Why do we believe what we believe?

[derrick.farnell]

Hi

I'm interested in the psychology of belief formation.

I've come-up with an argument which I believe shows that, from a logical point of view, belief can actually never be the product of an assessment of truth:

Edit: A revised version of the below has now been accepted by the popular-philosophy journal Think - please see my 13 August post.

• • The content of any belief is a claim, whether it’s something profound, like ‘There’s an afterlife’, or something mundane, like ‘Tomorrow is Monday’.
    
    To conclude that a claim is true is to conclude that it agrees with reality.
    
    Therefore, in order to conclude that a claim is true we must first have an understanding of the relevant aspect of reality, to which we can then compare the claim.
    
    However, our understanding of a particular aspect of reality is our beliefs about that aspect.
    
    That is, in order to conclude that claim X is true, we must first believe X.
    
    For example, in order to conclude that the claim ‘Tomorrow is Monday’ is true, we must first believe that tomorrow is Monday.
    
    And if concluding that a claim is true is dependent on first believing it, then belief can never be the product of an assessment of truth.
    
    It might be objected that if we can only ever assess to be true what we already believe, then this implies that we can never form new beliefs, contrary to our evident ability to do so.
    
    However, the hidden premise of this objection is that belief is the product of an assessment of truth.
    
    As stated above, if concluding that claim X is true is dependent on first believing X, then assessments of truth can never be the source of belief.
    
    Therefore, the fact that we can only ever assess to be true what we already believe doesn’t imply that we can never form new beliefs.
    
    It might still be objected that we evidently can form beliefs, including changing our beliefs, as a result of assessing the truth of the claims in question.
    
    For example, if we believe that tomorrow is Monday, because we believe that today is Sunday, but then someone else says that tomorrow is actually Sunday, because today is actually Saturday, then we may reassess our belief.
    
    For example, we may look at our mobile to see what day it’s displaying.
    
    If we see that it’s displaying ‘Saturday’, then we’ll conclude that the claims ‘Today is Sunday’ and ‘Tomorrow is Monday’ are false, and the claims ‘Today is Saturday’ and ‘Tomorrow is Sunday’ are true, and thus disbelieve the former two and believe the latter two.
    
    However, what actually happened was that, upon seeing ‘Saturday’ displayed on our mobile, we at that point formed the belief that today is Saturday, from which we then deduced that tomorrow is Sunday.
    
    And after forming these beliefs we then concluded that our original beliefs about what day today and tomorrow are were false, and that the contrary claims of the other person were true.
    
    Therefore, while assessing the truth of a claim may indeed result in our belief, or disbelief, in it, that belief, or disbelief, must nevertheless occur before our conclusion that the claim is true or false, respectively.
    
    The idea that belief is the product of an assessment of truth arises because:
    
    1) We forget that our beliefs are indeed merely beliefs, and so think that we’re comparing claims directly with the truth, and then forming our beliefs accordingly.
    
    2) Assessing whether a claim is true can stimulate the formation of a belief in it, but we fail to notice that the formation of that belief actually occurred just before the conclusion that the claim is true.
    
    3) We know that if we believe that a claim is true, then we believe it, and we then commit the logical error of confusing correlation for causation - that is, we conclude that the latter follows from the former causally, when it actually only follows logically, with the causal relationship actually being the reverse.

I've written an article which deals with the implications of this for the question of why we believe what we believe.

I would be grateful for any constructive feedback.

It's available here:

http://www.tryingtothink.org/wiki/How_Belief_Works

Any changes that I decide to make to the article after posting this will be immediately made to the above online version

Thanks in advance

Derrick

[MGL]

To conclude that a claim is true is to conclude that it agrees with reality.

Therefore, in order to conclude that a claim is true we must first have an understanding of the relevant aspect of reality, to which we can then compare the claim.

However, our understanding of a particular aspect of reality is our beliefs about that aspect.

That is, in order to conclude that claim X is true, we must first believe X.

.....

And if concluding that a claim is true is dependent on first believing it, then belief can never be the product of an assessment of truth.




=============================================================================

MGL:

Consider the scenario.

1) There is a claim: the jumper Laura is wearing is red
2) I have not seen what Laura is wearing. I therefore have no belief about the colour of her jumper.
3) To discover whether the claim is true, I search for Laura and look at what she is wearing.
4) I see Laura and observe that she is wearing a red jumper
5) I form the belief that has the content of "the jumper Laura is wearing is red".
6) I compare the content of this belief with the claim that the jumper Laura is wearing is red and conclude that the claim is true.

Surely steps 3 and 4 relate to a process of assessing truth and these steps produce step 5 ( the forming of a belief ) ?

[Impenitent]

of course the jumper was only red after he leapt from the roof ...

optical illusions aside...

-Imp

[derrick.farnell]

Surely steps 3 and 4 relate to a process of assessing truth and these steps produce step 5 ( the forming of a belief ) ?

Thanks for your response.

I would say that your belief indeed didn't exist before your started to assess the truth of the claim, but it's formation occurred before you concluded that assessment of truth.

That is, you formed the belief that the jumper is red upon seeing that the jumper is red, and were thus able to conclude that the claim 'the jumper Laura is wearing is red' is true.

If you're still not convinced, could you let me know which is the first step in the argument that you disagree with, and why:

• 1) The content of any belief is a claim, whether it’s something profound, like ‘There’s an afterlife’, or something mundane, like ‘Tomorrow is Monday’.
  
  2) To conclude that a claim is true is to conclude that it agrees with reality.
  
  3) Therefore, in order to conclude that a claim is true we must first have an understanding of the relevant aspect of reality, to which we can then compare the claim.
  
  4) However, our understanding of a particular aspect of reality is our beliefs about that aspect.
  
  5) That is, in order to conclude that claim X is true, we must first believe X.
  
  6) For example, in order to conclude that the claim ‘Tomorrow is Monday’ is true, we must first believe that tomorrow is Monday.
  
  7) And if concluding that a claim is true is dependent on first believing it, then belief can never be the product of an assessment of truth.

[MGL]

If you're still not convinced, could you let me know which is the first step in the argument that you disagree with, and why:

....
7) And if concluding that a claim is true is dependent on first believing it, then belief can never be the product of an assessment of truth.

Step 7 is what I am questioning.

Certainly, you are right to say that to conclude that a claim is true is dependent on first believing it.

However, You seem to be equating the step of concluding a claim is true with the process of assessing the truth of a claim.

But concluding a claim is true is only the final part of the process of assessing the truth of a claim. In my example I would consider steps 3 to 6 as part of the process of assessing the truth of the claim.

As the first 2 steps ( ie 3 & 4) of looking for Laura and observing what she is wearing produce the belief, it seems reasonable to claim that - as these steps are part of the overall process of assessing the truth of a claim - then this process can be considered responsible for producing the belief which itself is a part of the assessment process along with the conclusion.

[derrick.farnell]

Step 7 is what I am questioning. ...

Sorry - I didn't notice this reply.

However, I think the latest version of my argument addresses these objections:



Why do we believe what we believe?

The answer may seem obvious: we believe what we’ve assessed to be true.

And yet this is wrong: belief can't be the product of an assessment of truth.


The content of any belief is a claim, whether it’s something profound, like ‘There’s an afterlife’, or something mundane, like ‘Today is Monday’.

To conclude that a claim is true is to conclude that it agrees with reality.

However, in order to assess whether a claim agrees with reality we must first have an understanding of the relevant aspect of reality, to which we can then compare the claim.

And our understanding of a particular aspect of reality is our belief about that aspect.

Therefore, to conclude that a claim is true is to conclude that it agrees with our belief about the relevant aspect of reality - even if that belief was only formed immediately before coming to that conclusion.

For example, to conclude that the claim ‘Today is Monday’ is true is to conclude that it agrees with our belief about what day today is - even if that belief was only formed immediately before coming to that conclusion.

So, in order to conclude that claim X is true, we must first believe X - not the other way 'round.


It might be objected that what we believe prior to concluding that X is true isn't X itself, but merely things from which we can infer X, and that that inference constitutes concluding that X agrees with our beliefs - that is, that X is true.

Therefore, belief is indeed the product of an assessment of truth.

However, inferring X from our beliefs is not the same thing as concluding that X agrees with our beliefs.

The former simply involves forming a belief, whereas the latter simply involves comparing a claim with our beliefs.

In order to conclude that claim X agrees with our beliefs - that X is true - we must first form belief X, and then compare claim X with belief X.

That is, we must infer X before concluding that X is true, even if that belief is only formed immediately prior to that conclusion.


It might also be objected that the claims X and 'X is true' are ultimately saying the same thing, and so believing X and believing 'X is true' is simply the same thing.

That is, neither belief can be the product of the other, but belief is still dependent on an assessment of truth, because to believe X is to believe that X is true.

However, the claims X and 'X is true' are actually different, and are merely logically equivalent - that is, they directly imply each other.

For example, if today is Monday, then the claim 'Today is Monday' is true - and vice versa.

But the claims 'Today is Monday' and 'The claim "Today is Monday" is true' are nevertheless different claims, given that the latter is a claim about the former.

That is, the claim 'Today is Monday' simply concerns today, whereas the claim 'The claim "Today is Monday" is true' concerns a claim about today.

Therefore, while believing that today is Monday means that we would conclude that the claim 'Today is Monday' is true, and believing that this claim is true means that we believe that today is Monday, these are two distinct beliefs.

Therefore, to believe X is not to believe that X is true.


It might nevertheless be objected that belief-formation, including changing our beliefs, evidently involves assessing the truth of the claims in question.

For example, if we believe that today is Monday, but then someone else says that today is actually Sunday, then we may reassess our belief, and assess this contrary claim.

And the outcome of that assessment will obviously determine what we believe.

However, what actually happens is this.

In assessing the truth of these contrary claims, we check for evidence of what day it is, such as looking at our mobile to see what day it’s displaying.

Upon seeing that it’s displaying ‘Sunday' we may form the belief that today is Sunday, and the formation of this belief also constitutes the end of our belief that today is Monday.

And after forming this belief we can conclude that our original belief was false, and that the contrary claim of the other person, which we now also believe, is true.

Again, our conclusions of truth are merely conclusions of whether the claims in question agree with our beliefs.

Therefore, although assessing the truth of a claim may indeed result in our belief, or unbelief, in it, that belief, or unbelief, must nevertheless occur before our conclusion that the claim is true or false, respectively.


One other possible objection is that if we can only ever assess to be true what we already believe, then this implies that we can never form new beliefs, contrary to our evident ability to do so.

However, the hidden premise of this objection is that belief is the product of an assessment of truth.

Given that beliefs, however they are formed, can't be the product of an assessment of truth, the fact that we can only ever assess to be true what we already believe doesn’t itself imply that we can never form new beliefs.


The assumption that belief is dependent on an assessment of truth arises because:

1) We forget that our beliefs are indeed merely beliefs, and think, when we're assessing the truth of claims, that we’re comparing them directly with reality, and then forming our beliefs accordingly.

2) We know that if we conclude that claim X is true, then we believe X, and then commit the logical error of confusing correlation for causation - that is, we conclude that the latter follows from the former causally, when it actually only follows logically, with the causal relationship actually being the reverse.

Also, as explained:

3) We confuse inferring claim X from our beliefs for concluding that X agrees with our beliefs, and therefore confuse this inference for an assessment of truth.

4) We wrongly think that to believe X is to believe that X is true.

5) Assessing whether a claim is true can stimulate the formation of a belief in it, but we don't notice that that belief actually formed just before the conclusion that the claim is true.

[MGL]

derrick.farnell :

...belief can never be the product of an assessment of truth.

MGL:

Certainly, you are right to say that to conclude that a claim is true is dependent on first believing it.

However, You seem to be equating the step of concluding a claim is true with the process of assessing the truth of a claim.


derrick.farnell:

Sorry - I didn't notice this reply.

However, I think the latest version of my argument addresses these objections:

.......


Therefore, although assessing the truth of a claim may indeed result in our belief, or unbelief, in it, that belief, or unbelief, must nevertheless occur before our conclusion that the claim is true or false, respectively.

Thanks for you response to my objection. Unless I am misunderstanding something and being pedantic, the last comment of yours I have quoted seems to contradict your original claim.


Original claim: "...belief can never be the product of an assessment of truth".
Last quoted comment: "...assessing the truth of a claim may indeed result in our belief"

[derrick.farnell]

I agree that the latter sentence might seem contradictory, and so I've added a few more words to the end:

Therefore, although assessing the truth of a claim may indeed result in our belief, or unbelief, in it, that belief, or unbelief, must nevertheless occur before our conclusion that the claim is true or false, respectively, and so can't be a product of that assessment.

Do you think that this is clearer?

[duszek]

I agree that the latter sentence might seem contradictory, and so I've added a few more words to the end:

Therefore, although assessing the truth of a claim may indeed result in our belief, or unbelief, in it, that belief, or unbelief, must nevertheless occur before our conclusion that the claim is true or false, respectively, and so can't be a product of that assessment.

Do you think that this is clearer?

Assessing the truth of a claim may result in our belief

but this belief can´t be a product of that assessment ?

I assess that this statement still sounds like a contradiction.

Galileo claimed that the earth revolves around the sun.
The Church assessed the truth of it and said that Galileo´s claim was false.
The Church´s belief was that the sun revolved around the earth.
Galileo´s claim did not result in any belief.

Copernicus claimed the same as Galileo.
The Church finally changed its mind.
The new belief of the Church was NOT a product of its assessment ?

[MGL]

I agree that the latter sentence might seem contradictory, and so I've added a few more words to the end:

Therefore, although assessing the truth of a claim may indeed result in our belief, or unbelief, in it, that belief, or unbelief, must nevertheless occur before our conclusion that the claim is true or false, respectively, and so can't be a product of that assessment.

Do you think that this is clearer?

Sorry. This just makes the contradiction more obvious to me. The only way you can make it clearer is spell out the difference in meaning between a belief being a product of an assessment of truth and a belief that is the result of assessing the truth of a claim.

[duszek]

Unbelief: human beings and apes have common ancestors.
Claim: Human beings and apes both love bananas.

I assess the truth of the Claim and say: yes, that is true.
This assessment results in Belief: human beings and apes do have common ancestors.

Is this new Belief a Product of the assessment of the Claim ?
Or a mere Result ?

[derrick.farnell]

Sorry. This just makes the contradiction more obvious to me. ...

I think I now see the problem.

How about this:

Therefore, although our belief, or unbelief, in a claim occurs in the process of accessing its truth, that belief, or unbelief, nevertheless occurs before the conclusion of that assessment, and so isn't a product of it.

Instead, it's the conclusion that's the product of the belief or unbelief.

[derrick.farnell]

The new belief of the Church was NOT a product of its assessment ?

Hi duszek, thanks for your feedback.

I would say that the new belief must have been formed before the conclusion of any assessment of truth - for the reason given in the first italicised paragraph in my 29 July post.

Which step, or steps, in that paragraph do you think are unsound?

[derrick.farnell]

Unbelief: human beings and apes have common ancestors.
Claim: Human beings and apes both love bananas.

I assess the truth of the Claim and say: yes, that is true.
This assessment results in Belief: human beings and apes do have common ancestors.

Is this new Belief a Product of the assessment of the Claim ?
Or a mere Result ?

I would say that your belief in the 'Claim' preceded your assessment of its truth.

And the new 'Belief' is an inference from the first belief.

So neither belief was the product of an assessment of truth.

[MGL]

Therefore, although our belief, or unbelief, in a claim occurs in the process of accessing its truth, that belief, or unbelief, nevertheless occurs before the conclusion of that assessment, and so isn't a product of it.

Instead, it's the conclusion that's the product of the belief or unbelief.

I think I understand you now. To be the product of assessing the truth of a claim, a belief must occur AFTER this process has concluded. As the conclusion depends on the formation of the belief, the belief canot therefore be a product of this process. A process P may be a chain of events but none of these events can be causued by or a consequence of P.

This does seem perfectly sound but to avoid confusion you may want to consider the following interpretational issues when clarifying your case:

1) The process of assessing the truth of a claim is an intentional process with some anticipated steps that flow from the acting on this intention. This may explain why it seems natural to claim belief as a result of this process.

2) Assessement V Assessing. The death of Caesar may not strictly be a causal consequence of his murder, but it could conceivably be considered a consequence of the process of Brutus murdering him.

2) Event V State of affairs. The acquisition of a belief may be an event that cannot be caused by the assessment of truth but it is certainly a persisting state of mind that is a consequence of that process. The occupation of Berlin was an event in WW2 but it was also a persisting state of affairs that was a consequence of WW2.