Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on November 18, 2015, 02:04:13 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Can we make anyone change their mind on some subject? We all know that we can't (from our experience here)! Here is scientific evidence for that (for what its worth).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151116143602.htm
**************
A new study from the University of Iowa finds that once people reach a conclusion, they aren't likely to change their minds, even when new information shows their initial belief is likely wrong and clinging to that belief costs real money.
The study, co-authored by Tom Gruca, professor of marketing in the Tippie College of Business, has implications for understanding financial markets. He says equity analysts who issue written forecasts about stocks may be subject to this confirmation bias and do not let new data significantly revise their initial analyses.
**************
A finding valid equally for religious believers, atheists and everyone else.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Can we make anyone change their mind on some subject? We all know that we can't (from our experience here)! Here is scientific evidence for that (for what its worth).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151116143602.htm
**************
A new study from the University of Iowa finds that once people reach a conclusion, they aren't likely to change their minds, even when new information shows their initial belief is likely wrong and clinging to that belief costs real money.
The study, co-authored by Tom Gruca, professor of marketing in the Tippie College of Business, has implications for understanding financial markets. He says equity analysts who issue written forecasts about stocks may be subject to this confirmation bias and do not let new data significantly revise their initial analyses.
**************
A finding valid equally for religious believers, atheists and everyone else.
Cheers.
Sriram
I like to think that I will change my mind with new evidence.
I would not cling to a believe in the face of evidence.
I have no beliefs that I care that much about to do that.
What would be the point?
-
What BR said.
I need reliable, reputable evidence to change my mind, which I will do at the drop of a hat if it's forthcoming. I haven't changed my mind on anything significant here as nobody has offered any.
-
The evidence here suggests that, in general, people are loathe to change their mind, even in response to evidence.
I don't think it's impossible, certainly, and I can see situations (such as scientific consensus) where the 'emotional commitment' is to the truth of the process rather than the findings.
However, the tendency to look for reasons to dismiss evidence contrary to our preconceptions and relatively unquestioningly accept supporting commentary is a well documented component of confirmation bias.
O.
-
Doesn't the OP at least present some evidence that we don't change minds even when presented with evidence (and this is far from the only study that does this)?
Isn't it therefore at least a tad ironic for people to just declare that they are perfectly capable of changing their minds when presented with evidence?
-
Doesn't the OP at least present some evidence that we don't change minds even when presented with evidence (and this is far from the only study that does this)?
Isn't it therefore at least a tad ironic for people to just declare that they are perfectly capable of changing their minds when presented with evidence?
Yes you are right.
I have changed my mind, people do not change their minds.
-
I hope I wouldn't be stupid enough maintain the status quo if there was verifiable evidence I was mistaken in what I believed to be true.
-
Yes you are right.
I have changed my mind, people do not change their minds.
Applaud.
-
Doesn't the OP at least present some evidence that we don't change minds even when presented with evidence (and this is far from the only study that does this)?
Some people are like this and others are not. The answer to that one, if any answer is to be had, lies in human psychology, not marketing.
Isn't it therefore at least a tad ironic for people to just declare that they are perfectly capable of changing their minds when presented with evidence?
No, for the reason just given.
-
But you will also find that people generally overestimate their openness to evidence. We are generally very bad at estimating how able we are at anything.
-
But you will also find that people generally overestimate their openness to evidence. We are generally very bad at estimating how able we are at anything.
Not badminton, I know exactly where I am there.
I played some young county players last week, so the evidence was overwhelming (not in my favour I might add)
-
Dear Sriram,
Yep! we are all stubborn buggers, take the great Albert Einstein, even after reading all the evidence it took him ten years to admit that he was wrong about a expanding universe.
I think it also ties in with a thing called "self serving bias" but yer man for this ( I think ) is old Bluehillside, who put me on to Nassim Taleb, who studies this stuff.
But of course it is only us theists who are subject to these things, atheists are to intelligent to fall for this rubbish. ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rose,
Sometimes conversing online with people, can change how you veiw something, which can be a step towards changing your mind.
Most definitely, I am living proof, I still cringe at two men kissing but now know it is my problem not theirs, all thanks to this forum.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners, now you know why I stopped trying to kiss you.
-
I have changed my mind about several things over time, most relevant here being religion.
I was a regular (C of E) church attendee, sang in the choir for about 6 years, left school with a GCE in RI which was all about Christianity in those days. When I was 16 my father died unexpectedly and I looked forward to meeting him in heaven.
Now I don't believe any of it.
-
I can't change my mind via an act of will, but my mind has been changed over time, on a number of issues. It usually happens slowly, and 'behind my back', so to speak. In other words, unconsciously. it's a fascinating process really.
-
My wife is always changing her mind! >:(
-
The point isn't that minds don't change but that it isn't necessarily here is some evidence which leads you to change it and that just happens. One of the studies on this, iirc, was to look at people's attitude to the death penalty and then present people who were for against with a set of evidence. this lead to those in the in favour of the death penalty using it and becoming more convinced and those against it citing it and becoming more against.
-
My wife is always changing her mind! >:(
Mine is always changing mine!
-
The point isn't that minds don't change but that it isn't necessarily here is some evidence which leads you to change it and that just happens. One of the studies on this, iirc, was to look at people's attitude to the death penalty and then present people who were for against with a set of evidence. this lead to those in the in favour of the death penalty using it and becoming more convinced and those against it citing it and becoming more against.
Does this just show that the evidence itself does not point one way or the other?
-
Does this just show that the evidence itself does not point one way or the other?
not really since it is making each side more convinced. If it didn't point one way or another and people were acting as you believe you act then it would make no difference. It's just an example of confirmation bias, and illustrates that we do not approach evidence in an unbiased manner.
-
What BR said.
I need reliable, reputable evidence to change my mind, which I will do at the drop of a hat if it's forthcoming. I haven't changed my mind on anything significant here as nobody has offered any.
Which probably mirrors the reason some haven't changed their minds when presented with the evidence you have provided - not that there's been much.
-
My wife is always changing her mind! >:(
Ditto. Mind you, I suppose that is why, unlike me, she has such a clean one. ;)
-
Which probably mirrors the reason some haven't changed their minds when presented with the evidence you have provided - not that there's been much.
evidence for what?
-
Evidence played a part in me losing my faith in the nuts and bolts of Christian belief. That and reasoning about the illogic of the position I had.
-
My wife is always changing her mind! >:(
My wife always used to be changing my mind, when she was there! :)
-
Hi everyone,
Normally, pure intellectual views can be changed quite fast....like changes in scientific theories for example. Even our understanding of our own bodies, such as medical facts, can be changed fast.
But any idea with an emotional content is very difficult to change because it becomes a meme and starts behaving like a gene. It tries to survive and replicate. To delete any of these memes and to load others takes lot of time and continued exposure to the new idea. Also, how others around us feel can influence us to change our minds ....or hold on to our ideas... depending on how they feel.
We think that 'evidence' will make us change our minds. It does not usually happen!
Many religious people are unable to give up their belief in mythology in spite of overwhelming evidence against it. But not that atheists are immune to such 'digging in the heels'.
Just to give some examples about discussions on here.... Everyone knows about NDE's and that millions of people around the world have these experiences. But most people who hear about it tend to dismiss it as just hallucinations or some brain generated experience.
Floo had a personal experience of a remarkable cure...but she and most others dismiss it.
Not that these above experiences should make us change our minds immediately and accept the idea of an after-life or a biofield! No! That may be difficult. But at least a.... 'Hmmm....maybe there is something to it'.... would be a good start...which could be the beginning of a new and broader understanding of the world! But it doesn't happen.
Secondly, many of us feel that if 'sufficient evidence' is presented...we will readily change our minds. This is just a way of fooling ourselves. There is no such thing as 'sufficient evidence' if we have made up our minds against it. The above two instances are 'sufficient evidence' in my view and nothing more can possibly be presented in these matters. Yet...no one is impressed! :D
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Some years back I was in hospital recovering from a DVT and my bed was opposite this, as I thought at the time, a very badly spoken, dragged up, unnecessarily rude person in his manner toward everyone, he was snorting, farting, always picking at himself and unnecessarily exposing himself without regard.
None of the above particularly phased me, but I couldn't help noticing, his general behaviour was very much in your face, well almost; one evening his daughter came to visit him and I couldn't help overhearing the most tender loving conversation between the two of them, I have a tear in my eye as I'm writing and recalling this moment, I didn't hear every word said but from the tone of the conversation the poor man was on his way out.
The loving tenderness of this overheard conversation taught me to do my best to not pidgin hole people or to be as judgmental as I was in the past, it shook me and has altered my thinking considerably, in other words, changed my mind.
ippy
-
evidence for what?
To be honest, NS, I'm not sure, where Shaker is concerned ;) He spends a lot of time telling all and sundry that religion is without any basis, but doesn't really seem to produce any evidence for his belief that seems to me that science provides/will provide the answers to all the questions people ask.
-
That's interesting ippy.
I've also pidgin holed people and seen that I was wrong.
Usually because they have shown a side to them I hadn't seen before.
Thank you for sharing.
🌹
I learnt very early in my life that pigeon-holing people was not simply wrong, it was a fallacy. Ironically, it was as much because of the erroneous way that others used to pigeon-hole me as the way I pigeon-holed others.
-
To be honest, NS, I'm not sure, where Shaker is concerned ;) He spends a lot of time telling all and sundry that religion is without any basis, but doesn't really seem to produce any evidence for his belief that seems to me that science provides/will provide the answers to all the questions people ask.
I think you have to unpack that. That religion has no basis depends on how you are defining 'basis' Here.
That science will provide all the answers to all questions is a different statement, and I don't know if Shaker has ever stated that.
-
To be honest, NS, I'm not sure, where Shaker is concerned ;) He spends a lot of time telling all and sundry that religion is without any basis, but doesn't really seem to produce any evidence for his belief that seems to me that science provides/will provide the answers to all the questions people ask.
I don't recall Shaker, or indeed any of the atheists here, claiming that science can provide 'all the answers' - which raises the issues of what questions are being asked, whether these questions are within the scope of science and, of course, whether these questions are valid ones in the first place.
-
Some Religious people want that sparkle of magic or an ultimate justice and not a universe that is aloof and totally explainable.
I'm not sure that suggesting that religious people 'want that sparkle of magic or an ultimate justice and not a universe that is aloof and totally explainable' is realistic, Rose. I certainly don't.
- Working backwards, I think we all want an explanation of the universe, but some people seem to want a different explanation to others.
- Not sure that the term 'aloof' is even applicable to the way atheists think about things; rather they seem to look at things from a different perspective and therefore see the universe in a different light to non-atheists.
- 'Ultimate justice'; could you expand on what you mean by that? Is it some sort of ultimate punishment?
- Finally, 'sparkle of magic'; as soon as anyone brings the concept of magic into the discussion, I begin to get suspicious. Back in September and October, I used to look out of our sitting room window and watch as a particular tree at the end of our close, changed colour spectacularly over a 4-5 week period. Yes, it was 'magic', but there was no supernatural-ness to that magic. Rather it was naturally spectacular. I think that that is how many Christians regard the way in which God works and how his nature is. The problem for atheists is that that 'natural-ness' is a far bigger concept than the rather narrow one that relies on science alone to describe it.
-
I think we all want an explanation of the universe, but some people seem to want a different explanation to others.
A real one would be preferable.
-
NS and Gordon, are you suggesting that there are areas of reality that science doesn't claim to speak to?
-
A real one would be preferable.
I would agree wholeheartedly, Shaker. I just think that the one you espouse is not a real one.
-
I would agree wholeheartedly, Shaker. I just think that the one you espouse is not a real one.
Evidence for that?
-
I learnt very early in my life that pigeon-holing people was not simply wrong, it was a fallacy. Ironically, it was as much because of the erroneous way that others used to pigeon-hole me as the way I pigeon-holed others.
I can remember learning at a very early part of my life whatever the rule, there's always an exception to the rule.
ippy
-
Evidence for that?
The posts you make in the religion/science debate threads.
-
I can remember learning at a very early part of my life whatever the rule, there's always an exception to the rule.
ippy
Were you the latter, ippy? ;)
-
The posts you make in the religion/science debate threads.
I don't think you understand.
I was asking for evidence that the explanation of the universe I espouse is not "the real one." Remember that the explanation I espouse, more particularly the methodological principles that undergird it, show their success every single day that the sun shines upon the earth. Without going into too much heavy detail here and now (been done before; will go into it all over again if deemed necessary, however) I consider that case closed for the methodology and explanation(s) I espouse. Sure, I can make all the right noises about it being provisional and tentative and all that, but really, as I say, it's done and dusted, kippers and custard as far as I'm concerned.
So that's me and mine - what about yours?
-
Were you the latter, ippy? ;)
Sorry can't help there I'm so ordinary, how would I know, but there are datums.
ippy
-
I was asking for evidence that the explanation of the universe I espouse is not "the real one."
I have extracted this from a post I have just made on the 'The Sun wilbe Darkened' thread for Shaker's benefit.
"Apropos which, how's the evidence coming along for your assertion that my explanation of the universe is "not a real one" on the "Changing our mind" thread on General Discussion?
And that explanation was ... what? That the debate is done and dusted? That sounds extremely dogmatic. If it really was 'all done and dusted' I would expect the on-going philosophical debates not to be on-going, the continued existence of theology to have ceased and the efforts of science to find the answers to be unnecessary.
I have nothing against your holding the belief that all is done and dusted, in the same way that I have no problem with UKIP holding the belief that the UK would be better off outside of Europe: I happen to disagree, as do many others (on both issues)"
-
Why copy and paste that here when I saw it on the other thread (where it appeared first and where I replied)? Do you think that copying and pasting will somehow cover up the fact that you're still bobbing, weaving, ducking, diving and evading backing up yet another of your assertions?
Pathetic. Contemptible, actually.