Beliefs vs. Facts

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps it is most wise to only have beliefs and not claim to have knowledge. Of course the beliefs will need to be constantly challenged. To do this would require a person to be extremely humble and non-opinionated. I think I'd like to become more like this sort of belief-based person.

On another note, beliefs seem to satisfy some human need to cling to hope for something better. Maybe we have this in us because it enables us to progress in our cultural environment and change our environment when necessary. We do this by inventing and such. One must have a belief that something could exist before the person attempts to create something that is not yet in existence.

What interests me is how some talented and obsessive people will labor away trying to create or prove something that is not yet a fact or in existence. The key to this type of behavior is a firm belief that what he/she is working toward will work. For example, Galileo must have had strong beliefs to the point of having faith in them. He must have also had a pretty good intuitive mind which of course was backed by a learned mind as well.

Beliefs seem to be more intuitively based, but they do need to be tempered by the rational mind so that ridiculous beliefs don't survive.
It's ironic that the people who prize the rational mind so much that they scoff at intuition have winded up becoming irrational for holding to their beliefs which they misconstrue as being knowledge.

You seem to have the strange concept that beliefs arise out of some sort of random inspiration. They don't. People see possible patterns in their world and scientists use that speculative capability to confirm or deny those patterns by observation. Other slightly nutty people see patterns and because they have a certain emotional appeal declare them a reality with no observational backup.

Sure there are differing degrees of beliefs that are intuitive. When some scientist is a maverick and goes against all popular opinion (like in the case of whoever discovered satellite signals) that is an example of beliefs that defy the standard way of thinking.

We can give examples of intuitive beliefs and rational beliefs and the intuitive ones will probably have a broader spectrum which ranges from totally nutty to complete genius. Rational beliefs can also be pretty nuts though. Many wars are started by rational beliefs. I guess the point is to be honest with ourselves and challenge our own belief systems to get further ahead in the search for truth.

No problem with that.

Without opinions you could not drive safely in traffic.

ruveyn

Considering the tens of thousands of people killed and I cannot say how many injured in traffic each year, evidently opinions don't help.

The universe cannot be defined logically because logic is only as perfect as the known rules it applies.

"Facts" routinely produce wrong conclusions because facts must be placed in the correct order to match the "truth."

Such "perfect logic" does not exist and my never exist as man's knowledge and understanding is so limited.

"Belief" is subject to flaw because it doesn't have to follow any rules, but belief is capable of knowing the "truth" because it acts on evidence that cannot be quantified by logic.

In the legal system, there is the saying, "There's what you know [to be the truth] and what you can prove." Often, we know something is "truth" but proving it empirically in a courtroom isn't possible. Many criminals and bullies get away with their acts because they are careful to never leave enough empirical evidence to get convicted for their crimes. You "know" they are guilty, but the rules obligate you to rule based on provable facts, and such evidence does not exist in a form that withstands scrutiny.

The same is true with life. Our brains gather lots of "evidence" and "facts" every day, but we can't scientifically document every bit of it. "Belief" can sift through things and find patterns and conclusions mainstream logic would dismiss.

There are people in prison today although DNA evidence is available to overturn their convictions but the DA in charge "knows" the truth and will not permit the tests to be taken. "Knowing" without concrete evidence is prejudice and hogwash.

Believing without evidence to prove your belief is not complete hogwash. A skeptical mind will always leave room for doubt. A person can drive himself mad trying to seek out the ultimate truth in all matters. Also, believing without evidence that something could exist is what enables some people to make great discoveries.

The tendency to choose beliefs and form beliefs rather than accept just the popular facts is some form of human thought that I don't think has been pinpointed. I think that once we label something it does help to get a better grasp of it. Imagine if bi-polar disorder was never labeled. It would make it seem as if it's something that is less real. So, I think that if we label this thought process (tendency toward intuitive belief or rational belief) we can learn how to refine it to work in our best interest and thereby the best interest of humanity.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is its faithful servant."
-Albert Einstein

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!! !! !! !! !!

When we drive we make judgments and predictions. These are opinions (as opposed to facts). Having the wrong opinion (i.e. misjudging the traffic) can lead to injury or death.

ruveyn