World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Hi All,

I've spent a lot of time arguing (politely I would hope) with people at university and online about a range of topics.

During that time I encountered a number of people with a range of beliefs that were held with an unshakable certainty that could not be budged by anything I might say.

They would also wear their certainty like a badge of honor, as an indicator of the rightness of their beliefs.

They were incapable of articulating how their belief system could be wrong, or the methods by which it would be falsified. I.e. They couldn't imagine a possibility of refutation.

I've always found this to be an odd attitude. The capacity to interrogate your own beliefs gives you the power to evict them. An absence of certainty gives adaptability and control over the landscape of your own mind.

In the end, I struck me that people's certainty was more an indication of their possession by their belief system than anything else.

I.e. Their beliefs owned them.

Can you question your own beliefs?

Are you able to tolerate those who have come to different conclusions?

What does valid dissent look like for you?

Do you have beliefs, or do your beliefs have you?

That raises the question, what is a belief? If I accept a conclusion and think it is correct, is that a belief? If so, then yes, I can question them, and have done so many times before reaching them. Tolerating someone with a different conclusion? That depends on whether there is any evidence that is not in the set of requirements for that conclusion, and particularly for set of requirements not to be, if that makes sense.

For me, valid dissent is to come up with another proposition that will explain what we know so far. I wrote an ebook about how to form scientific theories (but most of it works just as well for anything else), and one of the propositions is that for any limited set of data there is more than one premise that will explain the data. So someone else with a theory or idea different from mine is in play as long as there are no observations that falsify it. I know the sounds a bit like Popper, but strictly speaking, it goes back to Aristotle at least. Also, while I am happy those people have such different ideas, that does not mean that I won't question them and offer alternatives. The key for me is evidence, not belief.

Do any beliefs/conclusions have me? I guess on the scientific side there are at least four. The interesting thing about these is that nobody else is showing any sign of accepting them, nobody else has falsified anything in them, I have put a lot of effort into them, so I guess they have taken over to some extent.

In our uncertain world, certainty, where exists seems important -:)
However when it rests solely on beliefs and nothing else it can certainly be false. I believe some people though will be guided by beliefs even if facts or events rebuff them. Although with an often biased spirit of media, it's sometimes hard to know what's factual and what's imaginary.
I believe in science, maybe - traditional medicine, however I'm always aware of the limits thereof.
I deem important to remain open-minded and not to disregard something contrary just because it doesn't align with some pre-determined worldview.
When we don't know something for sure, we may be guided by beliefs, whether in god, bright/gloomy future, Amazon's share performance, global conspiracy or decency of politicians, but lest not be disappointed keeping beliefs adaptable may be vital.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopES...

I have no issues with people's personal belief systems for religious or spiritual beliefs.

But I work in mainstream medical (physiotherapist) and what I really struggle with is people who 'believe' in cures/treatments/therapies that have no basis in actual anatomy or physiology. It makes treating them very difficult. And in some cases they do themselves actual harm as a result.

Here's my two-penn'rth:

I grew up in a religious household and was taught faith from a very early age. However, I soon learned that if my faith was worth anything at all, it must hold up in the real world...

An experience from my teenage years:
I'm from the UK where we drive on the left-hand side of the road, but as a teenager, I lived in Europe for a while - where they (obviously) drive on the right.

So, I was walking home along a quiet country road one night with a Swiss friend. As it was pitch black, we were walking into the direction of traffic. There was very little traffic and we could see quite far ahead, so we were walking side by side at the edge of the road.

Being religious, I was thinking about 'faith'. It was amusing, I thought: all my previous experience, all my instincts were screaming at me, telling me I was on the wrong side of the road, yet I knew I wasn't. "It's a bit like having faith, believing in something you know to be right, ignoring the fear."

So far so good.

A few moments later, I heard the sound of an engine behind us. "That's weird. Sounds like it's on my side of the road - but it can't be. I have faith that I'm safely on the correct side - isn't this a good example of faith..."

A few more moments: the engine is getting nearer, it's really loud now. I hear a frighteningly loud horn - sounds like someone is frantically pressing a car horn with the heel of their hand.

I take a deep breath and finally look over my shoulder... to see a gigantic juggernaut heading straight for us. My friend had the wit to grab me and hurl us both into the ditch, which is the only reason I'm here to tell the tale.

So what happened? The juggernaut behind us was overtaking a slow moving vehicle and was on the left side of the road. The vehicle was moving too fast and the driver saw us too late to take evasive action.

What did the teenage me learn?

1 - It's ok to have faith in what you think is the truth - but stay open minded and realise you won't have the big picture "... for we see through a glass darkly..."
2 - Others (e.g. my European friend) may well know more than you, or have grasped other aspects that you haven't thought of. Others have a different take on things. It's better to be willing to listen and revise your thinking.
3 - Better to feel a fool in a muddy ditch than be self-righteous and end up as roadkill.
; )

Glad nothing bad happened, Annerlee, and I think it's important to draw conclusions especially from such 'near escapes'.

Not related to your story, but speaking generally it's wonderful to have beliefs in something that no one knows: you may believe in god or aliens, I may not, neither of us can prove the other wrong.
What I do find sometimes annoying people having only superficial/second-hand/ recycled knowledge of something (another words - belief) arguing with someone who does have first hand experience about the same.

What I find annoying is related to Leonie's comment. There are a number of assertions out there that are dressed up to look scientific, and they are not, especially for cancer treatment. What they end up doing is taking good money for rubbish from desperate people. It is true the medical community does not know how to guarantee a cure for cancer, but at least they know some treatment work, others are not so good, and they offer the best they can. These charlatans spew out near "guarantees", and it is sheer rubbish. That they can find an example that survived is even worse, because there are a very few people who are lucky enough that their body actually cures itself without treatment. The purveyors of this snake oil are real scam artists

Ian wrote: "What I find annoying is related to Leonie's comment. There are a number of assertions out there that are dressed up to look scientific, and they are not, especially for cancer treatment. What they ..."

Nik wrote: "In our uncertain world, certainty, where exists seems important -:)
However when it rests solely on beliefs and nothing else it can certainly be false. I believe some people though will be guided b..."

Nik wrote: "In our uncertain world, certainty, where exists seems important -:)
However when it rests solely on beliefs and nothing else it can certainly be false. I believe some people though will be guided b..."
Yes I think having beliefs gives you the courage and challenges you to find the solution to your problems. Having beliefs gives you the confidence to try and continue trying. It is easier to accept difficult and complicated situations when you believe in yourself and the values and beliefs that keep you going. Always enjoy your comments Nik

Annerlee wrote: "Here's my two-penn'rth:

I grew up in a religious household and was taught faith from a very early age. However, I soon learned that if my faith was worth anything at all, it must hold up in the re..."

Thanks for your story. It was compelling. As for what one might learn from this experience, I agree that we see through a glass darkly but also that we can learn from those with more experience.

I think certainty is most important in medical diagnosis and even there it's often elusive

Quantum Mechanics has the Uncertainty Principle. It also, paradoxically, has a certainty principle, although you will rarely see anyone acknowledge it. Specifically, the action of a ground state of a bound system is exactly known.

Certainty about your core beliefs is requisite for living a centered, moral life. You know what is right, what is wrong. Certainty about these things is a virtue.

Certainty about things in the external world is not a virtue but a hindrance to learning. In the face of new facts, one should always be willing to change one's stance, to learn and adapt.

Scout wrote: "Certainty about your core beliefs is requisite for living a centered, moral life. You know what is right, what is wrong. Certainty about these things is a virtue.

Certainty about things in the ext..."

Hi Scout, when I first read your comment, it made a lot of sense to me, but then I reflected upon it and came back with ...

I could be certain that severe torture should be used as a punishment for all crimes. Jaywalking - a hundred lashes... you get my drift.

'Certainty,' is not morally inflected. Someone could be both completely evil and morally certain that everything they do is 100% justified, right and true. In fact, some of the most evil people in history appear to have been zealously convinced of their righteousness.

As a society, I think we valorise being certain. That being 'certain,' is often presented as an unequivocal good, and that being doubtful is a form of moral failure, cowardice, or immaturity.

Your probably familiar with the idea of courage as the ability to act in spite of fear, not the absence of fear (fearlessness). Where great courage is required to overcome great terror.

In a similar way, faith is the antidote to doubt. the greater the doubt, the stronger the faith needed to overcome it.

As there is no place for courage with those who are fearless, there is no place for faith with those who are certain.

Instead of trying to be fearless, I seek to cultivate courage. Instead of trying to be certain, I seek to cultivate faith.

Certainty about properly qualified facts is good, because you then convey reliable information. That, of course, depends on there being a good reason for your being certain. If you are a witness to a crime, being uncertain about what you report is worse than useless.

Graeme's issue is about moral values. Now whether certainty is good or bad depends on your perspective. Being certain that jaywalking deserves a hundred lashes seems to me to indicate that person is certainly perverted in his sense of values.

Hi Ian,

My position on science is that it consists of contingent facts that are open to revision in the face of new evidence.

Am I expecting E = MC2, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be 'revised,' - No, and I'm not holding my breath.

But, I have a pet hatred for the tendency of some people to treat science as a new religion that provides them with absolutes.

So, I would endorse the idea that a working refrigerator will reliable pump heat from its interior to its exterior, and can 'certainly,' be relied upon to continue to do so while it is provided with power, is switched on, got the thermostat set correctly, has the door shut and is otherwise in good working order - that's kinda my limit with certainty.

Hi Graeme,

Thoroughly endorse your view that science is not a religion. Of course a lot depends on how you define your terms, and I would say a fact (a correctly observed observable) is not up for revision, but what is done with it is. Thus the rate at which a brick dropped on your toe while you are at a specified location is not up for revision, and if you don't believe me, keep doing it :-), but why it is doing it may be.

As examples go, E = mc^2 has been revised, and the equation is only right in a very limited sense. Sorry to spoil your example :-(

Back to certainty. I am certain that if you drop said brick properly directed above said toe, toe will become sufficiently sore you will soon stop doing it. I am also certain that some of what we read in our text books will eventually be found to be wrong. One of the things that upset me is the "certainty" that comes from statistical analysis. Yes, I happy that cigarette smoking gives you a much greater chance of contracting lung cancer, but if you look at dietary advice over the years things that once were bad become OK, and things that were OK become bad, then they oscillate. Then there are the quacks that have a "certain cure for cancer". But this is misuse of science and logic, not that science and logic are wrong.

Hi Ian, thanks - yes, there is a distinction to be made between measured phenomena and interpretation of the phenomena.

As for E = mc^2 , what's the revision - do you have a link?

The revision: E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mo.c^2)^2

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–...

The equation looks a bit neater when you can write in sub and superscripts. mo is the rest mass - the o should be a subscript.

A relativistic physicist might argue it was never revised - the E=mc^2 is just for a special case.

Excellent link.

(Rest mass vs Relativistic mass... missed it by 'that,' much...)

Graeme wrote: "Hi Ian,

My position on science is that it consists of contingent facts that are open to revision in the face of new evidence.

Am I expecting E = MC2, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be 'revis..."

On one hand, science requires a bit of faith...you have to have faith that what we can observe and measure is real...that we're not going to wake up one day and find out this universe was all just a dream, and that we actually live in a universe with a different set of scientific laws.

On another hand, religion is something we worship. To call science a religion would mean that we worship those scientific laws and facts...that might be going a little far in describing one's love of science.

Graeme, I see your point that some people have certainty that their moral compass is true, and yet their beliefs lead them to do evil things. Those people are just screwed up. You're right that certainty doesn't equal morality. Even so, don't we each have to operate in the world with some certainty as to what we believe is right and wrong? With the knowledge that there's some center that can't be breached.

Scout wrote: "Graeme, I see your point that some people have certainty that their moral compass is true, and yet their beliefs lead them to do evil things. Those people are just screwed up. You're right that cer..."

I think (just me thinking of course...) that the important thing is to make a choice about what you can live with as right and wrong - and back yourself up on it.

My moral position is informed by the following principles, as follows.

[1] Informed Choice: Before I take an action on/with someone else, they need to fully understand/comprehend what is being proposed, and have made an honest, non-coerced choice about it.

[2] Compassion: Defined as experiencing another person's suffering as if it is your own, and acting accordingly to relieve it.

[3] Only real things can have real value: Excludes the pursuit of illusions, and the general use of deception (note the last qualifier).

[4] The optimal path of value creation comes from win/win solutions. This strategy requires increased effort in the early phase to establish buy in by the other players, but has reduced maintenance costs over the long term.

[5] Empowered human beings are naturally better people than disempowered human beings.

The above principles result in an approach to life based on generating long term relationships based on honesty and mutual trust. Where everyone participating in the relationship can see real value in the relationship. Where relationships are based on mutual empowerment that is able to be clearly demonstrated with tangible results.

I rarely participate in games where there is a distinct winner and loser, however, I also love competition and I want the other person to be their best during the contest. There is no honor in beating those who are weak, or otherwise at less than their best.

WRT deception. If I was in a life and death situation, I would use deception to the best of my ability as a tactic for winning and I would seek to win, ruthlessly and without remorse. However, it is my great good fortune not to be in such a situation.

Of the above - I'm certain.

So, is certainty about your beliefs a virtue? A positive when navigating life's obstacles?

Hi Scout, the quality I would look for is commitment, where I define commitment as the wholehearted choosing of something, and hence action without reservations.

This doesn't require certainty.

You can commit, even within doubtful circumstances. How many times have people risked everything in doubtful circumstances because they had a commitment to a purpose greater than themselves.

Think D-Day, for example. Running onto those beaches and not knowing if you'd see another day.

Commitment, Courage, Faith.

Scout wrote: "So, is certainty about your beliefs a virtue? A positive when navigating life's obstacles?"

I mean to say, from my POV, commitment is more valuable than certainty for navigating life's obstacles.

Hi Graeme,

I disagree that you can commit wholeheartedly without certainty. On the other hand, what you are certain of may not be what others think. Your example of D Day - the soldiers were certain it was the right thing to do; they were not certain they were going to live. The soldier is certain he should obey orders, even if they are a bit doubtful. The fact he might get shot if he doesn't may make him a bit more certain to obey :-)

Hi Ian, it goes to definition of certainty vs commitment. We may not be talking about the same things.

Hi Graeme, My point too - it is a case of exactly what you are certain of, and where the certainty enters the commitment. Still, I find it important to probe statements to find where they might fail :-)

Ian wrote: "Hi Graeme, My point too - it is a case of exactly what you are certain of, and where the certainty enters the commitment. Still, I find it important to probe statements to find where they might fai..."

Of course, and much welcomed.

Ian expressed what I believe. You can't commit wholeheartedly without certainty. It's a subjective thing, though, based on each person's core beliefs, of which they are certain. And those core beliefs are not always grounded in reality or morality. So certainty is not necessarily a virtue, although I think it's something that humans need in order to deal with life's challenges.

What about gambling though? People commit to buying that lottery ticket when there is no certainty they'll win...

Certainty is best enjoyed when heard as pronounced by Curly of the 3 stooges.

"Soytenly"

Not even religion can offer certainty, though. Heaven or Hell: which is your final destination? You simply cannot predict how the celestial balances will tilt when it's your turn to step on the scales. Did you do enough to merit entry to The Good Place? Did you mumble through those Hail Marys given to you by Father Gregor as penance for saying the "F" word (obviously "fabulous") too many times in public when you were 3? If so, best hope you like things sizzling.

Of course, none of that is "certain".

I haven't expressed myself well on this topic, and I think it's because I've been addressing another question entirely: Is Certainty a Necessity? I think it is. Sorry about that.

The stock market certainly agrees...

The neurologist Robert Burton wrote a fascinating book called On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not. He examines certainty as a feeling. Years ago, I posted a Goodreads review.

In light of that, I wouldn't call certainty a virtue. It would be like calling joy a virtue. We pursue certainty primarily because it makes us feel good. We're wired for that feeling. As a result of feeling certain, we could behave in an ethically better or worse manner, but that's a downstream effect.

Hi Tucker, and interesting take on the topic.

Tucker, that's what I meant when I said certainty is a necessity.