You and I and everyone else, are told what to believe. Your thoughts don't magically appear in your brain. You get your beliefs from somewhere, be it television, radio, social media, books, peer-reviewed journal articles, professors, parents, coaches, etc.
It might be pedantic of me, but I'd like to make a distinction between thoughts (formed by integrating a host of sources) vdrsus beliefs (prepackaged notions accepted without critical thought.
Agreed in broad lines that no thought arises out of nothing. So the question is whether communicatex beliefs are seen as equally valuable as experiential beliefs. To me unfodtunately communicated beliefs ssdm to be more reaxily accepted. Not very self-aware about this. May be as limited as everyone else in this.
Do you actually think your beliefs exist in a vacuum and are independent of influence? Everything you believe in is due to to a variety of external influences. Your independent thought comes into play when you can critically examine ALL the evidence and come up with a good belief system based on an integration of the data; however, your belief system is still a byproduct of external influence.
Indeed. ProbAbly why I obsessi ely gather and consume data.
The question is this: Are people going to believe in ideas/beliefs/ideologies that are backed by good evidence and justification? Or, are they just going to believe without good justification?
I mean, why do you go to the doctor when you're sick and need medicine? Your belief system about medicine did not come about in a vacuum; your belief system of trust in medicine (lets assume you trust doctors) is due to the overwhelming data that shows that medicine works when you're sick. So, no matter what we believe in, its ALWAYS informed by an external agent. It just depends what external agent you look toward to for information and whether that external agent is providing good, honest data.
Might be reasonable to say that people easily accept prepackaged notions from their environment, and only relinquish them after consistsntly seeing them disproven. Might explain why it's easier for people to change minor details within a framework, yet virtually impossible to change a framework's structure. Prepackaged ogions are always tidy, brief and thus simplistic. Nice anchor to lure people in, yet failing due to real but complex realities. Think Marxism.
For what it's worth, I STRONGLY DISAGREE with suppressing good science in the name of political correctness. That is a huge danger that should be avoided.
Good, thanks for keeping me employed.
