User:Blue Hoopy Frood/Essays/Beliefs

Terminology

I use the following definitions of terms, in contrast to Wikipedia usage.

factual proposition

An objective claim that is either true or false, once terms are adequately defined. The truth value need not be known, or, indeed, knowable.

An objective claim that is objectively true. Strictly speaking, humans do not deal with facts, since our understanding is always filtered through flawed senses and reasoning. However, various propositions are backed by such compelling evidence that they can be treated for practical purposes as fact.

belief

One person’s understanding or view regarding a factual proposition. If two people hold contradictory beliefs, at least one of them is wrong (or, as often happens, they are defining terms differently).

theory

A formalized statement of a belief, using well-defined terms.

scientific theory

A theory that can be tested empirically and repeatably. Being scientific does not make a theory true, just as being unscientific does not make it false.

opinion

One person’s view on a subjective (i.e., non-factual) matter. Two people can hold contradictory opinions without either being “wrong” in any scientific sense.

value

A personal conviction about what ought to be, rather than what is. Values are like opinions in that they are by nature non-scientific (although they may be informed by scientific observations). However, they are like beliefs in that people conceive of them as true or false, right or wrong; and opposing values do not readily co-exist.

faith

An expression of trust, usually in a source of information, that allows one to hold and act on beliefs and values based on little or no tangible evidence, or even conflicting with evidence. Even belief in scientific theories is ultimately based on faith, either in one’s own senses, or in the testimony of respected scientists.

point of view

Wikipedia conflates all of these terms into POV, as do I occasionally for convenience. However, it then uses opinion interchangeably with POV. While I try in general not to quibble over definitions, I believe that this conflation of terms leads to confusion. In my opinion, the distinctions should be maintained, because I value clear communication.

Likewise, Wikipedia plays fast and loose with the term fact, treating it as synonymous with orthodox theory. I wonder how many currently accepted “facts” future generations will look back on, and laugh at our ignorance.

Empirical convictions

There are many beliefs and opinions I have come to hold strongly based on personal experience. For example:

Science

Many factual propositions are either objectively true or objectively false, once terms are adequately defined. They cannot be true for one person and false for another. In other words, there is such a thing as absolute truth.
The scientific method is arguably the most effective way to develop a rational understanding of the physical world, and apply that understanding to solve practical problems.
Science does not produce absolute truth. Rather, it generates theories, i.e., formalized beliefs. (As an aside, machine learning devotees sometimes use the term truth to refer to training data, even data that’s known to contain errors. I find this irritating.)
Scientific inquiry cannot progress without skepticism. A scientist ought never confuse theory with truth. Rather, they should continually seek new evidence to challenge existing theories, and welcome critique of their reasoning and conclusions.
Humility is thus an essential element for scientific inquiry. If you lack the humility to recognize your own ignorance and limitations, it will limit your effectiveness as a scientist.
By definition, any hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical evidence is not science (which doesn’t make it false). There are thus many questions that science cannot begin to answer, e.g.:
1. “Why” questions: Why does the universe exist? Why do I exist? Why do people hate each another?
2. “Should” questions: How should I treat those who are different from me? How should I respond to those who hate me because I’m different? How should I respond to logical errors in Wikipedia articles?
3. Questions beyond the physical universe: Are there more than three spatial dimensions? Are there other universes? Where did the “big bang” come from? Do humans have an immortal soul? Does the universe have an intelligent creator?
There are also many questions that could conceivably fall within the realm of science, but are beyond our current understanding, e.g.: How does gravity work? What makes nuclei hold together? Why does the Fibonacci sequence keep turning up in nature? How and when did the law of Moses originate?
No one has the time or opportunity to reproduce every scientific experiment. For example, I, personally, have never performed an experiment to verify the existence of atoms, let alone subatomic particles. However, I have faith that those who claim to have performed such experiments (and created technologies based on atomic theory) are being truthful, and are not substantially in error. In other words, I take it on faith that the science behind atomic theory is reliable.
All of human experience, including science, depends fundamentally on faith. We cannot function without putting our faith in things we cannot prove. Those who claim not to have faith are deceiving themselves.
Atheism is an expression of blind faith. Whereas other religions rely on the testimony of witnesses, atheism has no such witnesses, let alone scientific evidence.

People

The world is a better place when people are characterized by humility, seeking to understand and live in harmony with one another. The world is an ugly place when people are characterized by arrogance and malice, seeking to elevate oneself and bring others down. The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:CIVILITY, define a good approximation of an ideal community; although, like most ideals, they often remain elusive (or outright ignored).
Many conflicts result from insufficient effort to understand one another’s viewpoint. Often it’s as trivial as defining terms differently and not realizing it.
Seeking out “us vs. them” conflicts is ingrained in human nature, an aspect of what was traditionally called sin or evil. People are adept at coming up with reasons to hate, including (but not limited to): skin color, religion, economic inequality, political ideology, moral convictions. To whatever extent humanity manages to resolve differences in these areas, we will always find other excuses to hate.
People are fundamentally biased. This is a survival trait, since our biases allow us to make actionable decisions based on incomplete evidence. However, our biases also lead to many false conclusions, and feed the “us vs. them” mentality. Even well-intentioned people who are aware of their biases fall foul of them (myself included). This is another reason why humility is so crucial, and why we need to seek out contrasting viewpoints.
Many people who call themselves scientists are not. That is, they have no clue what the scientific method entails (i.e., skepticism). Rather, they place their faith in the orthodox views of prestigious scientists, and scorn those who challenge their beliefs. Science to them is a religion, with all the positive and negative connotations. I refer to such people as orthodox secularists. (I have no idea what proportion of Wikipedians this description applies to, but you can hopefully recognize if you’re one.)
The Biblical depiction of humanity matches my experience of human behavior better than any other worldview I have encountered.
People who live according to Biblical principles make the world a better place, for them and for others around them.

Received convictions

There are many other beliefs I hold as convictions based on faith in sources I deem reputable, though I have little or no direct empirical evidence to support them. For example:

Scientific convictions

The earth is one of many bodies orbiting the sun.
All matter is made up of atoms (barring massive compact objects such as black holes).
There is no correlation, let alone causation, between immunizations and autism.
Covid-19 developed by chance in the wild, not in a government or commercial laboratory.
There is no scientific reason to suppose hydroxychloroquine is efficacious against covid-19.
There is no scientific reason to suppose mail-in ballots introduce bias in favor of one political party or another.
Climate change poses an existential threat to civilization as we know it. (The human race will probably survive.) The outcome is inevitable barring drastic change. A remarkable number of politicians seem unconcerned what kind of world they’re leaving their great-grandchildren.

Historical convictions

There was a man named something like Plato around 2400 years ago who wrote the Phaedo, the Republic, and numerous other works.
There was a man named something like Jesus around 2000 years ago who started a movement that radically changed much of the world, although he received no earthly benefit from it.
There was a man named something like Mohammed around 1400 years ago who started a movement that radically changed much of the world, to his great advantage.
There was a man named William Shakespeare who lived in the 16th and early 17th centuries and wrote all or most of what we now know as the works of Shakespeare.
Some six million Jews and millions of other people died in Nazi death camps.
Untold millions died in Stalinist purges.
The United States devastated two Japanese cities using nuclear weapons.
Humans first set foot on the moon in 1969.
In 2001, terrorists crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (not by design) a field in Pennsylvania. No national government was involved in planning the attacks.
Barack Obama was born a United States citizen.
The Benghazi incident was real, but the hype and accusations around it were whipped up by entertainers and politicians for selfish motives.
The Mueller report documented abundant evidence of systematic subversion of law and conspiracy to commit perjury and other felonies. (I read parts and skimmed others.)
The world in 2020 has seen the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu; the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression; and the greatest risk of global war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. In addition, the US has seen the worst civil unrest since the race riots of the 60s (shortlived, thankfully); and escalation of the greatest subversion of rule of law since J. Edgar Hoover. Whatever comes next, the year 2020 will be remembered as a pivotal time in history.

Tentative beliefs

There are many other beliefs I hold loosely, based largely on the claims of others, that may one day be proven wrong; and I’m okay with that. For example:

Scientific beliefs

Cosmology

The age of the solar system is measured in billions of years.
No physical body can achieve the speed of light. Approaching anywhere close does really weird stuff. (Einstein managed to figure this out without computers or modern telescopes, which will never cease to astound me.)
There is one and only one physical universe; or, at least, if there are others, they are distinct from one another, not close copies. (A multiverse theory makes for entertaining fiction, but is scientifically unsupportable.)
Dark matter and dark energy hypotheses are just fancy ways of saying we don’t understand what’s going on. Efforts to verify the existence of dark matter scientifically have consistently failed. No one has yet come up with a way to verify the existence of dark energy. (And yet, some people continue to swear by them as fact. Such faith is inspiring.)

Human origins

Human beings descended from the earliest life forms through a process of natural selection. (Where those earliest life forms came from remains an open question.)
As a logical corollary, either there was a first human being (by some appropriately specific definition, such as DNA profile), or else there was a cohort of human beings who came into existence simultaneously. I find the former hypothesis more scientifically plausible.

Historical beliefs

There was a man named something like Abraham (or Abram) who was the progenitor of today’s Jews and Arabs.
There was a man named something like Moses who rallied the ancient Israelites and gave them a book of law that he said was from God. (Based on evidence from the text, I suspect Joshua also had a hand in writing it, and may have been Moses’ scribe.) Many later authors added on to his work, resulting in what we now know as the Bible. (Some of those authors were focused on historical accuracy, but most were not. The book of 1-2 Kings, for instance, appears to be written primarily as an historical record; while the book of Psalms is clearly poetry. Interpreting poetry as historical record (or whatever) is bound to lead to gross errors.)
The book of Genesis, at least the first few chapters, was most likely a compilation of oral traditions that were ancient by the time of Moses, that someone (perhaps Moses) wrote down. (It’s hard to be sure about the accounts of the patriarchs, since writing may have existed by then.)
There was a man named something like Homer who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey, and doubtless many other works as well.
There was likely at least one historical figure around whom the legends of King Arthur arose; but the legends were never intended to be understood as history.