Epistemology

[DataPacRat]

In a more refined sense, falsity is useful as hope in distressing situations. Enter Viktor Frankl and his "logotherapy", which was found in the midst of Auschwitz, where those in concentration camps had a will-to-live (a very good thing) if they believed in things that were likely to be false even though they could be true (such is the nature of hope).

Mm... I'm afraid that I don't know enough about the specific case you mention to say anything one way or another. In general, though, it may be a cliche, but it's still a useful thought: where there's life, there's hope.

 

[Received]

Think about hope in your own life. I may hope (as a counselor) that I'll end up this long string of clients after this last rambling one, even if I find out later that this wasn't the case. Hope means putting your bet on a possibility, and the vast majority of all possibilities are false, given that only one has to be true in order for actuality to exist.

 

[DataPacRat]

Try responding to the first point then.

By which I assume you mean:

Let's assume that believing in God makes you more happy overall than not believing in him (which is supported by the psychological research, although may be involve other variables inherent only to religion).

As you say, this is supported by the psychological research, so I don't really need to /assume/ it.

My initial reaction is to consider the short-term effects versus the long-term effects. For a somewhat exaggerated example, if belief-in-God makes you happier, but the mental processes that lead to this belief also lead to actions which result in you dying at age 30; while a lack of belief in God means you're not quite as happy, and is the result of mental processes that result in you dying at age 90... then depending on how you measure things, the second case results in more total happiness than the first.

And I think fact checking would prevent us from the theory I initially presented to your OP. After all, the veracity of all theories is conditional on whether or not it fits a collection of facts, right?

I wouldn't say just /any/ old 'collection of facts', but 'the sum of observable evidence'. (I've had bad experiences with hucksters cherry-picking the one study out of a hundred which, because of the nature of statistics, could be interpreted as supporting their claim, while ignoring the 99 studies which falsify it.)

True, but Aunt Helen sure doesn't know the truth unless I share it.

If your hypothetical Aunt Helen inaccurately believes that a description of her appearance that is meant to be truthful is, instead, meant to be an insult... then that more fundamental false belief will need to be corrected before the rather minor false belief about her current level of beauty can be dealt with.

Think about hope in your own life. I may hope (as a counselor) that I'll end up this long string of clients after this last rambling one, even if I find out later that this wasn't the case. Hope means putting your bet on a possibility, and the vast majority of all possibilities are false, given that only one has to be true in order for actuality to exist.

Hrm... I don't think I can properly deal with this point without referring to probability theory, specifically Bayesian Inference; and that can take a while just to lay the necessary groundwork. So, for now, I'll just offer a link to "An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes' Theorem" at Yudkowsky - Bayes' Theorem , and, since very few people actually bother reading that, the much more digestible, if not as completely relevant, "Twelve Virtues of Rationality" at Twelve Virtues of Rationality .

 

[The Paul]

The art of allowing my level of confidence in a proposition to rise and fall according to the level of evidence, changing my mind without being overly attached to my previous, now-falsified understanding... and the science of knowing precisely /how much/ to change my mind, depending on the nature and strength of the evidence involved. To focus not so much on "beliefs", but on what experiences to expect, what predictions can be made. The consequences of proper application of Bayes' Theorem and Laplace's sunrise equation. And that's probably enough for a first run-through.

A good set of capabilities to have.

Have you thought about whether or not these are really abilities you possess and others do not or if perhaps you just apply them differently than most people?

This following anecdote involves World of Warcraft, but understanding the game isn't necessary: A friend of mine saw someone ask for suggestions regarding a good quest-helper mod in the game's general chat. Several suggestions were immediately made by different players. Each one then ridiculed the suggestions made by the others and insisted the mod *they* had suggested was far superior. The player who originally asked the question said nothing more, but a "flame war" proceeded to develop and lasted 15 to 20 minutes.

These mods are free, none of them were developed by the players involved. There is no way anyone could actually have materially benefited from their favorite mod being selected.

My friend's interpretation of this is that we become attached to ideas and want other people to think like us. That it is all the same phenomenon, it creates religions, political ideologies, and flame wars on World of Warcraft.

So whenever someone is unable to examine the source of their beliefs and question their truth, and it's clear to me, it makes me wonder if I have similar blindspots.

So you can cut through religions and similar belief systems. Is it because your better at examining the truth of things, or is it because you examine the truth of different things?