Belief without Verification or Certainty

[emjay]

I'm still trying to parse the general meaning of this thread so don't really have anything meaningful to say about all that

It seems to be coming slowly into focus, after a provocative start. What you say here helps, I think.

Like for instance when I'm doing my exercise on the treadmill, which at the moment relies on 'high volume, low intensity' it can sometimes be quite hard to keep motivated for the whole 100 minutes I'm trying to do it for... so I end up doing a lot of mental gymnastics whilst I'm doing it to try and keep motivated. One way is by essentially splitting the task into easier tasks... 

Jeez, man -- I feel proud of myself if I manage 20 minutes on the treadmill. 100 is impressive.

Hehe, nah it's not that much of an achievement in that sense... for one thing it's only walking and it's very low intensity so the challenge is mainly about keeping motivated from an interest point of view more than a hardship point of view. The hardship part is mainly just getting started really... have to power walk (or do some aerobics) to get my heart rate up to the (low) rate it needs for this type of exercise, but once it's there, it's usually very easy to maintain it. And then, me being the ever-clumsy git I am , managed to injure my foot getting into the shower, so now I'm doing something else instead until I feel comfortable putting full weight on it again. So now, instead of that, I just stand whilst I'm watching TV and try to keep my arms moving for the hundred minutes. According to the all-seeing fitness watch, that burns me about 1100 calories, but I'm not so sure... cos I hardly break a sweat with that, but who am I to argue? ... which then 'earns' me more food... and more choice of food... for the day... so my exercise days are the days I get to eat well (so I understand what you mean about the cake ), compared to what feels like starvation rations on the other days, so there's at least a somewhat positive feedback loop that's keeping me motivated long term to keep doing this, so that's perhaps another relevant aspect of the mental framing we are talking about.

But you know, come to think of it, it is largely about the mental state. I can easily walk an hour and a half at a brisk pace if I'm out and about. In fact I have all the local supermarkets timed -- to Jupiter and back is exactly an hour, if I cut through grounds of the Shinto shrine. Fresta is 45 minutes, not counting shopping time. Downtown to the good cake shop is 50 minutes each way, and I'm allowed to eat the cake if I walk it. 

And last Wednesday I walked the mountain trail just north of town, and went down the wrong way and ended up on the wrong side of the mountain, and walked a solid three hours. That was tiring, but not like I needed an ambulance or anything. Unlike the treadmill, I was motivated to find out where the hell I was, and calculating the best way to find familiar ground. 

It's not exactly about faith, or about what we're justified in believing, but it certainly shows that what we're capable of changes a lot depending on the aims. I could never manage three hours on a treadmill, but up and down the mountain and then wandering unfamiliar streets was an adventure.

Yeah, I get yer. Boredom vs interest, and how time flies or doesn't fly in each case is another contributing factor, and another interesting subject. Like for the treadmill I forgot to mention I use a walkman... which is basically to create a distraction to offset the boredom... and watching TV whilst pumping the arms serves the same purpose, but both are still poor substitutes for the adventure of getting lost up a mountain or exploring new places. Basically for a treadmill or whatever it's a case of creating some sort of artificial meaning, because the actual activity is repetitive and boring, but being out and about, brings ever changing and novel points of interest, even on a generally familiar trip.

I have is to put some sort of narrative/story around it and essentially role play... I think of the famous galley scene from Ben Hur

This is very much what I've been thinking about. The role that fiction or other imagery plays in motivation, knowledge, all kinds of functioning. We understand our lives through symbols. Importantly (and I think Neo was saying something like this earlier) there are ways of knowing that are not conceptual. Stories, myths, pictures, are probably more important to life overall than logically-sayable concepts. 

As you say, framing the task is crucial, and we do that largely with pictures.

I'll ponder that over the weekend if that's okay. I'm just about to go to basically my first party since the pandemic started. Granted all Covid restrictions have been lifted in the UK for a while now, but still it doesn't feel like that for me... so this is going to be an interesting experience, and I'll probably be the only one there still anxious to wear a mask. And it's bring a bottle as well, so also got to parse how I feel about sharing drinks, as well as drinking full stop. So yeah, won't be posting for a while is what I'm saying, but this definitely seems like it will be an interesting subject to ponder

[vulcanlogician]

Yes, the right balance is tricky. Faith only in the fully tested is not reasonable. Faith in what one reads on Facebook is not warranted. 

Anti-vaxxers and such people are frustrating, but if we take a step back, I think we can have some sympathy. They have reached wrong conclusions, but not all of their arguments are insane. The government really does lie constantly, and has lied about Covid all along. Pharmaceutical companies really do only care about money, and don't give a hang if we live or die. Parsing just exactly which lies are important to see through becomes a difficult project. In a sense, the anti-vaxxers have overdone the skepticism -- they think that there is too much faith in the unproven. The vaccines really were developed quickly, and I remember when Kamala Harris said she would never trust a vaccine developed by the Trump administration. Then as soon as the President changed the same vaccines became trustworthy. The anti-vaxxers merely disbelieve in one more god than you and I do (figuratively speaking). 

I think it's easy to come up with a kind of "idealized" anti-vaxxer when being charitable. One who has weighed all presented arguments carefully, and (at the end of the day) still has some nagging doubts about the vaccines. But in practice, what's largely going on with these folks is that they apply an insurmountable (and some may suggest, undeserved) measure of scrutiny to the scientific community. But THEN, to the theories which suggest some spooky ulterior motive, where the powers that be are attempting to poison us en masse... they let that claim pass without sufficient scrutiny... and nowhere near the scrutiny they gave scientific claims.

That's not skepticism, that's sloppy, extremely biased thinking. I would welcome these folks becoming genuine skeptics. It wouldn't bother me so much if they were ultimately unconvinced about vaccines if they could, at the very least, articulate how utterly weak the conspiracy claims are.

I'm very skeptical about god beliefs. But, as I hope this thread demonstrates, I'm more than willing to honestly explore the possibility that I'm wrong.

I consider that an important part of my own skepticism (doubt of my own position as well as my opponent's-- not "lopsided doubt.") And that's what I'd need to see from anti-vaxxers if I am to consider them skeptics.

[Angrboda]

Yes, the right balance is tricky. Faith only in the fully tested is not reasonable. Faith in what one reads on Facebook is not warranted. 

Anti-vaxxers and such people are frustrating, but if we take a step back, I think we can have some sympathy. They have reached wrong conclusions, but not all of their arguments are insane. The government really does lie constantly, and has lied about Covid all along. Pharmaceutical companies really do only care about money, and don't give a hang if we live or die. Parsing just exactly which lies are important to see through becomes a difficult project. In a sense, the anti-vaxxers have overdone the skepticism -- they think that there is too much faith in the unproven. The vaccines really were developed quickly, and I remember when Kamala Harris said she would never trust a vaccine developed by the Trump administration. Then as soon as the President changed the same vaccines became trustworthy. The anti-vaxxers merely disbelieve in one more god than you and I do (figuratively speaking). 

I think it's easy to come up with a kind of "idealized" anti-vaxxer when being charitable. One who has weighed all presented arguments carefully, and (at the end of the day) still has some nagging doubts about the vaccines. But in practice, what's largely going on with these folks is that they apply an insurmountable (and some may suggest, undeserved) measure of scrutiny to the scientific community. But THEN, to the theories which suggest some spooky ulterior motive, where the powers that be are attempting to poison us en masse... they let that claim pass without sufficient scrutiny... and nowhere near the scrutiny they gave scientific claims.

That's not skepticism, that's sloppy, extremely biased thinking. I would welcome these folks becoming genuine skeptics. It wouldn't bother me so much if they were ultimately unconvinced about vaccines if they could, at the very least, articulate how utterly weak the conspiracy claims are.

Except that we're all biased in that way, we read sources that agree with our preconceptions with less skepticism than we do sources that disagree. I don't think twice about believing a story in the Washington Post or on CBS News, but apply a much greater degree of scrutiny to stories from National Review or Fox News. It isn't sloppiness per see, it's just the way that we are built.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's sort of the pit of it. If postmodernism has anything valid to say - then skepticism can't really be overdone. Even to the point of questioning the possibility or applicability of reason itself. We're mildly aware of where some skepticism can be maladaptive - but contend that the net effect is improvement. Further, that it's potential maladaptivity is in no way a certification of it's invalidity.

Personally, I think that the nefarious and or spooky forces crowd are seeing something. Something that looks very much like the production of what nefarious and or spooky forces could make manifest. Trouble is, it's actually the mass and inertia of society - and all that entails, that they're observing. People who think, for example, that the entire world is somehow conspiring against them can be in positions where their circumstances are identical to a reality in which that were true. The idea that there's a conspiracy to poison us with our food, for example. Just go to the store, read the back of every box. General Mills isn't doing that to us, though, we're doing that to general mills. It's what we like. It's what we will (and what we can) pay for.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I consider belief without certainty to be hope, not faith. And the examples you gave do seem to align more with being hopeful, optimistic, or confident. Perhaps it's something like: Out of all the possibilities that uncertain events hold, align yourself with the best probable one and act accordingly.

[vulcanlogician]

That's sort of the pit of it.  If postmodernism has anything valid to say - then skepticism can't really be overdone.  Even to the point of questioning the possibility or applicability of reason itself.  We're mildly aware of where some skepticism can be maladaptive - but contend that the net effect is improvement.   Further, that it's potential maladaptivity is in no way a certification of it's invalidity.  

Well, I see where Angrboda is coming from with her answer, but I find it a little dissatisfying. It's not the attitude we carry around when speak of politics, sociality, or other ordinary things.

I can't be mad at radical skepticism. But I want to say that it's its own conversation. This conversation is premised on "We can know things." As false as that may turn out to be, it's an axiom for nearly all of our discussions.

Post modernist critiques are interesting and insightful, but --by postmodernism's own definition-- they can't be a basis for knowledge. Good criticism, sure. But their epistemic value can't really extend beyond that.

[vulcanlogician]

I consider belief without certainty to be hope, not faith. And the examples you gave do seem to align more with being hopeful, optimistic, or confident. Perhaps it's something like: Out of all the possibilities that uncertain events hold, align yourself with the best probable one and act accordingly.

This is why I named the thread "Belief without verification or certainty" rather than "On Faith and Knowledge" or something like that. We get too easily tripped up and/or captivated by words. Precise definitions, less so.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can think of all sorts of things that fit the category you're looking for. All of my plans in life, my ideas about our future as people. Im certain in them despite any way of verifying them..in many cases directly in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. I think they're useful in my life, as well, ofc.

[vulcanlogician]

I can think of all sorts of things that fit the category you're looking for.  All of my plans in life, my ideas about our future as people.  Im certain in them despite any way of verifying them..in many cases directly in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.  I think they're useful in my life, as well, ofc.

Would you mind giving your take on the train robber case?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think there's enough room in there to leverage at least one preexisting fact. That they can't shoot us all. Your faith, as it were, in the plan..being a fairly simple issue of counting heads.

In the end, that sort of inbuilt futility is exactly how we handled train robberies. By making it as inconvenient as possible, for the smallest payout we could work. They weren't going to get through all of it, and if or when they did..was it worth it? It was handled by the numbers.

I think you'd find alot of preliminary faith before established fact in extension work, particular in alt ag (though they'd scream bloody murder if they heard me saying as much - bad for funding, bad for perception). Alot of people trying to be the first point of data. The demonstration site. The numbers tell them that they're wrong from the floor up and should do (whatever it is) the conventional way. They often have little to no experience with anything else - and they bet big. Most of them fail and most of thdecisions in what methodology to use are often aligned with a vision of their own future life. That second thing being more important, in many cases, than whether the numbers balance out.

I tell people all the time. If I couldn't do this for a living, I'd pay somebody to let me do it. It's a huge trustbuilder.