Belief without Verification or Certainty
May 5, 2022 at 9:49 pm
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2022 at 10:15 pm by vulcanlogician.)
Faith is a loaded word with many connotations.
When you use the word "faith" people immediately think of "faith in God" or "faith in some other fantastic thing." So I don't want to talk about faith in this thread. And I certainly don't want to talk about "faith in God." So throw the concept of God out of your mind for the purposes of this discussion.
I want to talk about "belief without verification or certainty" in abstracto. As it pertains to ordinary life and ordinary matters. Are unverified beliefs valuable? Can they be (practically) useful in certain cases? Can they even be indispensable sometimes?
My sister is a schoolteacher (a very talented one I think, but of course I'm biased). She'd been teaching for nearly a decade when she decided to move back to our hometown. She always loved living here and only moved away to get a job teaching. (It's hard to get a teaching position here.) Anyway, she had to take a job as a teaching assistant for a couple years until a proper teaching position opened up. Even though she was already an accomplished teacher with quite a few accolades. That's how hard it is to get a teaching job here.
When a position finally did open up, my sister confided in me that she was a little nervous about the interview. I reminded her that she was very experienced and had glowing references, etc, and not to worry.
"You're going to be head and shoulders above the other candidates," I told her. And I wanted her to believe that.
But here's the thing. I had no way of verifying or certifying this belief. I had no way of knowing that a more qualified person wouldn't be interviewed. She had no way of knowing either. But still, I wanted her to have this belief going in. Why? Because her confidence could affect the outcome of the interview. That's why. My sister having this unverified belief would give her confidence. This confidence would allow her to better perform during the interview.
So.... does that mean there are cases where unverified belief can be good?
No one denies that unverified belief can be bad. But I find it interesting that it can be good in certain cases. Let's talk about how much we want to willfully include unverified belief in our lives. Because, even with a hard-nosed gnostic atheist, I bet this is often going to be a nonzero amount.
In a thought experiment constructed by William James, we are asked to consider a mountain climber who dodges an avalanche. He finds himself stuck in a spot where he must jump across a chasm in order to survive. Physically, it is possible for the climber to make the jump, but it is by no means certain. We can imagine a scenario where the climber has the belief that he can make the jump and this belief makes him surer of foot and influences the outcome positively. In that case, he makes the jump. And he can look back and say, "My belief that I could make the jump was correct." But what if he does not have the belief that he can make the jump? Let's say he was unsure he could make it. Let's imagine that, without the boost in confidence that the belief that he could make the jump bestowed, he didn't quite make the jump. As he falls to his death, he could similarly think, "I was correct to not have the belief that I could make the jump."
This isn't a discussion about whether the placebo effect exists. James is saying more than this. He is saying that it is wise to take full advantage of the placebo effect whenever we can, whenever we might benefit. Whenever our belief might positively influence the outcome of an event. But doesn't this attitude de-emphasize reliability of our beliefs to a degree? At what degree should we stop emphasizing practicality and start emphasizing certainty? I'm interested where the line should be drawn.
Of course, this has implications for religious belief, but I want to (at least at first) talk about how much we should value unverified belief outside of religion. This is because we all have developed opinions about religion, and this makes us biased. So I would like to abstractly examine the question of where we draw the line in valuation of beliefs between "verified beliefs" and "useful but not verified" in cases where the belief influences the outcome of an event.
When you use the word "faith" people immediately think of "faith in God" or "faith in some other fantastic thing." So I don't want to talk about faith in this thread. And I certainly don't want to talk about "faith in God." So throw the concept of God out of your mind for the purposes of this discussion.
I want to talk about "belief without verification or certainty" in abstracto. As it pertains to ordinary life and ordinary matters. Are unverified beliefs valuable? Can they be (practically) useful in certain cases? Can they even be indispensable sometimes?
My sister is a schoolteacher (a very talented one I think, but of course I'm biased). She'd been teaching for nearly a decade when she decided to move back to our hometown. She always loved living here and only moved away to get a job teaching. (It's hard to get a teaching position here.) Anyway, she had to take a job as a teaching assistant for a couple years until a proper teaching position opened up. Even though she was already an accomplished teacher with quite a few accolades. That's how hard it is to get a teaching job here.
When a position finally did open up, my sister confided in me that she was a little nervous about the interview. I reminded her that she was very experienced and had glowing references, etc, and not to worry.
"You're going to be head and shoulders above the other candidates," I told her. And I wanted her to believe that.
But here's the thing. I had no way of verifying or certifying this belief. I had no way of knowing that a more qualified person wouldn't be interviewed. She had no way of knowing either. But still, I wanted her to have this belief going in. Why? Because her confidence could affect the outcome of the interview. That's why. My sister having this unverified belief would give her confidence. This confidence would allow her to better perform during the interview.
So.... does that mean there are cases where unverified belief can be good?
No one denies that unverified belief can be bad. But I find it interesting that it can be good in certain cases. Let's talk about how much we want to willfully include unverified belief in our lives. Because, even with a hard-nosed gnostic atheist, I bet this is often going to be a nonzero amount.
In a thought experiment constructed by William James, we are asked to consider a mountain climber who dodges an avalanche. He finds himself stuck in a spot where he must jump across a chasm in order to survive. Physically, it is possible for the climber to make the jump, but it is by no means certain. We can imagine a scenario where the climber has the belief that he can make the jump and this belief makes him surer of foot and influences the outcome positively. In that case, he makes the jump. And he can look back and say, "My belief that I could make the jump was correct." But what if he does not have the belief that he can make the jump? Let's say he was unsure he could make it. Let's imagine that, without the boost in confidence that the belief that he could make the jump bestowed, he didn't quite make the jump. As he falls to his death, he could similarly think, "I was correct to not have the belief that I could make the jump."
William James Wrote:Believe, and you shall be right, for you shall save yourself; doubt, and you shall again be right, for you shall perish. The only difference is that to believe is greatly to your advantage.https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26...-h.htm#P59
The future movements of the stars or the facts of past history are determined now once for all, whether I like them or not. They are given irrespective of my wishes, and in all that concerns truths like these subjective preference should have no part; it can only obscure the judgment. But in every fact into which there enters an element of personal contribution on my part, as soon as this personal contribution demands a certain degree of subjective energy which, in its turn, calls for a certain amount of faith in the result,—so that, after all, the future fact is conditioned by my present faith in it,—how trebly asinine would it be for me to deny myself the use of the subjective method, the method of belief based on desire!
This isn't a discussion about whether the placebo effect exists. James is saying more than this. He is saying that it is wise to take full advantage of the placebo effect whenever we can, whenever we might benefit. Whenever our belief might positively influence the outcome of an event. But doesn't this attitude de-emphasize reliability of our beliefs to a degree? At what degree should we stop emphasizing practicality and start emphasizing certainty? I'm interested where the line should be drawn.
Of course, this has implications for religious belief, but I want to (at least at first) talk about how much we should value unverified belief outside of religion. This is because we all have developed opinions about religion, and this makes us biased. So I would like to abstractly examine the question of where we draw the line in valuation of beliefs between "verified beliefs" and "useful but not verified" in cases where the belief influences the outcome of an event.
