Image: Illustration by Richard Mia
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Was President Barack Obama born in Hawaii? I find the question so absurd, not to mention possibly racist in its motivation, that when I am confronted with “birthers” who believe otherwise, I find it difficult to even focus on their arguments about the difference between a birth certificate and a certificate of live birth. The reason is because once I formed an opinion on the subject, it became a belief, subject to a host of cognitive biases to ensure its verisimilitude. Am I being irrational? Possibly. In fact, this is how most belief systems work for most of us most of the time.
We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, emotional and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture and society at large. After forming our beliefs, we then defend, justify and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments and rational explanations. Beliefs come first; explanations for beliefs follow. In my new book The Believing Brain (Holt, 2011), I call this process, wherein our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it, belief-dependent realism. Reality exists independent of human minds, but our understanding of it depends on the beliefs we hold at any given time.
I patterned belief-dependent realism after model-dependent realism, presented by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their book The Grand Design (Bantam Books, 2011). There they argue that because no one model is adequate to explain reality, “one cannot be said to be more real than the other.” When these models are coupled to theories, they form entire worldviews.
Once we form beliefs and make commitments to them, we maintain and reinforce them through a number of powerful cognitive biases that distort our percepts to fit belief concepts. Among them are:
Anchoring Bias. Relying too heavily on one reference anchor or piece of information when making decisions.
Authority Bias. Valuing the opinions of an authority, especially in the evaluation of something we know little about.
Belief Bias. Evaluating the strength of an argument based on the believability of its conclusion.
Confirmation Bias. Seeking and finding confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirming evidence.
On top of all these biases, there is the in-group bias, in which we place more value on the beliefs of those whom we perceive to be fellow members of our group and less on the beliefs of those from different groups. This is a result of our evolved tribal brains leading us not only to place such value judgment on beliefs but also to demonize and dismiss them as nonsense or evil, or both.
Belief-dependent realism is driven even deeper by a meta-bias called the bias blind spot, or the tendency to recognize the power of cognitive biases in other people but to be blind to their influence on our own beliefs. Even scientists are not immune, subject to experimenter-expectation bias, or the tendency for observers to notice, select and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment and to ignore, discard or disbelieve data that do not.
This dependency on belief and its host of psychological biases is why, in science, we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the conditions during data collection. Collaboration with colleagues is vital. Results are vetted at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research is replicated in other laboratories. Disconfirming evidence and contradictory interpretations of data are included in the analysis. If you don’t seek data and arguments against your theory, someone else will, usually with great glee and in a public forum. This is why skepticism is a sine qua non of science, the only escape we have from the belief-dependent realism trap created by our believing brains.
This article was originally published with the title The Believing Brain.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
57 Comments
Add CommentPeople believe what they want to believe. Facts are irrelevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKusac's assertion that Shermer doesn't show "any real intellect or creativity" is simple right wing gibberish & he undoubtedly said this because Shermer must have struck a nerve. Shermer concluded the paragraph by saying "I'm I being irrational. Possibly", clearly admitting the possibility of his own bias. That this fact is lost on Kusac is an ironic confirmation of much of the article's content.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMgonzalez768 you missed the point of my log. I am sick to death of the "Birther Theory" in either direction. Please understand that I am only upset that it found its way into one of my favorite "science" magazine. The reason I read this magazine is to stay up to date on theory's and gadgets outside of my area of expertise and knowledge.(I'm a Nuclear Propulsion's Engineer) So yes maybe I got a little too steamed to see more of the same gibberish about politics in a magazine that I read for the "Science". But, hey! That's why there's blogs like this one. I personally felt like there could have been a million non political situations to explain his theory on "beliefs". Wouldn't you agree? I am confused as to why you assume that I am a right wing gibberish speaking person. There are political magazines available for articles like this left or right sided. Again my only complaint about this article is that it has a political agenda in a SCIENCE magazine. Please, understand that the magazine is about SCIENCE and not politics. I got the point of the article, you just missed my point. The funny part is that you ironically are the one that confirms this article's content. Your filter is so thick you placed me in a category that I spoke nothing of. So who is the one that had a nerve struck? Me because a science magazine featured an article with politics in it or you who decided on an unfounded basis that I was a "right wing gibberish" talking person because of a 5 sentence post about my dislike of politics in a SCIENCE magazine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer presents a weak argument, rehashing and relabeling old logical fallacies. The anchoring bias and authority bias describe the same cognitive distortion, the "argument from ignorance". The "belief bias" is simply a new label for the old fallacy, the "argument from incredulity". And, contrary to Shermer's claim, confirmation bias can never be eliminated by science, as witnessed by Kuhn's scientific revolutions which are necessitated by the confirmation bias inherent in old theories which are entrenched in the current scientific community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShame on the SA editors for allowing this poorly supported writing, with its blatant book plug.
Thanks to Michael for a great article. The choice of example was inspired, being one of the best issues where reason immediately goes out the window for those who cannot question their own beliefs. The scientific process does over time destroy beliefs that don't match the evidence. By the way, I was not initially a fan of this column, but I have come to appreciate it over time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding "authority bias," very few people on the street can give an explanation as to why they believe that matter is made of atoms, why the universe is expanding, or why evolution is accepted as explaining the current state of biology. Are the people who believe these things suffering from a "believing brain?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf most people do not have the training or the time reqRegarding "belief bias," many people believe in Occam's razor, that is, having a bias toward a simple solution rather than a complex explanation.
Regarding "authority bias," very few people on the street can give an explanation as to why they believe that matter is made of atoms, why the universe is expanding, or why evolution is accepted as explaining the current state of biology. Are the people who believe these things suffering from a "believing brain?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf most people do not have the training or the time reqRegarding "belief bias," many people believe in Occam's razor, that is, having a bias toward a simple solution rather than a complex explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry about the prior incomplete post.
Regarding "authority bias," very few people on the street can give an explanation as to why they believe that matter is made of atoms, why the universe is expanding, or why evolution is accepted as explaining the current state of biology. Are the people who believe these things suffering from "believing brain" bias?
If most people do not have the training or the time required to investigate for themselves, should they give equal credence to Intelligent Design and Evolution? If not, the primary basis for deciding is authority bias: do they trust their minister or their high school teacher more. Regarding "belief bias," many seemingly rational people believe in Occam's razor, that is, having a bias toward a simple solution rather than a complex explanation. Is this wrong? Brains evolved to make decisions on limited data, and the biases cited seem to provide a reasonable basis for making decisions on limited data. The biases are flaws only when they are retained in the face of contrary data.
I certainly agree with the situation and the conclusions described in The Believing Brain. The evidence for people holding beliefs and taking positions based on personal bias rather than the facts at hand are undeniable. However, he seems to infer that such bias comes entirely from environment and associations with others. I think there is abundant evidence that people acquire many of their biases, interests, goals and the way they see the world from an internal compass. The traits they are born with apparently shape beliefs just as they shape temperament and personality. People are born into religious families in the bible-belt and become atheists without ever knowing that other unbelievers even existed. It is common to have one in the family whose morals, interests and goals are at odds with those of family and friends. As strange as it seems, the evidence shows people inherit traits that shape their interpretation of reality. It influences their thinking and behavior for all the days of their lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you suffer from fatigue bias, You're tired of the subject, so you'd rather not hear about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor my part I rather enjoyed Michael's essay. He pointed out a truth, that everybody exhibits some form of bias, and that this bias can shape how one deals with reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf only more people, including some scientists and skeptics, had the courage to face up to their bias, and deal with questions honestly and openly.
Believing that “reality exists independent of human minds” is just another example of “the beleif-dependent realism trap created by our believing brains”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI regard SCIAM as a well respected magazine and very thought provoking and have enjoyed most of the articles for over 40 years. Apperantly Mr. Shermer missed the entire point of his own article. In order to draw an intelligent conclusion of "belief realism" one must know all the facts. Obama, through his own admission during the previous campaign, stated that he was born in Kenya as well as admitting to various other frauds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre we to assume that belief is based on partial facts and what others drive us to believe?
Keep politics out of Science unless you have all the facts, which you don't. Therefore, I cannot take you or your article serious nor scientifically founded.
mdwarren,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are a number of laws on the books which all basically say that so long as at least one person is an American citizen, and that person has been out of the country for no more than 4 years, any child born to that person is a native born citizen. So given that his mother was an American citizen and got pregnant in the U.S.A. Obama could've been born in Kenya and still be a native born American citizen.
I accept the available documentation, and I see no difference between a birth certificate and a certificate of live birth, when they effectively say the same thing. I further accept the fact that Barack Obama won the election of 2008, and at the same time has performed poorly as President. My disagreement with his policy means nothing where his election and his holding the office of President is concerned. If you can't get over that, that is your problem.
Professor Shermer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about those cases where an interlocutor can not provide evidence contrary to your beliefs?
Where is that law documented? Just another fabrication to justify fraud.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMicheal writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.- "reality exists independent of human minds"
This is a belief, a dogma.
2.- "Once we form beliefs and make commitments to them, we maintain and reinforce them through a number of powerful cognitive biases that distort our percepts to fit belief concepts."
That's exactly what he does. So he is a belief-dependent realist.
3.- "This is why skepticism is a sine qua non of science..."
Not quite ! What about Pyrrhonism ? (Pyrrho, Timon, Hecataeus, Nausiphanus, Sextus Empiricus) NOT skepticism of the New Academy (Arcesilaus, Carneades). Skepticism is based on belief, it is dogmatic.
Micheal seems to perpetuate the confusion between Pyrrhonism and Skepticism.
Regards
Luc
@ 4. Kusac
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that you are so hung up on Shermer's choice of examples that you have failed to discuss whether or not the example fits the proposed model. Or really to discuss the topic/model much at all. Finger pointing, 'your filter is flawed' 'you have a bias', back and forth misses the point that everyone seems to have inherent flaws and biases. 'Belief-dependant realism' seems to be as good a term as any to for fish to describe the water in which they swim.
@ 5. solspot
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudos! Someone discussing the topic. Could you please go into more detail/offer some examples? "argument from incredulity", etc.
Yeah, shameless book plug, but personally I'm happy to see any discussion about how we think as opposed to what we think. I'm glad that a book about thinking about thinking is being promoted, regardless of the author.
@ 7. & 9. mscheinberg
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...very few people on the street can give an explanation as to why they believe that matter is made of atoms,..."
"Are the people who believe these things suffering from a "believing brain?"
It seems to me that "suffering" or not is irrevellant. The question, as I understand it, is whether they are exhibiting behavior which fits the proposed model. If their is one who only 'believes' in atoms because people in 'authority', teachers, scientist, etc., told them to and have never personally given thought to the concept, I'd say their belief could well be descibed with the term "authority bias". The accuracy, or lack there of, of the bias seems irrevelent. I get the impression that Mr. Shermer is attempting to explore how biases arise and how they effect our thoughts and actions. The meta processess governing thought and consciousness, if you will.
Yeah, many people are unable/unwilling to examine a concept like "belief bias in detail. So ,mscheinberg, what's a simple way to express this?*
Ah, I just read the longer version. Nice, well spoken.
"The biases are flaws only when they are retained in the face of contrary data." I'd add that context seems to determine much of the value of a bias. How beautiful is the setting sun when driving 70mph due west just before sunset.
@ 21. kevjonesin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*[kev note: "different strokes for different folks", and aphorisms in general, is my 1st thought on it. Hope mscheinberg responds with something more insightfull.]
@ 10. pdnicaise
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As strange as it seems, the evidence shows people inherit traits that shape their interpretation of reality. It influences their thinking and behaviour for all the days of their lives."
I find your post interesting. Any citations and examples supporting inherent as opposed to or in addition to environmental influences?
@ Michael Shermer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I was first reading your article 'The Believing Brain' and read "I call this process, wherein our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it, belief-dependent realism." I was immediately reminded of the term "reality tunnels" as used by Robert Anton Wilson in his book 'Prometheus Rising'. Are you familiar with this book?
Wilson uses "reality tunnel" as a meta term for the framework within which a specific individual forms, adopts, and rejects belief systems as distinct from another individuals such systems. He further goes on to describe how an individual may be referencing/motivated by various distinct mental/emotional states at different times/places and how different individuals may be referencing/motivated by different systems while sharing the same time/place. For this he uses the term "quantum consciousness model". As an atoms behaviour is affected by the state of it's electrons so...
I've been playing with linux a bit lately, the term "shells" jumps in as a multi-faceted metaphor at this point.
Anyway, I enjoyed your article and encourage you to reflect 'Prometheus Rising' upon your own work.
Be well,
-Kevin-
Do a search on "US citizenship" and see what you find. The laws in question are found under the US Code.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I find it difficult to even focus on their arguments" when authors (or their editors) make mistakes like "the reason is because."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Kusac", politics is a science. Have you ever heard of Political Science? Politics is also psychological -- that is another science, and this magazine reports on all the sciences. If you take your blinders off, you will realize that the two major political parties in America is very different from each other in a psychological sense. The two political parties came about because of their differences - checks and balances. I am surprised that this magazine hasn't provided more articles on the two political parties thinking processes...they are so contrary to each other that it seems everyone is from a different world or a different tribe, sometimes even within the same family and it seems to be getting more difficult for these two types of brains to come together on anything, and I would like to know their psychology in why they think the way they do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
"Gulf" (c 1949)
Stephen Jay Gould, a fervent crusader against bias as well as a scientist, was significantly more guilty of allowing his bias to affect his conclusions than those he criticized. This according to a recent article in Discover. So science, in and of itself is not sufficient, you need to be rigorous in your application.
@Kusac: "The first paragraph is totally irrelevant..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may want to slow down and work on your reading comprehension. The first paragraph is an example of the premise of the article. In fact, unwittingly, you demonstrate the thrust of Mr. Shermer's idea by your response.
I have always found there is a direct correlation between the strength of a person's belief in their objectivity, and the degree of their blindness to their subjectivity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAuthority Bias:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have evolved mechanisms for learning, it is one of the major differences between primates. We inherit an unquestioning belief in what our caregivers teach us. This is also an adaptation that is exclusive of humans.
The Black Box: Victoria Horner "The Human Ape" 4 of 10 (the experiment starts at 7:30 min)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZYkxsm1lVE
The experiment demonstrates the difference in how we and the other primates learn new skills/culture. We humans "fail" on a grand scale, beside the chimp. We innately throw logic and reason out the window for culture. This is where religion evolved from IMO!
Logic and reasoning are learned behaviors, like anything else the more we do it the better we get.
"irrevellant" LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAMUSING to read the whining from the "faith-based"... complaining about this or that detail or label... how absurd!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer's premise is unassailable and should be obvious to any one that: values inter-subjective truths ("reality") and still retains an ability to critically think (i.e. not indoctrinated into a cult or religion of dogmatic beliefs).
THE proverbial "scientific method" is humanities ONLY ticket to ride... if progress be the goal; otherwise, we can wallow in the mud of biases and ignorance, blissfully... or far more likely, in misery.
THE faith-based-biased do tend to evolve... though always reluctantly... bY co-optING scientific jargon for pseudo-scientific constructs to advance their stale agenda. The best (or worst, if you prefer) example is of course evolution morphed into their goofy notion of "irreducible complexity" or "intelligent design".
ANYWAY, biased or belief-based reality has always been found lacking... completely impotent (sort o' like prayer), not comporting with or predicting reality. THOSE who stubborn cling to such rigid antropomorphic beliefs will rightly be thrown into the dustbin o' history as our Cosmos inexorably evolves spacetime.
Cheers to all those who are humble enough to accept... and embrace... "WHAT IS"!
When Michael Schemer calls on a person to replace a Belief Dependent Realism with Science, he may also call them to leave a supportive community for loneliness. To them, having friends on a local level just might be far more important than agreeing with what Michael Schemer wants. In that case intellectual arguments are meaningless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat post, Michael. I respect/enjoy your thinking… and look forward to reading “The Believing Brain.” Based on this post, I thought you and your readers would enjoy this short video. It’s about “Turning Problems Into Solutions” as based on belief, bias, and perceptual blindness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY1rwzqOUKk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting Theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough writing an article like this is a big ironic. The subject of the article is how the brain develops certain beliefs and then supports them with cognitive biases. Writing an article like this presents a belief to readers, and an authoritative bias (its published in the Scientific American Journal); in short the author propounds an belief about how people develop beliefs.
A perfect example is the current battle over the federal "debt." The vast majority equates federal debt with personal debt, feeling federal debt is a burden on the "debtor," i.e. the government and taxpayers. It is not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFederal borrowing became obsolete, when the federal government became Monetarily Sovereign in 1971, and gave itself the unlimited ability to create dollars. Clearly, an entity with the unlimited ability to create anything never needs to borrow that thing. Old-line economists have not yet understood that reality.
The federal government "borrows" by creating T-securities out of thin air, then exchanging them for dollars it previously created out of thin air. For example, China "lends" to us, first by depositing dollars in its checking account at the Federal Reserve Bank. Then the federal government debits China's checking account and credits China's T-security account, also at the Federal Reserve Bank.
No money actually moves. There simply is a debit of one account and a credit of another account, both accomplished by our government. To repay the "loan," the process is reversed: China's checking account is credited and its T-security account is debited.
The U.S. government can do this all day long. It is no burden, whatsoever. The entire process neither creates nor destroys money. (As an aside, money is created by deficit spending, not by borrowing.)
Finally and counter-intuitively, federal debt is not operationally the total of federal deficits. A law requires the Treasury to create T-securities in the amount of deficits. Absent that law, there could be deficits without debt, and there could be debt without deficits.
All of this is counter to popular belief and is what causes of the debt controversy. More on this at: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/introduction/
The subject is known as Monetary Sovereignty. Those who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty do not understand economics.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Science is open to correction, as new facts are found or better models (accounting for the facts, and arranging them in a related, orderly way) are devised. This process is probably never ending. Validity replaces absolute truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelief is not in itself open to correction. Absolute truth closes the ability to remodel the world. Any statement, however absurd or deceitful, is allowed in the service of belief as truth.
Faith can be open to correction and development. It is not always imprisoned by belief.
Enjoyed the book. My take away:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether you are a believer, skeptic, or that rare breed I call "acred" who agree with Lazarus Long channeled by Heinlein that "belief gets in the way of learning," you will find this book extremely helpful in dealing with believers of any persuasion. It seems the "La, la, la, I can't hear you." is a built in function of most human brains. According to Shermer an evolved necessary brain function for dealing with decisions under uncertainty. A fascinating and apparently nearly ubiquitous attitude. Shermer's insight provides a useful tool for understanding "all those morons that don't agree with me."
I really enjoyed the comments of Mr/Ms Kusac. They have a Popperian quality: the contents of his/her comments pointedly verify, and do not falsify, Mr. Shermer's hypotheses re: the origins of bias. Maybe if other Kusac-like persons continue presenting their subjectivity like the original Kusac, i.e., biased comments on the exploration of bias, then Shermer's hypotheses on bias might become an objective theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Mr. Shermer for your interesting, thought- provoking article. And, please, don't pay attention to the Kusacoid comments. They feel that you are talking about them. And indeed you are! Just continue with your scientific presentations. The Kusacs might not, but scientists do appreciate them.
Is a scientific perspective the only reasonable and logical perception of reality, and if so, is this then a belief dependency?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is a welcome inspiration when it's found, until then I normally don't have the time or resourses to wait for it's conclution to objectively decide realistically. Times such as now I can use to sharpen my beleifs with research of reality that science and good perception provides. This way when I need to create future beleifs for new circumstances, they will more likely be realistic I can't "afford" to wait for science to come up with their slow conclutions of reality. Of course if I was simply a scientist, I may sometimes limit myself to this method - especially if wanting to convince the scientific community or other left-brain domanant individuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is a welcome inspiration when it's found, until then I normally don't have the time or resourses to wait for it's conclution to objectively decide realistically. Times such as now I can use to sharpen my beleifs with research of reality that science and good perception provides. This way when I need to create future beleifs for new circumstances, they will more likely be realistic. I can't "afford" to wait for science to come up with their slow conclutions of reality. Of course if I was simply a scientist, I may sometimes limit myself to this method - especially if wanting to convince the scientific community or other left-brain domanant individuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlind belief inserted in our brain in childhood.These blind belief hard to abandoned.In adult life you may show thousand prof against these blind belief on that moment people accept what are the proof against blind belief but next moment people follow with their blind belief.again.That is why so much scientific proof are there of evolution but some blind believer till believed god creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Reality exists independent of human minds" Sorry, but it doesn't. Reality exists in the mind of the perceiver and there is a lot of science to support that. But what Shermer says about belief and prejudice is spot on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristianity came close to destroying the intellectual tradition of the West in the 4th century but whilst skepticism is an essential ingredient of that tradition, science is only part of it.
There is a danger here that science may be taking on attributes of a religion and denying the validity of speculation, free-thinking, intuition and inspiration.
Really I wish there was more skepticism in phyciatric drug trials or their practices all together. Money overturns the doctrine of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaking certain that a United States President qualifies under the constitution is important to all who have pledged to "uphold & defend" that document. To treat Obama’s having been born in Hawaii as a casual "assumption”, not worthy of verification, is ridiculous. To denigrate those who asked for verification – after the president himself has tried to seal documents and ridicule those who requested such documentation - raising suspicions, is neither noble nor intelligent. Too many citizens have for too long ignored the constitution. It is time to get back to basics regarding who can be President, who can declare war, the limits of presidential powers, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Shermer has exposed himself as convinced that anyone who does not believe deception is possible in seeking the presidency is a racist if the candidate is non-white.
If this is simply a literary “gimmick” to illustrate his point about prior beliefs affecting his view of those seeking truth in this matter, I believe a less politically charged and damning example would have been more effective.
I think you have fallen into the anthropocentric 'bias'. If all human beings were removed from the face of the Earth would reality still exist? From a cosmic perspective?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBASICALLY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MEMES, MANY OF WHICH ARE INCOMMUNICABLE WITHOUT EDUCATION.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA bomber jacket in Palestine is not the same as one in the local AIR FORCE gift shop.
Open your eyes and think!
How do you know that you think is true?
I just love it when the subject of "reality" comes up. Just as religion is based upon assumptions that cannot be proven (i.e. there is a god or gods, this entity creates the universe and manages human affairs, this entity communicates with humans, etc), so science is based upon assumptions that are equally unprovable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe assume that that which we are able to perceive represents "reality". It very well may not. We get glimpses of this through quantum mechanics and other "phenomena" which we cannot explain--yet; and maybe never. A simpler example: right now the space that you occupy is filled with electro-magnetic radiation that carries tons of information you are not aware of and would have no idea even exists unless you turn on a radio or television set.
In the last hundred years we have developed machines and instruments that convert all sorts of things into information that we can perceive. Before that these things were not a part of our "reality" yet they existed. What else is there for which we have no "translators"? We simply cannot know.
So please, be careful with the concept of "reality". Those things which we cannot see, touch, hear, feel, smell and have no translator for may outnumber by far those which we can. You may be sitting next to yourself in an alternate dimension and neither of you will ever know it (string theory?). Science, then, is a systematic study of the reality that we can observe, which may be terribly limited. We just don't know!
This is a well reasoned and to the point article. I appreciate it. If the "Birther" beliefs drive you nuts, look up a blog called, "Real Science".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you that science is the only way out of belief depend Realism but Sir when scientist blindly believe on his own prejudice what can common man do?Einstein famous quote "God is not playing dice"Is it scientific truth? or Richard Dawkins "God is delusion, is not illusion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew research on brain science given prof that childhood impressions are so deeply inserted in brain of child overcome them is impossible. entire life you must carry on this burden on your head. Have you any answer on this question?
Hi, could you cite an example or two of works showing evidence of how people inherit traits that shape their interpretation of reality? Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I entertain a belief that any educated person is not owned or possessed, belonging to theory's stable for instance:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheories, dear commentor (thank you for not spelling your area of expertise as "nucular"), is the plural of theory; an apostrophe indicates possessive case.
We all look to cogent or enlightening commentary in a science magazine. Our defenses should be strategic enough to communicate intelligibly in whatever language we offer it in, so as not to incite incredulity.
Other commentary below confounds belief arising from unquestioned absorption of primary role models - parents in particular - with conclusions arising from evaluation of evidence (however presented).
Because of such considerations there are varying levels of, credibility (well, believability) applied to sources.
A scientific education often leans toward bias in favor of Occam's Razor, while biology and evolutionary evidence consistently show that "them things you is liable to ready in [ANY] bible, ain't necessarily so", and sensitive dependence upon initial conditions can make for convoluted developments.
Apropos is Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Leon Festinger, who pointed out that the motive of attempting to maintain cognitive consistency (to not disrupt beliefs intrinsic to one's own behaviors or those of revered models) can give rise to irrational and maladaptive behaviors when those behaviors or beliefs are challenged.
Festinger and J.M. Carlsmith further studied "Attitude-Discrepant Behavior", with an experiment leading subjects to basically lie to other subjects about the usefulness and pleasure of the experiment.
The result?
Yes! Those who were compensated significantly for a li'l' ol' white lie (in their eyes) were willing to compromise morally.
There are a bunch of wonderful psychological experiments on moral justification, cognitive dissonance, and belief to enlighten you all immensely, in the last 50 years.
But those who have studied primate behavior will recognize the simplicity of our own: deception is a common method of surviving and thriving - achieving social (and therefore reproductive) ends.
We often see complexity emerge from simple motivations, in a world filled with complex independent variables.
If you write a tract, they will come (to believe).
I recently read of an observation of a tool-using fish. Examine your beliefs, as they are more likely to be in error than the myriad experience of the ever-mysterious evolved biological world.
Hmmnn... what is a "Nuclear Propulsion Engineer"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving much success these days with it?
I subscribed to "Scientific American" as a politics-free-zone refuge. Michael Shermer's article "The Believing Brain" begins with one of the more controversial political issues covered by the media. I am disappointed. I love science. I hate politics, especially when it is injected into a discussion under the guise of science. PULEEZE do not insult the intelligence of the readers of "Scientific American."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSupposedly some Jesuit (Ignatious?)said "Give me a child at an impressionable age, and he's mine for life."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight now all those "Jesuits" are operating madrassas in Pakistan, teaching children that are too poor to attend public schools.
And a lot of these children are later turning up in Afghanistan (and other places) with their bomber jackets.
But then, young Christian children have, until the last 80 years or so, been taught the same nonsense at Sunday School, and were only to willing to enlist and fight the godless "others"- The First World War was an excellent example of this.
I saw this website listed on a good home schooling website and thought I'd mention it in this thread, in case anyone is looking for other science experiments....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.experiland.com">Science experiment resources for kids.</a>