Can you coin a phrase?

[The idea]

Education is supposed to, among other things, get the learner to believe some things that are actually true.

Some people say that violent conflict is caused by the fact that person X has strongly held beliefs that are inconsistent with the strongly held beliefs of person Y. However, does the phrase "strongly held" have any particular meaning?

If some evidence gives reason to doubt a belief, then how does a person respond to that evidence? Depending on the response, we can classify the kind of "strong hold" that we are talking about.

1. response = extreme Shock or Surprise
We conclude that there is a strong Confidence-hold.

2. response = extreme Sadness
We conclude that there is a strong Joyful-hold.

3. response = extreme Anger
We conclude that there is a strong Reality-Substitute-hold.

Challenge: invent some clear and concise and vivid phrases to capture the intended meanings and then use your phrases to rewrite the following:

"Strongly held beliefs per se are not a problem. The problem is that some people have a strong reality-substitute hold on their beliefs."

(The phrases "confidence-hold", "joyful-hold", and "reality-substitute-hold" are just a first effort to find the right words. Your job is to find better words.)

[The idea]

Of course, surprise, sadness, and anger aren't the only possible emotional responses that a person may have to evidence that gives reason to doubt the person's belief.

For example, another possibility is disgust. Disgust might motivate evasion of the evidence or prejudgment of the evidence (i.e. judging the evidence before making much effort to really understand what it is that one is judging.)

[tkingdoll]

OK, I'll have a bash at this, soundbites are my living!

"Anything that can be imagined, can be imagined true."

[bigred]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea

Challenge: invent some clear and concise and vivid phrases to capture the intended meanings and then use your phrases to rewrite the following:

"Strongly held beliefs per se are not a problem. The problem is that some people have a strong reality-substitute hold on their beliefs."

(The phrases "confidence-hold", "joyful-hold", and "reality-substitute-hold" are just a first effort to find the right words. Your job is to find better words.)

I have some great ideas, but think people should do their own homework assignments.

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by bigred
I have some great ideas, but think people should do their own homework assignments.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems you are insinuating that:

(1) I copied something and posted it without indicating that it has been copied.
(2) I am not motivated by interest in the topic, but by a desire for grades.
(3) I would have copied your work and claimed that it was my own work.

Unless I am misunderstanding, those are insinuations and they are a response to something, but probably not anything in this thread.

If I posted something in another thread and you wish to question or comment on what I posted, feel free to do so by posting your question or comment in the appropriate thread.

[tkingdoll]

Is this your homework???

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Is this your homework???

No.

[Atlas]

How 'bout:

A rock to the tophat won't hurt you if that's not where your head's at.

Or:

Some dreams are moonbeams, some come from moonshine.

ETA: I'm aiming at this one only - "Strongly held beliefs per se are not a problem. The problem is that some people have a strong reality-substitute hold on their beliefs."

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea

Some people say that violent conflict is caused by the fact that person X has strongly held beliefs that are inconsistent with the strongly held beliefs of person Y. However, does the phrase "strongly held" have any particular meaning?

If some evidence gives reason to doubt a belief[...]

Right here is where I part company with this whole line of reasoning; most of the "strongly-held" beliefs under discussion (those likely to provoke violent conflict) are not the ones for which evidence and reason are likely to be brought to bear in their resolution.

For example, the current conflict in Iraq is in part due to conflicting "strongly held beliefs" about the way the world should be. But by definition, this is a belief not subject to evidence, since this hinges largely on question of personal and religious morality.

I would characterize "strongly held" in this context as a much more simple term -- a belief is "strongly held" if a person (holding that belief) also believes that violation of that belief will result in substantial negative consequences, or alternatively, if a person has a strong incentive to make sure that that belief is reflected in some way by reality.

Exploration of the different kinds of negative emotions attached to these negative consequences is neither valuable nor appropriate, especially as they can change over time. For example, if I have a "strongly held" belief that a particular medical practice is ineffective as a treatment against cancer, then I will react with shock that someone would nevertheless offer that treatment for sale, anger against the frauds who peddle that treatment, with sadness for the people who are deluded and suffer as a result of the quackery, and possibly denial/rejection to those who offer questionable evidence in support of this treatment.

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea

"Strongly held beliefs per se are not a problem. The problem is that some people have a strong reality-substitute hold on their beliefs."

(The phrases "confidence-hold", "joyful-hold", and "reality-substitute-hold" are just a first effort to find the right words. Your job is to find better words.)

Strongly held beliefs per se are not a problem.

The problem is that some people have strongly held beliefs in things that aren't true.

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by new drkitten
Right here is where I part company with this whole line of reasoning; most of the "strongly-held" beliefs under discussion (those likely to provoke violent conflict) are not the ones for which evidence and reason are likely to be brought to bear in their resolution.

Did you intend to use the word "most" (as in "most of the strongly-held beliefs")? I don't understand why you would part company with the whole line of reasoning based on "most".

Quote:

Originally posted by new drkitten
Exploration of the different kinds of negative emotions attached to these negative consequences is neither valuable nor appropriate, especially as they can change over time. For example, if I have a "strongly held" belief that a particular medical practice is ineffective as a treatment against cancer, then I will react with shock that someone would nevertheless offer that treatment for sale [...]

I was attempting to raise the issue of how people respond to evidence that suggests that the beliefs are false. For example, if you have a strongly held belief that a particular medical practice is ineffective as a treatment against cancer, the question to ponder is how you would react to evidence indicating that the practice is in fact effective as a treatment against cancer.

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by new drkitten
Strongly held beliefs per se are not a problem.

The problem is that some people have strongly held beliefs in things that aren't true.

I agree with you that it is a problem that some people have strongly held beliefs in things that aren't true.

However, if we are talking about fallible beings who have many beliefs, can we reasonably expect all of those beliefs to be correct? Can we reasonably expect that none of the false beliefs would be strongly held?

The issue that I am trying to draw attention to is not mere error. Person X, upon stumbling upon a hint of a problem with his or her beliefs, investigates to see whether or not there really is a problem. Person Y, when participating in a dialogue about the beliefs of person Y, makes efforts to evade or misrepresent problems that are carefully and explicitly articulated and brought to the attention of person Y. Is this difference between a hypothetical person X and a hypothetical person Y an important difference or not?

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea
Did you intend to use the word "most" (as in "most of the strongly-held beliefs")? I don't understand why you would part company with the whole line of reasoning based on "most".

For approximately the same reason that I would discount someone's detailed analysis of the culture of the entire world based on a single conversation they had had with their Aunt Mathilda.

Quote:

I was attempting to raise the issue of how people respond to evidence that suggests that the beliefs are false.

... and that's a sufficiently rare event as to be for all practical purposes a silly question.

Quote:

[T]he question to ponder is how you would react to evidence indicating that the practice is in fact effective as a treatment against cancer.

I consider pondering that particular question to be a waste of time. There are a number of interesting questions regarding the nature of "strongly held beliefs." That is not one of them.

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by new drkitten
For example, the current conflict in Iraq is in part due to conflicting "strongly held beliefs" about the way the world should be. But by definition, this is a belief not subject to evidence, since this hinges largely on question of personal and religious morality.

The current conflict in Iraq contributes what percentage of the total violent conflict that has occurred in the history of the world?

Also, why do you assume that questions of personal and religious morality are not subject to evidence? For example, perhaps a sufficiently clearly defined system of morality might be shown to be inconsistent. The proof of inconsistency might be considered a kind of relevant evidence.

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea


Also, why do you assume that questions of personal and religious morality are not subject to evidence? For example, perhaps a sufficiently clearly defined system of morality might be shown to be inconsistent.

And when have you ever seen a widely-accepted system of morality that was that clearly defined?

[CplFerro]

Hello,

Pardon my dodging your question, as I think the premise is wrong. Strongly held beliefs, or indeed beliefs at all, are indeed the problem, as I define it.

A belief is a curious creature, distinct from both knowledge and thought. True knowledge cannot be seriously doubted by the knower, as, for instance, knowing how to double the square. Thought, meanwhile, shades from suspicion all the way to conviction, but is always in the form of hypothesis.

But belief is more like a bowel movement -- a person having one doesn't want to be interrupted. Doubt of success in both endeavours is frowned upon by the individuals in question.

In other words, belief is nothing but willed hope, a will to not disbelieve if you prefer, to seek to extinguish doubt despite continuing in the absence of knowledge, and this condition is, ultimately, indistinguishable in kind from magical thinking associated with psychosis. It is a kind of insanity, in other words.

"Beliefs are a problem. The problem is that most people have an inclination toward attaching their egos to hypotheses on the condition those hypotheses cannot be doubted, instead of existing mentally only in terms of hypothesis and knowledge."

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by CplFerro
Pardon my dodging your question, as I think the premise is wrong.

Not a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by CplFerro
A belief is a curious creature, distinct from [...] thought.

Thought [...] shades from suspicion all the way to conviction, but is always in the form of hypothesis.

[...] belief is nothing but willed hope, a will to not disbelieve [...] to seek to extinguish doubt [...] and this condition is, ultimately, indistinguishable in kind from magical thinking [...]

Your explanation is very good and I especially like the parts that I have quoted above.

I wonder about "knowledge." What happens if what was classified as "known to be true" is discovered to actually be false? There seems to be some danger of that happening even if no magical thinking is taking place. After all, people are fallible.

Quote:

Originally posted by CplFerro
"Beliefs are a problem. The problem is that most people have an inclination toward attaching their egos to hypotheses on the condition those hypotheses cannot be doubted, instead of existing mentally only in terms of hypothesis and knowledge."

The meaning is clear, but I was hoping for something a bit more catchy. If we get to keep modifying our hypotheses, then surely you should have an opportunity, if you are so inclined, to revise that slogan to make it a bit more catchy.

[CplFerro]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea
I wonder about "knowledge." What happens if what was classified as "known to be true" is discovered to actually be false? There seems to be some danger of that happening even if no magical thinking is taking place. After all, people are fallible.

This is why extreme rigor is required in science, to keep distinct what is subjectively confirmed to be true, and what are merely objectively acknowledged as "best guess" extrapolations. Every new discovery of a truth threatens to grind all those extrapolations under, while not threatening the previously discovered truths.

For the truths themselves, or more accurately termed, universal physical principles, the proper, repeatable proof-of-principle experiments must be designed and conducted. Only when the new principle can be demonstrated with the same confidence as we demonstrate Kepler's universal gravitation or Fermat's principle of least time, can a scientist who has so demonstrated properly accept it as true.

This is the ideal of course; none of this is guaranteed if the science itself is corrupt, as we have now where truth is out of style, replaced with the notion of science as a mere cyclical accumulation and discarding of "useful lies" or statistical inductions.

Quote:

The meaning is clear, but I was hoping for something a bit more catchy. If we get to keep modifying our hypotheses, then surely you should have an opportunity, if you are so inclined, to revise that slogan to make it a bit more catchy.

I'm dubious about the value of overly pithy quotes, and my ability to compose them, but I'll attempt to oblige:

First, light the lamp: know what it means to know. Second, doubt everything you don't so know. Third, beware: anything neither knowable nor doubtable is a phantom come to snuff your lamp when you're not looking.

[Jake Boone]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea
"Strongly held beliefs per se are not a problem. The problem is that some people have a strong reality-substitute hold on their beliefs."

This reminds me of a quote I've seen in several forms, often attributed to Mark Twain. One of the versions goes something like, "It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know that ain't so."

I've seen a shortened version that seems closer to the meaning of your statement above:

"It's not what you know; it's what you know that ain't so."

-- Jake