Scientific research into holding false beliefs.

[Vinayaka]

Basically their research backs up the idea, that the more you get positive feedback about something, the more likely you are to hold a false belief. It may explain in some small way how beliefs become 'facts'.

Scientists Say They've Found The Driver of False Beliefs, And It's Not a Lack of Intelligence

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think the points around recency bias are even more interesting than the feedback loop.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think the points around recency bias are even more interesting than the feedback loop.

Yes, I remember telling my students that, so I believed it way back when. It was always on the day of parent teacher interviews. "When I'm talking to your parents tonight, I'm far more likely to remember what you do today than what you did a month ago."

Nice wording too ... recency bias.

 

[Sunstone]

Notable it's not a lack of intelligence. Over the past 30 or so years, there has been much scientific research into rationality. One of the findings has been that rationality is largely wired differently in the brain than intelligence, which explains why a very intelligent person can also sometimes be irrational.

 

[Sunstone]

This is good news in a way. It suggests there might be a means to reason with people, if you could get them out of their echo chambers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One of the findings has been that rationality is largely wired differently in the brain than intelligence, which explains why a very intelligent person can also sometimes be irrational.

IMHO, there may be evolutionary advantages in this. Fuzzy thinking.

 

[David T]

Basically their research backs up the idea, that the more you get positive feedback about something, the more likely you are to hold a false belief. It may explain in some small way how beliefs become 'facts'.

Scientists Say They've Found The Driver of False Beliefs, And It's Not a Lack of Intelligence

Did we actually need a scientific study to explain the self evident? I mean now that its "science" fact, whatever that is, will we suddenly magically go oh lets stop that? Oh i dont think so.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It might also explain why many of the non-religious find it kind of rewarding to participate here - rather than at other places where a pat-on-the-back is perhaps more normal. Or they (we) are just masochists.

 

[HonestJoe]

Did we actually need a scientific study to explain the self evident?

Yes, because declaring something as “self-evident” because it feels right to you is essentially the problem the research is about in the first place.

 

[Vinayaka]

Did we actually need a scientific study to explain the self evident? I mean now that its "science" fact, whatever that is, will we suddenly magically go oh lets stop that? Oh i dont think so.

That's what I thought too.

 

[David T]

Yes, because declaring something as “self-evident” because it feels right to you is essentially the problem the research is about in the first place.

Self evident is based on empericism in this case constant stupidity about such topic. So apparently i was right it wont stop. Thank you for making my point.

 

[HonestJoe]

Self evident is based on empericism in this case constant stupidity about such topic. So apparently i was right it wont stop. Thank you for making my point.

But things long declared self-evidence based on empiricism can turn out to be wrong (or at least incomplete or flawed). Empirical evidence can certainly be the basis of scientific study which will often confirm that initial conclusion but it’s still a necessary step in the process because sometimes it will turn out our assumptions are wrong.

 

[David T]

But things long declared self-evidence based on empiricism can turn out to be wrong (or at least incomplete or flawed). Empirical evidence can certainly be the basis of scientific study which will often confirm that initial conclusion but it’s still a necessary step in the process because sometimes it will turn out our assumptions are wrong.

Alwaus wrong and sxience itself is a continual these are the facts ooops new facts never mind those old facts were wrong.. Science is not. Magical objective reality its a narrative avout the world as we see it. Its the identical problem in religion as well.

The intro to lord of the rings the narrator says "history became legend, legend became myth" seems to be rather common phenomenology in all directions in all intellectual disiplines...