Can we force people to believe things? — Andrew4Handel

Advertising.

Which suggests an unfortunate propensity in the human mind.

:up:



Religion. Cults. Some types of nationalism. Politics.

It's a long list.

We should try and get people to pay attention to the evidence on these issues, the beliefs should follow naturally. It shouldn't be our concern to persuade people to our beliefs.

Because our beliefs could be wrong, and in fact, likely are, in at least several respects.

It shouldn't be our concern to persuade people to our beliefs.

Because our beliefs could be wrong, and in fact, likely are, in at least several respects. — Manuel

I somewhat agree with this. I believe we can present all manner of arguments and evidence for why we believe something. There can be a battle between opposing beliefs that needs resolving.

People argue we now have a cancel culture where some beliefs are are offensive and need reeducating or censoring. But to what extent do we permit complete free expression and safeguard against harmful content and ideas or risk censoring sensible ideas?

My feeling is that some beliefs are reasonable and need to be held firmly for ones own mental stability.

I think these kinds of things are context-dependent. I mean, one thing is to have a website like this, in which you want to keep trolling and bad attitudes away from serious discussion - in such cases (and several others like it) then we need certain protections by way of restricting speech - otherwise many people won't participate.

In general however, it is not a good idea to restrict speech - for one thing you don't get rid of the speech by banning it, for another, you lose an opportunity to let others see why such beliefs are problematic, based on elementary reasoning.

And of course, this also carries the implication that only what people like me believe, are the ones who are correct. No, we could be wrong, and engaging others can help is discover reasons why what we believe is wrong, or if not, incomplete.

It's not easy.

Can we decide whose beliefs are right and should be prioritised? — Andrew4Handel

Just a shot in the dark here...but how about evidence.

Just a shot in the dark here...but how about evidence — Bradskii

How many issues can be resolved by evidence?

I would agree with you if we could agree on our interpretation of the evidence.

What happens is people who oppose a current paradigm are attacked and or censored and a new position is is only adopted in the face of heavy protest.

Kuhn talked about paradigm shifts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Original_usage

"According to Max Planck, "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

It would be great if evidence had the power to induce in us new solidly factual beliefs that we were also willing to quickly adapt at a moments notice when faced with opposing evidence but its not necessarily a trait of human psychology.

How many issues can be resolved by evidence? — Andrew4Handel

On the not unreasonable assumption that the evidence is acceptable, then I'm struggling to think of one that can't.

On the not unreasonable assumption that the evidence is acceptable, then I'm struggling to think of one that can't. — Bradskii

How we should run a country.

What I should have for tea.

Whether there should be a death penalty.

How we should run a country.

What I should have for tea.

Whether there should be a death penalty — Andrew4Handel

I believe I'm going to have another g and t in a few minutes. But that's preference, like what you have for tea. I think we should restrict ourselves to factual matters. That's why I suggested evidence.

Running a country? Well, we'd need to decide how we want it run. If we have a specific idea and we have evidence of what others have and have not done to accomplish what we want, we can base our beliefs on what might work on that evidence.

Death penalty? Yeah...tricky one. I'm winging this. But I'm going to put that down to a personal belief. The only evidence one could produce is some proof that the wrong person was executed, so therefore we shouldn't take the chance. But in some cases there'd be no doubt plus a confession. But for some who are against it for said personal beliefs, the evidence wouldn't be in dispute but would actually be irrelevant. And we'd have to agree that the evidence is correct and relevant

Well, we'd need to decide how we want it run. — Bradskii

Based on personal subjective preferences

But I'm going to put that down to a personal belief. — Bradskii

Which is the deciding factor in belief formation, it seems, not evidence. One's prior beliefs leading to ones future beliefs.

The evidence can guide but might not decide.

But as this forum shows we fight it out for the predominance of our beliefs hoping someone will back down.

There is also the Natural selection arguments for and against belief validity which relates to the other debate. Would we chose to have beliefs that are not advantageous? Some people do come to self eliminating beliefs. Survival of the fittest belief or survival of the most accurate belief?

This is the first dictionary definition I found of belief. Strangely...

"An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs"

Well, we'd need to decide how we want it run.

Based on personal subjective preferences — Andrew4Handel

Well...yeah. We have to agree on what we want. If you want a socialist country and I want a capitalist one then we're goi g to be arguing for different things. But if we both want a capitalist society then what we believe will be the best way to achieve that will be determined by looking at the evidence that we have as regards previous attempts to acheive it.

The evidence can guide but might not decide.

There is also the Natural selection arguments for and against belief validity which relates to the other debate. Would we chose to have beliefs that are not advantageous? Some people do come to self eliminating beliefs. Survival of the fittest belief or survival of the most accurate belief? — Andrew4Handel

The evidence will help us make a decision. But you wanted to know whose beliefs are correct. If the belief is based on evidence then evidence should show us if it's correct.

I guess you can have beliefs that are personally disadvantageous. But if you hold a belief that is an evolutionary disadvantage then good luck, buddy. If you believe the lion won't attack if you walk past him, then I'll just wait here and watch you try first.

This is the first dictionary definition I found of belief. Strangely...

"An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. — Andrew4Handel

I'd go with that. But I might say 'without 100% certainty'. But you could certainly include evidence in that definition. In fact, it would be required. Even if it was as weak as 'a guy in a bar told me.'

Can we force people to believe things? — Andrew4Handel

Belief cannot be forced, any more than can choice. It is an essential feature of human freedom. Advertising does not force, it attempts to persuade. Advertising does not remove free will, it attempts to circumvent reason.

Can we force people to believe things? — Andrew4Handel

Social pressure is extremely effective, even when it has to do with simple observations. If the people around you believe something that in itself exerts pressure on people to believe certain things. If the people around you would view you negatively if you didn't believe something, this puts even more pressure on you. There need not be any formal punishment, just their judgment.

So, yes, we can.

Advertising does not force, it attempts to persuade. — Pantagruel

It can't force you to buy the product. But if you start with kids, I think it can force you to see the world in a certain way. So, you don't think that buying the right car will get you girl attention/sex in some direct automatic exchange, but you get the sense that having the right things will get you these things AND as a straight guy, you should want these things. Does this mean that every straight boy will believe this? No. But that's because other pressures to believe will be on those children. So, we have a complicated forcing, with a number of agents exerting force on children, giving them their worldview.

I think it can force you to see the world in a certain way. — Bylaw

It literally isn't forcing. It is tempting, urging, cajoling. People today are susceptible of this type of influence it is true, because of social and peer pressures, etc., etc., but it is always a choice to allow advertising to bypass reason, just as it is to allow social pressures of whatever kind to override our own ability to think.

Anyone who can be literally forced to do something has a diminished capacity in some way. If you are forced at gunpoint to strangle a baby you have a legally diminished capacity that absolves you of responsibility (although you still had the actual ability to refuse). If a small child is forced to spend all his money on an expensive toy by advertising it is because that child lacked the adult capacity of reason and self-control, which is why there are limits to what children are allowed to do and why important decision-making authority resides with their parents. As Kant says, "I can never be forced by others to have an end."

It literally isn't forcing. It is tempting, urging, cajoling. People today are susceptible of this type of influence it is true, because of social and peer pressures, etc., etc., but it is always a choice to allow advertising to bypass reason, — Pantagruel

I don't think this is true. Again you might not buy that product, but you come to see the world through the values and associations they throw at children. Other causes come at you from other fronts, like parents. Other forces may end up forcing you to be half X or Y, but it is only through these outward other pressures.

Anyone who can be literally forced to do something has a diminished capacity in some way. — Pantagruel

I wouldn't call the normal developing child mind diminished, since it is normal, but in this context it is. Though even adults can be manipulated in ways they are not even aware of.

Anyone who can be literally forced to do something has a diminished capacity in some way. If you are forced at gunpoint to strangle a baby you have a legally diminished capacity that absolves you of responsibility (although you still had the actual ability to refuse). — Pantagruel

Sure, though you could have chosen to die. I actually think that kind of force is less effective than long term manipulation. There is a significant minority that would refuse to kill the baby. At least. But if you have a monocultural bombardment of ideas aimed a child, the exceptions would probably be the people with clinical issues.

If a small child is forced to spend all his money on an expensive toy by advertising it is because that child lacked the adult capacity of reason and self-control, which is why there are limits to what children are allowed to do and why important decision-making authority resides with their parents — Pantagruel

Right but again it's not the direct product purchase I am thinking of. It's the attitudes about the world that the child will have later as an adult. even about what the options are, what reality is, what the categories are?

If you are agreeing with my suggestion, that allowing oneself to be guided or governed by external influences when we have necessarily the ability to evaluate those influences, is still a voluntary choice, then ok. If you are saying that we are affected by those influences before we are able to fully evaluate them (as with children) then we are talking about diminished capacity (relative to a normal, responsible adult). People are free beings. I'm currently reading a book whose precise thesis and theme is the way and extent to which our thoughts and actions are influenced by unconscious processes, and even that author acknowledges that we are not necessarily "enslaved to our unconscious conceptual systems." (Lakoff & Johnson, The Embodied Mind) Awareness of those subterranean influences is what enables us to counteract them. And awareness is both our gift and our responsibility.