Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#171

Post by enord » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #55

enord wrote: post #13

The interactionist perspective presented is enlightening. It both motivates and explains many of the classic reasoning snafus that we "suffer" from. In the end our mental artefacts (including beliefs) are just tools, and their value (or "truth") is a function of their utility. If we were to present a 19th century carpenter with a nail gun he would agree upon demonstration; "that is very nice and all, thanks but i'll…

> Beliefs are the same, and a relation to "facts" or "truth" is not a requrement for their utility. Let's apply a little recursion here, shall we? I gather that you believe what I quoted. But you admit that your belief does not need to have any relation to facts or truth. You believe what you said, because that belief has some utility to you. But why should I believe you? That is, your view, applied to itself, destro…

I mean... In some circumstances you would be right, but the mind is not a formal system that stands or falls on soundness. If you read it a little more charitably, i said "is not a requirement for", rather than "is completely unrelated to". I'll wager that we are successful _almost because_ our minds function adequately while entertaining "untrue" beliefs in a strict sense.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#172

Post by galdosdi » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

conistonwater wrote: post #131

coldtea wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain. Yeah, in the sense that all you are saying is its possible to have degrees of trust on difference sources of "facts". That said, you'd be surprised how often the fact (pun intended) that it's "impossible to know anything for certain" is lost on people. > Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation. Peer rev…

> That said, you'd be surprised how often the fact (pun intended) that it's "impossible to know anything for certain" is lost on people. I think David Hume was quite good on this subject. If chance of being right is all there is to knowledge, then maximizing your chance of being right is what knowledge is. So all the peer review, the numbers and statistics, for example, contribute to knowledge even if it might be wro…

Maybe, but consider adding another constraint to the game of maximizing your chance to being right -- you have a finite amount of resources (eg, time) to spend on examining evidence, so you need to strategize even what evidence is worth considering and to what extent -- looking more carefully at one thing means you now have less time to look carefully at something else, nothing is free

Of course, in real life, we do have this constraint

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#173

Post by leshow » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

A citation isn't a statement of fact in a general sense anyway.

A bit of information from a study, means that under these very specific set of conditions, this happened. Your ability to generalise that to a 'fact' which is true in all cases is pretty limited.

All citations do is add support for or against an argument, they aren't statements of fact.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#174

Post by leshow » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:07 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #15

brightball wrote: post #10

Another factor here is when people abuse the word "fact" regularly. If you ever get into a discussion with somebody who claims they've proved their point by citing "facts", then actually follow up on their citations and discover that it doesn't actually say what they think it says it creates an impression of the messenger, not the message. Enough messengers saying the same faulty message over and over and you distrus…

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

Citations add 'support' for or against one side of an argument, they almost never state anything that's factually true or false in a general sense.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#175

Post by crdoconnor » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #60

coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain. Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation. Peer review is better than no review. There is probably a higher correlation for a statement from an official state agency being true, than a random statement with no attribution. So yes, a statement can satisfy any of the things you mention, and still not be true.…

"Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation."

Not if the "well regarded source" has a clear motive to lie.

"There is probably a higher correlation for a statement from an official state agency being true"

Not when the statement conveniently exculpates the agency or high ranking members of the agency of wrongdoing. Then there is probably a higher correlation for a statement being false.

For example, when Jean Paul de Menezes was gunned down by the London Metropolitan police almost every claim made to defend themselves in the succeeding three days turned out to be false. They said that there were wires visible from his jacket. They said he was wearing a heavy coat. They said he vaulted the turnstile. They said that they shouted "armed police!" and he turned and walked towards him. None of it was true.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#176

Post by leshow » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:10 PM UTC

coding123 wrote: post #63

coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

I ABSOLUTELY agree with this, and this is completely lost on people. For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good, NOT because it's actually good. The problem is, we humans play right into that as if the number's game actually means something - 1 out of 10 studies says something is bad - the other 9 say it's good. So rather than actually work off…

If you're reading a study who's conclusion is 'x is bad' then I question whether you're actually reading any scientific literature to begin with. No scientist in their right mind would try and support an argument so broad.

It sounds like you're just reading some news article's terrible summary of an already terribly summarised abstract.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#177

Post by FabHK » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:13 PM UTC

77pt77 wrote: post #44

Mikeb85 wrote: post #34

Facts don't change our minds because we make up our world views and beliefs in a way that's expedient for us to happily continue about our lives. For instance, we all NEED to believe we're the 'good' guys. Whether the 'we' is our religion, our job, our state, political stance, etc... This prevents existential angst from realizing we're in the wrong, and then needing to change our behaviour which would disrupt our eve…

> When it becomes expedient to change our opinion, then we're very quick to do so. And even deny that ever had any other position.

I fully agree, and I never said anything else.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#178

Post by FabHK » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

crpatino wrote: post #88

sgt101 wrote: post #16

Vaccines are safer for a population, and they are safer for individuals in an unvaccinated population. In a vaccinated population the risks to the individual having a vaccine are low, but non zero. The risk of not having the vaccine may well be lower. The problem is that by not being clear that having a vaccination is an altruistic act with marginal risk but a massive social good the way is left open for claims of du…

I would upvote you twice if I could. The anti-science crowd and not idiots, but rather moderately intelligent individuals that go bersek after catching the Science spokeperson's oversimplifications and/or white lies. Fool me once and it's your fault, fool me twice and it is mine.

The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child).

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#179

Post by SmirkingRevenge » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #46

Translation: "Why did Trump win the election even though he and his policies are obviously nuts?" Seriously, not trying to inject politics or my opinion on Trump, but there do seem to be a lot of these "why do people make act so crazy" articles lately. I too am trying to make sense of it all and failing.

I think that's probably true, but discussions and studies around cognitive bias have been going on for ages, just not necessarily in an accessible way, or in the mainstream.

That is, unless you are in marketing, advertising, or public office - then its probably your job to exploit all our irrational foibles for profit or power.

Either way, I think its important to get a better handle on just how rational we are vs how rational we think we are - and on ways to push us towards the more rational side of things.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#180

Post by syrrim » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

I read an interesting explanation for how lying developed in humans: when we became capable social creatures, lying to others would be a quick way of gaining an advantage, so it would be selected for in the individual. However, a culture made up of liars would be less trusting of each other, and so at a disadvantage. In this way, we evolved to give off signals, and feel guilt, when we are lying.

However, it remained useful to lie to others, and so we evolved to be able to still do so. If we first lie to ourselves, trick ourselves into believing a falsehood is true, we can then spread this to others as if it were true, and therefore without consequences. In historical societies, it seems this was the right balance between generally telling the truth to others, while still being able to lie when it is important to do so. I wonder if it is time for the balance to swing the other way again, and for lying to again be selected against.