Myth, Knowledge, Belief

“Myth” means erroneous belief to most people, and I often hear a contrast between science (associated with truth) and religion (associated with myth). That got me thinking about knowledge, and particularly Plato’s definition of it as justified true belief. 

I suspect there are few people who confidently hold beliefs they also consider to be false. It’s almost a contradiction in terms: if they knew the belief was false, they would not hold it. Yet, we’re all sure that other people have false beliefs. Perhaps this is what it boils down to: I have knowledge, but they have myths (with myth = false belief).

Getting rid of myth would require either (a) that no-one holds what other people assert are false beliefs, or (b) getting rid of belief. 

I don’t think (a) is in the cards. People will always differ about what’s true. Even scientists disagree (all the time). The point of validation through peer review is that nobody thinks their own work is wrong. It’s usually up to other people to point out the mistakes. If all goes well, the scientist is persuaded they were wrong. Quite often, though, they cling to their original belief (and sometimes they may even be right).

I don’t think (b)’s a runner, either: one can’t get rid of belief, since attitudes about things in the world (aka beliefs) are necessary for survival. One has to bootstrap action on something, and that something is belief. In a few cases one can spend the time and effort to justify a belief, but for most things, most of the time, we act on intuition, presupposition, and trust in other people’s opinions.

We have truth, they have myths 

This got me thinking about whether any of the beliefs I hold are false. I don’t believe they’re false (yeah, that’s circular ;-) but I also know that other people hold contrary views in good faith. One or both of us must be wrong…

I started making lists of “myths” that stereotypical liberals and conservatives might hold. Here’s a selection:

Conservative “myths”

1. God exists
2. Human action isn’t changing the climate
3. Tax cuts are better for the economy than government spending
4. A single fertilized egg cell is a human being
5. God created the universe
6. Some people are better than others

Liberal “myths”

1. Only material things exist
2. GMO food is harmful
3. Government spending is better for the economy than tax cuts
4. The unborn are not human beings
5. The universe came into existence out of nothing
6. All people are essentially the same

Liberal/conservative is a rather arbitrary and vague distinction, and categorizing beliefs this way is pretty arbitrary. Here are some more “myths” that are even harder to tie unequivocally to ideology:

• Cellphone radiation is harmful
• Childhood vaccines are harmful
• Government funding of basic research pays off in the long run
• Moving to renewable energy sources is the best way to stop global warming
• Religion or spirituality is beneficial or, in the alternative, harmful

(On reflection, all these claims are paper tigers, to some extent. Those who are supposed to hold them would probably say they’re caricatures, and counter with more nuanced versions that are easier to defend, and harder to debunk.)

Evidence

I think our stereotypical liberal, say, would believe that most if not all of the myths ascribed to them are true statements. They would probably justify their position by producing evidence. Their conservative interlocutor wouldn’t find that evidence convincing. And of course, the same holds with the roles reversed.

That illustrates that evidence isn’t proof: both sides in a court case usually produce evidence, and the judge or jury has to assess it. Their judgment reflects how they weigh the different lines of evidence. That weighting is, in itself, an exercise in deciding what to believe. (Once you get deep enough, I suspect it’s beliefs all the way down.) 

A world without belief?

I’m also set to wondering about what a world without belief would look like. My assumption is that the human population is a mixture of the gullible and the skeptical, because each approach is adaptive in certain circumstances – just like there are always both optimists and pessimists. The ratio at equilibrium may vary a little between cultures, with more or less trust correlating with more or less social cohesion. However, there will always be both patterns; I can't imagine a world with no belief of any kind.

There probably isn’t a stable equilibrium, though. I imagine it’s like the rabbits and foxes example: the proportions fluctuate around an average. As the number of rabbits grows, there’s more food for foxes, so their numbers grow, reducing the number of rabbits, meaning less fox food and fewer foxes, so more rabbits, and round and round.