently that gave birth to that philosophy.
Not true. Historically the move from paganism to monotheism laid the groundwork for science to exist. In fact if you wind back the level of knowledge and study by say 500 years, it's very hard to see the universe behaving consistently. In this world, paganism is a very rational belief.
I'm not getting this. You're claiming that, for example, prior to 500 years ago it was impossible to predict that December would be colder than July in the northern hemisphere, or that a strong wind would move ships on some days and not others? This seems a particularly egregious form of solipsism, that the universe only behaves consistently because we think it behaves consistently. If we decide otherwise, suddenly cows will start giving birth to cantaloupes and water will start freezing at 55°F? Seriously?
That's not what I'm saying at all.
No idea.
But then my inability to explain things is not somehow evidence that everything isn’t mathematics.
Well what are you saying? It sure seems like you're saying that the universe only started behaving consistently about 500 years ago in response to my claim that the universe does behave consistently, which is probably the reason why people treat it as behaving consistently (working out calendars as a guide for when to plant crops, using the same consistent techniques when forging metal, etc.) rather than creating some abstract philosophy and only then treating the universe as if it's consistent.
Are you going with, maths equations describes physics, which describes chemistry which describes biology and so on up ?
500 years? I don’t think so. Islamic astronomers were already making strides which assumed that the universe was consistent and capable of being understood.
3000 years, maybe true.
However...
In order for someone to observe that the universe behaves consistently they have to observe two different events and judge that the same thing happened both times. But if exactly the same thing happened both times they'd be the same event. In order to judge that the same thing had happened they have to abstract what was similar in the two events from the totality of each event and judge that the similar aspect was more important than the differing aspects. In short, "the same thing happened both times" is not something that a totally blank slate could just pick up.
At least some such expectations must be hard-wired into us by evolution or they're Kantian transcendentals of understanding or both (take your pick).
But it's still the case that some things apparently behave consistently and some things apparently don't. The weather is usually warmer in summer than in winter but sometimes you have warm winter days and cold summer days. Some years the rains come as expected and some years they don't. Sometimes the toast lands butter side down and sometimes it lands butter side up. Suppose you drop a glass outwith controlled conditions and it breaks. Either: the glass produces a definite number of shards all of which persist through time and space until you find them all and sweep them up; or else some shards of glass materialise later on in places you've already looked. Based purely on empirical observations can you rule the latter possibility out?
Deciding that the apparent regularities reveal the fundamental nature of the world and that the apparent irregularities are merely apparent is not an inevitable deduction. (According to Clifford Geertz, drawing on Evans-Pritchard's anthropological work in Africa and his own work in Indonesia, there were societies in the twentieth century that hadn't yet deduced that way.)
A number, chosen fairly randomly. However the Islamic astronomers were drawing on the same monotheistic philosophy - essentially an expectation that the universe should make sense.
@Crœsos The seasons and sun rise / sunset are obvious constants. But most of the lived world does not behave in ways that appear at first glance to be consistent.
Will in rain today or not? Will we get enough rain for the crops to grow? Will we find enough food today? Which child will survive to adulthood? Will I be well or ill tomorrow? Hey, the sun disappeared for a few minutes, that's never happened before? Oh and last month there was an earthquake but not one for years before that... Most of the patterns are not obvious at all.
So your claim is that establishing planting seasons for various crops is not something that would have occurred to anyone prior to the sixteenth century? Or that ancient metallurgists didn't have consistent techniques (X copper + Y tin = bronze) but just used the "eh, whatever" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ principle? That does not seem to correspond with history.
Nice.
It is hard to keep complex topics concise.
But to help you out again. 500 is a good number because of how the explosion of scientific discovery began in the ~16th - 17th century in European civilisations. That's not to deny discoveries or innovations elsewhere at all.
However, it is a mistake to not pause when looking back at earlier times to try to understand the cultural context and cognitive biases.
Of course everyone has known the rhythm of the seasons for millennia, but the idea that for most thinkers in the pre-industrial age, the universe looked predictable is a real stretch.
These patterns are relatively clear but most of them are far more cryptic.
Moreover, I am not just making this up. The history of science and the philosophy of science are hardly new topics.
None of this makes Christianity or any other belief true, of course. It's just the story of how we got here.
AFZ
Please stop digging a hole. You are wrong, move on.
You are free to believe that, of course.
A far better argument would be to talk about logic and ancient Greek philosophy.
In my village there has been an event on the same day every year for thousands of years. How can that possibly be true if people didn’t think that daylength was consistent enough to be able to establish which day was which?
Some crops mature in the same day every year. Trees and flowers certainly do. Birds hatch.
People have known this stuff for thousands of years. Not just since 1700.
At no point have I denied that. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I said that day and night and seasons have be known for millennia. That's literally what I said.
However, that does not equate to people having an overall lived experience of the world being predictable.
I may well be wrong about - well - literally everything. But you are telling me I am wrong for saying something that I literally did not say.
Not true. Where do you get this idea from specifically?
You are equating seasons with all of life. @Dafyd put it more eloquently than me.
People mostly believed the world was consistent enough to be understood in a very large number of ways for a very long time.
There is an argument to be made that the sort of empiricism you describe could lead to modern science but that's not what happened. At least, there is a view held by many, if not most, historians of science that indeed it is not what happened.
From Wiki on Christianity and Science:
Now, as with science, history is built on evidence. There is lots of evidence that supports the theory that the Judeo-Christian worldview gave birth to modern science for philosophical reasons. The theory may be wrong, of course but it's a widely held one.
To me, part of the explanation for it being this way round is that without modern science or a certain worldview, the world does not seem very consistent at all. Indeed most of us, if the car won't start will try a few more times before calling for recovery. In the hope of applying the same input to a situation and getting a different output. And that's true of highly educated people with a very empirical worldview to begin with.
I am not denying that some aspects of life appeared to be consistent but it is hard to imagine how these things appeared to people without the benefit of the last 500 years of human history. As noted there are warm days in winter and cold in summer. There are years when the rains come late or not at all. There are smeltings that fail for no obvious reason.
Of course, it is also true that the church has often been anti-science as well. But so what?
Again, I am skirting over the huge influence on ancient Greek philosophy here but that is a more complex part of the argument.
AFZ
P.s. Doublethink said it better than me and in only 6 words.
All those monotheists like Archimedes, and Euclid, and Ptolemy, and Aristotle? Or the Mayan astronomers?
So the concept of a consistent world was present, if mistaken in its deductions.
As I said, that's where it gets a lot more complex.