Belief without Verification or Certainty

[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."

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.

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!

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26...-h.htm#P59

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.

[Ranjr]

I read half and will finish in a bit.  The question reminds me of this book.

We guess at many things, based on our experiences and ability to recognize patterns.  (<- Something I believe and can't prove but sits well.)  It's a survival process we apply to more weighty matters where time doesn't allow for data collection and deep consideration.

How do we know when we say goodbye to our loved ones, partners, children, each time, that they will be okay until we see them again?  We don't.  But if we didn't believe that, we would follow them around all day every day, and that's no good for anyone.  So we trust in something that could be dead wrong for the chance of a better life.

[Ranjr]

Concerning the jump, something we all do in varying degrees, many take when it doesn't mean life or death, and fewer because it carries more weight than ones own.  Belief in our ability to overcome uncertainty is what drives knowledge, innovation, and survival.

If I didn't believe I was right about something, say, in my job, I wouldn't implement it, find out I was wrong, and, after being wrong a time or two again, get it right.

[brewer]

Do you know how many people take 'supplements' based on an unverified belief? Almost all, it props up a multi-billion dollar industry.

[Angrboda]

I'm reminded of the hedonistis treadmill and the fact that as humans, we maintain an unrealistically positive outlook, at times in spite of evidence to the contrary. We probably would not be as successful as we are as a species if we didn't. It's said that people who are depressed have a more "realistic" outlook on life, but such a realistic outlook seems to be a negative rather than a positive. So, sure, unjustified beliefs can have some utility in maintaining our motivation.

At the same time, I'm reminded of all the self-help talk about improving a person's self-confidence leading to improved chances of success. Yet there were suggestions from some studies that people who succeed have higher self-confidence than people who don't, so it's not clear that self-confidence is the lever that enables success or simply the result of that success. In general, I would place such things under the heading of useful myths. It is a dogma of many that if you work hard and do what you're supposed to in life, that you will succeed. However, there's good reason to believe that luck and circumstance play a much larger role in whether one will become the next millionaire than hard work or intelligence. Yet without this belief, people would likely be less motivated to work hard. In that I see the invisible hand of evolution. A wise man once told me that luck is the meeting of skill and opportunity. If you aren't working hard and doing the right things, even if life selects you out of the millions who will do likewise and not succeed, you aren't going to be able to take advantage of the opportunity. Evolution drives the many so that the few will result.

I have to take issue with William James here, as this is a just so story, not based upon any actual study of the matter. Sure, a lack of confidence in the jumper may lead him to failure, but undue confidence can lead to failure as well, in leading the climber to be less careful about how he makes his jump, or in preparing his leap. Just as confidence can aid success, it can also hinder it by encouraging negligence. So I'm not sure what to make of James' argument other than, well, maybe.

[h311inac311]

Well if any of you know who Marissa Peer is I can tell you that she is all about this, "fake it till you make it," mindset when it comes to confidence and therapy. The fact of the matter is this, the words we are told by other people matter but they will never be as impactful as the words we tell ourselves. 

I am one who is slowly climbing out of depression and a class by her has helped me to do this. The whole idea is that you keep telling yourself good things, even if you know them to be lies, because even though our brains are complicated they are simple to program. If you tell yourself you are worth it, then you will believe and act like you are worth it. If you tell yourself you are worthless, then your mind and body will follow. I'm a firm believer in this self-fulfilling prophecy mindset where you give yourself positive affirmations on a regular basis. Tell yourself you are kind, merciful and generous and over time these seeds will grow.


Moving outward from the topic a little, the OP made me think of how much knowledge we take for granite. I mean most of us don't know how an engine works despite the fact that we drive vehicles on a daily basis. For us, the claim that an engine can convert gasoline into power and use that power to turn the wheels is an unverified claim. There are millions of things which engineers and scientists have already discovered/invented which we take for granite every day even to the extent that we don't even know what we don't know. I understand that claims regarding engineering and science can be verified but my point is that for the individual, a lot of times we just have to accept that someone else understands how these things work.

[Angrboda]

Moving outward from the topic a little, the OP made me think of how much knowledge we take for granite. I mean most of us don't know how an engine works despite the fact that we drive vehicles on a daily basis. For us, the claim that an engine can convert gasoline into power and use that power to turn the wheels is an unverified claim. There are millions of things which engineers and scientists have already discovered/invented which we take for granite every day even to the extent that we don't even know what we don't know. I understand that claims regarding engineering and science can be verified but my point is that for the individual, a lot of times we just have to accept that someone else understands how these things work.

I think one needs to think in terms of justification, rather than verification. Verification has unnecessary connotations. We are justified in believing the engine turns gas into motion even if we can't verify it.

[Jehanne]

Moving outward from the topic a little, the OP made me think of how much knowledge we take for granite. I mean most of us don't know how an engine works despite the fact that we drive vehicles on a daily basis. For us, the claim that an engine can convert gasoline into power and use that power to turn the wheels is an unverified claim. There are millions of things which engineers and scientists have already discovered/invented which we take for granite every day even to the extent that we don't even know what we don't know. I understand that claims regarding engineering and science can be verified but my point is that for the individual, a lot of times we just have to accept that someone else understands how these things work.

I think one needs to think in terms of justification, rather than verification. Verification has unnecessary connotations. We are justified in believing the engine turns gas into motion even if we can't verify it.

The issue is not one of verification but of falsification; this is where William James went off the rails. But, who can blame him? He wrote over a century ago.

[Deesse23]

Because her confidence could affect the outcome of the interview.

Yes, and someone should not conflate this "confidence" (in oneself for example) which actually can effect the outcome, with the classic "belief in" stuff. Believing in stuff will usually not effect the outcome, as in the existence of god or if the bus will arrive in 5 minutes.

Those arent the same.

No one denies that unverified belief can be bad. But I find it interesting that it can be good in certain cases.

No one denies that playing roulette can make you lose money. But I find it interesting that gambling can get you to make you money in certain cases
The problem with this thinking is: Unverified belief does not consistently lead you to anything (good, or true), unlike verified belief

Let's talk about how much we want to willfully include unverified belief in our lives.

Ok
Would you like to believe you can jump down the Empire State Building? Ill give you a motivation coach, who will teach you to be more confident in yourself (see below).
Would you jump, ever? You cant know unless you tried, right?

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."

Again: Confidence led to better performance. He didnt make the jump because he believed (hard enough). Belief didnt make it true. He made it because he performed better with confidence.

[arewethereyet]

Well if any of you know who Marissa Peer is I can tell you that she is all about this, "fake it till you make it," mindset when it comes to confidence and therapy. The fact of the matter is this, the words we are told by other people matter but they will never be as impactful as the words we tell ourselves. 

I am one who is slowly climbing out of depression and a class by her has helped me to do this. The whole idea is that you keep telling yourself good things, even if you know them to be lies, because even though our brains are complicated they are simple to program. If you tell yourself you are worth it, then you will believe and act like you are worth it. If you tell yourself you are worthless, then your mind and body will follow. I'm a firm believer in this self-fulfilling prophecy mindset where you give yourself positive affirmations on a regular basis. Tell yourself you are kind, merciful and generous and over time these seeds will grow.


Moving outward from the topic a little, the OP made me think of how much knowledge we take for granite. I mean most of us don't know how an engine works despite the fact that we drive vehicles on a daily basis. For us, the claim that an engine can convert gasoline into power and use that power to turn the wheels is an unverified claim. There are millions of things which engineers and scientists have already discovered/invented which we take for granite every day even to the extent that we don't even know what we don't know. I understand that claims regarding engineering and science can be verified but my point is that for the individual, a lot of times we just have to accept that someone else understands how these things work.

I'm going to focus on one point.

Fake it till you make it may very well not work in the case of someone with clinical depression.  Clinical depression is a chemical imbalance that can't be talked away or wished away.  Though there is nothing wrong with trying to have a positive attitude, and it can help in many things, it's not the 'cure' for everything.