Which way leans the slippery slope?

[Darat]

Which way leans the slippery slope?


Recently there have been some interesting threads on what it means to be sceptical, what value (if any) belief may offer and so on and it got me wondering if the slippery slope leans towards a “sceptical� or an “accepting� way of dealing with the world.

Does unquestioningly accepting one belief lead to accepting more beliefs without questioning, or even to being readily persuaded to accept other beliefs without questioning?

Does questioning one belief lead to questioning more beliefs, or even lead to a cynicism about anything new or unexpected?

Or

Does someone having either a “sceptical� or an “accepting� outlook on the world tell us nothing about how they will react to something new?

I know a lot of the “accepting professionals� seem to believe, unquestioningly, in multitudes of different ideas (see forum favourite Sylvia Brown’s website for an example) yet since I doubt the sincerity of many of these “accepting professionals� I don’t know if they represent the “average accepting� person anymore then Randi’s commentaries represent the “average sceptical� person.

From my personal experience it seems that someone’s unquestioning acceptance of one idea (say homeopathy works) doesn’t have any predictive power in whether someone will unquestioningly just accept any other particular idea (say UFOs are alien visitors) yet overall it is my impression that it does indicate that they are more likely to just accept something else (say ‘vaccinations cause autism’) without questioning.

So (from my personal experience) I would say the slippery slopes leans towards “accepting� new ideas unquestioningly and once on the slope a person is likely to just accept more and more.


(And I’m aware I’m not using “slippery slope� in the logical fallacy meaning – it’s just a turn of phrase. Edited for words.)

[Kumar]

Which way leans the slippery slope?

Do you want to indicate that a person can become persistant, addicted, habitual, or stub-born-- when he start on slippery slope? Sorry, is it not common for everything?

[Ashles]

Interesting question

I think there are definite 'groupings' of beliefs.

Group 1
Religious
Believes in:
God
Not necessarily any other paranormal beliefs. Often otherwise very sceptical people can believe in God (as we have seen on these forums)

Group 2
New Age
Believes in:
Crystal therapies, Tarot, Astrology, Palmistry (all sorts of divination), Kirlian Photography, homeopathy etc.
Probably believes in mediums, but may only dabble in visiting them. May well not believe in God (often friction betwen Christians and this group)
Often wears unflattering clothing

Group 3
Spiritual Church visitors
Believes in:
Talking to the dead. All the time
More hardcore medium visitors. The spiritual church will be a large actual social part of their life. May not be so interested in other paranormal phenomena

Group 4
Pseudoscientists
Believes in:
Anything that sounds vaguely scientifically plausible. e.g. Aliens visiting earth, remote viewing, anything Quantum Physics based...


Okay, I know I'm generalising, but I do think there are beliefs that group together. I know group 2 in particular very well, having worked in a holistic healing centre.

[Darat]

I'm more familiar with your "Group 1" and "Group 2" (albeit and given that they are generalisation).

Certainly group 2 is the group of beliefs that to me seem to fall like dominos, that once on the slope they continue to slide. In personal experience it seems that quite often a friend will start with something apparently seeming to have some legitimacy (such as homeopathy, the apparent legitimacy comes from the fact it is sold in "medicine bottles" from their local Boots (pharmacy)), then rapidly work their way through to unquestioningly accepting many other very left-field ideas.

Interestingly it would seem to me that you would expect people in "Group 1" to have a resistance to accepting other faith based beliefs because those would contradict their core belief whilst people in Group 2 who don't have a single underlying fundamental faith don’t have any reason to reject any particular idea or belief.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Darat

Does questioning one belief lead to questioning more beliefs, or even lead to a cynicism about anything new or unexpected?


I suspect that questioning one belief does lead to questioning more beliefs. Once one realises that a belief one took for granted is not necessarily justified, doesn't one as a matter of course start to question whether any beliefs are justified? Of course I wouldn't consider this more building a ladder to the stars than a slippery slope since I view scepticism as positive in both the sense that it is a good thing and an active thing (I don't slip into disbelief, I actively challenge my beliefs.)

I don't think there is any connection between scepticism and cynicism. Cynicism is iteself a belief based on the assumption that people tend to act from their worst motives.

Originally posted by Ahles

I think there are definite 'groupings' of beliefs


I hadn't thought of it this way before. Certainly seems plausible and your groups do seem recognisable. I imagine there will be people who belong to more than one group.

[vbloke]

I blame schools and the media.

It has long been my experience as an amateur astronomer, that people generally do not know a lot about real science and the way the world "works".

For example:
back in the year 2000, there was a lot of talk about the planetary alignment and how it would cause earthquakes, fire, flood and other "end of the world" scenarios.
The media in the UK even gave airtime to cranks peddling this nonsense and told people to stock up on canned food and bottled water.
They never gave the scientific community chance to rebut these claims, that not only was this a pretty poor alignment (the planets were aligned on the far side of the sun), but there had been more spectacular alignments in the past (in 1962 and 1186), where the planets were more closely aligned.
Had the media given equal airtime to astronomers to counter these ridiculous claims, the whole thing would have passed quietly (as it happened, you couldn't see the alignment anyway as it happened on the far side of the sun, so it was only visible during the day and the sun overpowered the light from the planets).

Schools do not teach people critical thinking, or even basic science any more. In my experience, when showing people stars and planets through my telescope, they are usually overwhelmed at the wonder of the universe - this is stuff they should have learnt at school. Until things like science and critical thinking are taught and taught properly, we will continue to produce a populace that is fodder for woo ism, with only a bastion of sceptics fighting in the corner of science and critical thinking.

[John the Skeptic]

I think that the slippery slope has magical properties :D : it is possible to slide up it or down it from the centre with equal ease; it just depends on which way you’re pushed. The closer a person is to the top or the bottom, however, the harder it becomes to move them.

In my experience, it is far more likely that a person who uncritically accepts one claim will uncritically accept many more. They won’t necessarily believe anything going, but something that takes their fancy will be accepted at face value.

I think that the slippery slope looks like it’s balanced in favour of the uncritical acceptance of claims due to the promotion of so much nonsense that goes on in the media etc.

I think that skepticism has an equally strong, if not stronger, pull on people. The problem is: skepticism is underrepresented in general; hence the imbalance.

There is a broader scope for beliefs on the “believer� side as they don’t rationalise their beliefs: they can believe in ghosts but not UFOs; in homeopathy but not crystal healing etc.

You can’t do that with skepticism though. Being a method, rather than a set of beliefs, we all tend to converge. The main difference with skeptics, is how widely the method is applied.

Until things like science and critical thinking are taught and taught properly, we will continue to produce a populace that is fodder for woo ism, with only a bastion of sceptics fighting in the corner of science and critical thinking.I agree with that.

I don’t think it would be too drastic a change either to teach how to asses claims rather than accept them.

It is quite disconcerting to look at “believer� forums and see the level of credulity that abounds in people who have gone through the education system.

[Throg]

Originally posted by vbloke
Schools do not teach people critical thinking

I think that is the most crucial failing in education. Even scientific method seems to be taught in schools an article of faith. One is taught how to perform experiments but not why they should be performed a certain way. Mathematics, which ought to be solidly grounded in critical thought, is taught from the start by rote learning and becomes an exercise in following rules rather than applying logical thought.

[Phil]

Which way leans the slippery slope?

Good question, and some valuable insights given so far in this thread.

I agree with Ashles’ assessment of the existence of and need for groupings of belief, but I think to answer the question fully, we must look even deeper into the groupings; take the examination all the way down to the individual level, and to the core aspect of the human condition.

We are nothing if not emotional creatures, and I think our level of "acceptance", or even our level of skepticism, is dependent upon the depth and direction of our emotional needs.

For example, religious people, though they may not believe in alien abduction or psychics or ghosts, believe the things inherent in their religion because it satisfies certain emotional needs, such as acceptance in a social circle, hope that their children and family members will be spared the finality of death, or a "spiritual" peace of mind. And being supremely emotional creatures, that sating effect is allowed to overshadow any skeptical leanings they may have toward that one belief. In short, it makes them happy and feel safe, and they don't want to question it.

The same applies for other beliefs. A person who advocates homeopathic remedies for example, may only hold belief in homeopathic efficacy and not in PK or remote viewing because they fear, or are struggling with, some serious medical anomaly, or they are possibly grieving or have grieved for a loved one lost in a situation where medical science could not help.

Their belief stems from an emotional root, and that emotional root is very difficult to pull up and discard in favor of skeptical examination that may very well reveal truths that are harsh an unattractive. It is a very powerful characteristic of being human.

I also think the slope is slippery to different degrees depending on the individual. Certainly some religious people believe in ghosts and psychics and crystal therapy, some remote viewer advocates dabble in new-age cures and throw salt over their shoulders when they spill it, some alien abduction proponents believe in chiropractic, etc., etc. But I’d submit that those folks that seem to snowball down the belief slippery slope in fact have some emotional investment on some level in all the belief systems to which they are connected.

When the emotional connection to a belief system is not present, these people may not necessarily be skeptical about it as we would be, but instead, the belief system becomes a non-entity to them. They are simply indifferent to it.

So I would answer the question thusly:

The slippery slope leans different directions and at varying angles for each person. And the speed at which one slides down their particular slope, and the debris he or she collects during that slide, depends on his or her emotional strength and needs.

[Placebo]

I recognise Ashles' group 4 - fits some friends of mine quite well
Although I don't see that much of the UFO belief, but there is some.

Good points so far ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
Which way leans the slippery slope?

Down.

Into the abyss.