Comments on: The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies

By: Julian Maytum

Julian Maytum — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 03:04:46 +0000

Fantastic book. Well worth a read. I will read it again soon as well.

A companion book I would recommend is “The Drunkards Walk” – How randomness rules our lives by Leonard Mlodinow – co-author of Steven Hawkings last book “The Grand Design”. These books are literally mind bending!

Great site as always!

By: John

John — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:59:06 +0000

Exactly but…

We cannot say that beliefs are always and completely wrong and detached from the truth: whatever it is…

Human body is living in its own world through its senses plus cultural filters. Our resources are very limited and there’s no other way, we need to believe and follow our intuition and…

Science is another belief system but it’s okay, as long as we don’t surrounded and jailed inside dogmas.

By: Johnny Cash

Johnny Cash — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:00:36 +0000

…I think we all do it every day. We put our faith in science and maths, which are based on our very human interpretation of the world around us (3D + Time etc.), formalise it and trust it to predict how the universe around us works.

I have no problem with this, science and maths are fantastic tools and by far the best thing our there for their purpose. But I think we shouldn’t fool ourselves that there is any such thing as an unquestionable, ultimate truth.

By: Johnny Cash

Johnny Cash — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:55:37 +0000

@JamesJohnson Science is still a belief system. It is a tool we use to understand the world around us, which stems at it’s heart from maths. Mathematical theories are based on axioms which are considered to be self-evident. Things which cannot be derived or proved. At it’s most absolute, our existence is taken to be assumed (I’m not going down this existential road, just saying that almost all of science makes the assumption that existence is absolute).
Anyway, all I am saying is that if a new method of describing and predicting our world around us comes into play (might be happening with quantum mechanics), it will not necessarily be compatible with our current belief in ‘traditional science’. So when you say “I don’t think someone could put ‘faith’ in science in the first place”…

By: James Johnson

James Johnson — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:47:08 +0000

One final comment, as I feel it’s needed – the note that Schermer’s theory of belief is ‘still a theory’ seems to indicate a lack of understanding of what a theory is (I don’t mean to sleight you personally, just clarify what a theory is) – a theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted. This means that it’s based on a a substantial amount of supporting evidence. In scientific terminology, a theory is only different to a ‘law’ if the theory explains the phenomenon (a law describes but does not explain the phenonemon – i.e. e=mc^2 tells you how energy and mass are related, but doesn’t explain why). So in this case, either Schermer is abusing the term, or it’s a very valid evidence-backed book!

By: James Johnson

James Johnson — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:38:25 +0000

And as a quick follow-up to my previous comment – a hypothesis can’t be a hypothesis if it isn’t testable through experimentation – therefore one cannot have an untestable hypothesis, and therefore by having a hypothesis, we know that the ‘guess’ component of the ‘educated guess’ will be resolved after the experiment is performed. The closest notion of faith one can apply would be the personal expectation/bias of which way an experiment will go, however the result itself will resolve hypothesis with evidence, and the notion of even having an expectation/bias (if ever the experimenter had one) is unrelated to the scientific process itself.

By: James Johnson

James Johnson — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:31:52 +0000

@Jojo6969 – I don’t think someone could put ‘faith’ in science in the first place, as science itself is the exercise of analysing the universe and coming to conclusions which are supported by evidence gained during the analysis. I can’t see how ‘faith’ (the notion of belief without evidence to support it) can be applied to science. The closest relationship one can draw from faith to science would perhaps be when there is a hypothesis (a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, an ‘educated guess’ based on current scientific knowledge). However, this itself would be initially proposed through current science (itself based on previous knowledge gained through evidence) and either be supported/disproved by conducting an experiment, hence no ‘faith’ would be involved.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:22:56 +0000

There’s an awful lot of facepalming to be done in this comment section.

By: Don

Don — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:13:08 +0000

Jojoe6969,

‘If that is the case, then putting your ‘faith’ in science is also a belief’

Could you expand on that?, Because at first glance it seems to be nonsense.

‘Shermer’s ‘theory of belief’ is a theory, dispite 30 years of research. The same for any conspiracy ‘theory’ or political stance….’

Apart from the 30 years of research aspect , which was rather more rigorous than trawling internet sites, and a clear understanding of he word ‘theory’.

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:43:15 +0000

Jojoe: What would it be, other than a theory? General relativity is still a theory. Gravitation is still a theory. There’s nothing that goes beyond theory in science (people often quote ‘the law of gravity’, but in science, a law is part of a theory).

Science, being a method that focuses on disproving one’s preconceived notions, seems the best way to test any kind of belief. It’s also a good method to increase our knowledge of the universe. Not understanding something only means that we have to work harder to figure out the mechanics behind it. Everything can be explained, even if we can’t explain everything.