"Beliefs do not change facts. Facts, if one is rational, should change beliefs"

[cleanhippie]

I just heard that quote from Ricky Gervais in the trailer for the movie The Unbelievers, that rug posted the trailer for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=68223

It struck me how simple this concept really is, yet so many people on this planet, and even right here on DU, refuse to accept that.

"Beliefs do not change facts. Facts, if one is rational, should change beliefs"

How does that statement make YOU feel? Is it correct? Are there exceptions? Why is there so much reluctance to not follow that bit of basic common sense?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. it is pretty well documented at this point that counter-factuals actually reinforce beliefs.

sort of a sad fact about our minds.

[Angry Dragon]

2. A lot of people do not like to have their beliefs questioned

If one is faced with facts then beliefs are questioned.
I think they feel they have been living a lie if they change their beliefs
Instead they should embrace change and think of it as growing


The people at the top of a religion are the most against change, it errodes their power

[cleanhippie]

5. "The people at the top of a religion are the most against change, it errodes their power"

I think that is a big part of it. How many time have we seen religious leaders act hypocritically (like being anti-gay then having gay relationships), or take irrational measures (like hiding and protecting child-raping priests) all in the name of retaining authority and power.

[rug]

3. It's perfectly appropriate for science, although its conclusions should change, not its beliefs.

Regarding belief itself, facts will either explain and amplify the beliefs or destroy them.

[BootinUp]

4. We aren't automatically very good at discerning when something is a fact or not.

It takes a little extra effort. The automatic mode seems to work on some weird level where the brain tries to feel if he/she/they are lying to us or not.

[AnnaLee]

6. Facts are a trick from the devil to fool you into abandoning your beliefs.

So now, tell me, what is a fact and what is not. It CAN be your choice (or rather what someone tells you is the right choice).

[cleanhippie]

7. The dictionary provides an excellent definition of that word.

And that definition seems to be the one most people are referring to when they use that word, so, I guess I'm not understanding your point.


Was your comment

Facts are a trick from the devil to fool you into abandoning your beliefs.

meant to be taken literally?

[AnnaLee]

9. Just saying that a person of faith does not have to accept a fact or even belief a fact is real.

Some people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old consider fossils (or the dating of fossils) to be a trick of the devil. The second the devil is imposed, it becomes impossible to prove anything is a fact. Everything you perceive, including my post here, might be part of a trick, who knows?

[cleanhippie]

10. I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Your statement is so full of fallacious logic and reasoning, I don't know where to begin.

In fact, I'm not going to.

[kestrel91316]

8. Oh, dear. "Facts are a trick from the devil to fool you into abandoning your beliefs."

(double facepalm)

[Deep13]

11. It takes some effort to train oneself to think that way.

People are far more likely to try to view the facts in a way that reinforces or at least does not contradict ones own narrative.

I cannot choose what to believe. I could not believe in God and join a religion even if I liked everything about it. There is no getting around the fact that the basic premises of those religions are factually wrong. The best I could do is pretend to believe and I won't do that.

[LARED]

12. Facts are not the same thing as truths

Facts often lead people acting rationally to very different beliefs.

Religion, abortion, gun violence, economics, fiscal policies, gay rights, education, etc, etc, etc, are all subjects where the same facts lead people to different beliefs.

[cleanhippie]

14. Well, thats nice, and would be relevant had anyone said differently.

But I think you have it backwards.

Facts often lead people acting rationally to very different beliefs.

Perhaps you meant; Beliefs often lead people to different truths despite the facts.

Religion, abortion, gun violence, economics, fiscal policies, gay rights, education, etc, etc, etc, are all subjects where the same facts lead people to different beliefs.

And I think you meant to say; Religion, abortion, gun violence, economics, fiscal policies, gay rights, education, etc, etc, etc, are all subjects where different beliefs lead people to different truths, despite the facts.

[Jim__]

13. "... there will always be more than one way to understand the meaning of 'facts.'"

Isolated facts can appear to refute an idea - a belief. When those facts are seen in the light of expanded knowledge, they may actually support the idea. When Copernicus wrote De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, the known facts - e.g. lack of a stellar parallax - supported the Ptolemaic System over the system being proposed. Copernicus was driven by belief - i.e. metaphysical considerations. Copernicus' belief did not change the fact about the lack of a stellar parallax; but, it was not irrational of him to maintain his belief in spite of this fact.


From a column of Rationally Speaking:

...

Finally, Quine also pointed out a reason why science by itself is never going to be enough. All theories about the world are going to be underdetermined by the available data, meaning that there will always be more than one way to understand the meaning of “facts.” If this is the case, then we need extra-empirical considerations to make sense of those very facts (i.e., they don’t “speak for themselves”). Which is why careful reflection on meaning and logical implications (i.e., good philosophizing) will always be required.

Quine advocated for a strong “naturalistic” turn in philosophy, a stronger one than I would recommend, in fact (I'm writing a book about this...). But even his embracing of empiricism (and therefore science) still yielded a view of human knowledge as a complex web where facts and interpretations, provided by physical science, natural science, and social science, are going to be in reflective equilibrium with contributions from non-empirical investigations, be they from math, logic or, yes, philosophy.

...