Is something more right if more people believe it ?

Capt'n Midnight

klap trap wrote:

i believe in the 6 day creation and i'll thank you all not to label me as stupib because of it. lots of smart people believe in it akright?

In science or maths if someone proves beyond all doubt that something is wrong then everyone else has to change their ideas. But in most other systems it's impossible or very difficult to prove things one way or the other can we rely on weight of numbers to help us choose where the truth lies. Do we believe that catholism is a truer religion because of numbers than zoasteranism or should we reject monoathism because most people in multiple gods or none ? Is speeding morally justifiable if most people do it ? If it turns out that it is wrong to go with the herd on moral issues where does this leave democracy ?

SkepticOne

If it were the case that a majority determined the truth of a matter then we'd never any development in thought or belief. The first belief (false or otherwise) to take hold of public opinion would remain "true" forever since any new idea would have to start off as a minority view.

Clearly this is not the case as history shows. If it were, there would be no science or philosophy since both of these depend on rational argument to support a position and not on opinion polls.

is_that_so

I think that is called mass delusion. A very silly example is Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938 which caused mass hysteria in the belief that Martians had invaded. Nonetheless it brings up the more important question of what belief is or even a belief is.
Rightness or wrongness of a belief is something that can be tested by a recognised value system.

SolarNexus

SkepticOne wrote:

If it were the case that a majority determined the truth of a matter then we'd never any development in thought or belief. The first belief (false or otherwise) to take hold of public opinion would remain "true" forever since any new idea would have to start off as a minority view.

Clearly this is not the case as history shows. If it were, there would be no science or philosophy since both of these depend on rational argument to support a position and not on opinion polls.

your making the rather large assumtion that such a minority does not affect the majority, or would not or could not usurp the major belief. which is incorrect, I believe.

A rather blatently obvious example at this time of year would be the life of Jesus, originally a minority in his beliefs, eventually gaining steam and belief but still only a minority, eventually nearly takes over the world - pushing aside many apposing beliefs.

I'm basically saying, no matter how cheesy or rehashed, one man can change the world by influencing those that influence others.

davej

There are many theories about the nature of "truth" and how it is defined. Some would say that the powerful people of the world get to impose their values on the less powerful for example.

If you look at science, the direction nearly all research takes is heavily influenced by whether or not a profit can eventually be made from the work.
So there are people out there deciding that it is better to know about this sort of fact then that sort of fact. Therefore the "facts" that are found are coloured by capitalism, politics etc.. It is very rare for people to think of a "fact" without some sort of bias.

The very language we use to reason out facts and then explain them to others, is influenced by many socioeconomic and historical factors. On a simple level, this may mean that when a scientist is writing up his journal article, he has to conform to a very specific stylistic idiom using overly-complicated words and the like. Otherwise his article may be rejected (despite its validity). So facts are often artificially made to fit into a structure that isn't necessarily conducive to all interpretations.

davej

SkepticOne

SolarNexus wrote:

your making the rather large assumtion that such a minority does not affect the majority, or would not or could not usurp the major belief. which is incorrect, I believe.

No, the idea that the truth of ideas are determined solely by the majority opinion was the very point point I was disputing.

bus77

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

In science or maths if someone proves beyond all doubt that something is wrong then everyone else has to change their ideas. But in most other systems it's impossible or very difficult to prove things one way or the other can we rely on weight of numbers to help us choose where the truth lies.

We have too at the end of the day, because for all the great abillity of the brain it still really is just a backup system for the tribe. And we still want/have to have our conclusions compared with others. The 6 day creation is a nice introduction to the world for people. And it gets reinforced by the greatest number creator of them all. They way we live our lives, 7 days in a week.
Dos'nt matter if it's true or not. It only matters to people who feel their belief is under threat, or to individuals who are trying to make sence of belief.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Do we believe that catholism is a truer religion because of numbers

Yes. People believe catholism is a true religion because the storys we learn about human nature as children turn out to be true in later life. If people hear enough truth from a person or a book, they put their trust in the person or book (or the person with the book.;)) Hence, it is a true religion.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

If it turns out that it is wrong to go with the herd on moral issues where does this leave democracy ?

Same place it's allways been for countrys with millions of monkeys. On the side of a cliff.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Is speeding morally justifiable if most people do it ?

Speeding is not morally justifiable if it leads to the deaths of members of the tribe. It's fine for people who have no faith in the tribe as a whole, this automaticly leads to more faith in ones own abillitys.
If people had real faith in the leader/tribe they were part of, they would obey the countrys rules and not speed. The only problem is to gain that understanding you have to do a hell of a lot of thinking, or trust the Bible(and trust everyone else is reading the same book). Unfortunatatly both are very diifficult to pull off these days.

bus77

is_that_so wrote:

I think that is called mass delusion. A very silly example is Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938 which caused mass hysteria in the belief that Martians had invaded. Nonetheless it brings up the more important question of what belief is or even a belief is.

I love the way that works. People had great trust in their radios in those days.

is_that_so wrote:

Rightness or wrongness of a belief is something that can be tested by a recognised value system.

Thats right, when people get worried the brain stops working the way it does when you are calm. The reconised value system becomes "the people around you" you automatactly look and speak to others to see if you are right to be worried if everyone else is looking worried you conclude you are right to be worried so then you start thinking of things to do

SkepticOne

bus77 wrote:

We have too at the end of the day, because for all the great abillity of the brain it still really is just a backup system for the tribe.

I don't know how others might interpret this, but in what sense is the brain a "backup" for the tribe? I can understand that if you take the point of view that the tribe is primary, then the individuals within (and their brains presumably) are secondary. But the idea of the brain being a "backup" would suggest that it is something to fall back on when the main system (in this case the tribe) goes wrong. Yet the tribe would not exist without the individual brains of its members.

Perhaps rather than brain you mean creativitiy or originality. Then you could say that from the point of view of the tribe, individual creativity or originality is not needed except in those situations when the tribe's culture breaks down.

This is not my view; I'm just trying to make sense of your use of the word "backup" in this context.

bus77

SkepticOne wrote:

I don't know how others might interpret this, but in what sense is the brain a "backup" for the tribe? I can understand that if you take the point of view that the tribe is primary, then the individuals within (and their brains presumably) are secondary. But the idea of the brain being a "backup" would suggest that it is something to fall back on when the main system (in this case the tribe) goes wrong. Yet the tribe would not exist without the individual brains of its members.

Perhaps rather than brain you mean creativitiy or originality. Then you could say that from the point of view of the tribe, individual creativity or originality is not needed except in those situations when the tribe's culture breaks down.

This is not my view; I'm just trying to make sense of your use of the word "backup" in this context.

I was primarily thinking of those that get seperated/seperate themselves from their tribe and culture for extended periods. It useually leads to people turning in on themselves. If the brain was somthing that could exist solely on its own then surely people would be able to come to conclusions seperatly and not need verification from others. I suppose I'm leaving out emotional conciderations tho

elivsvonchiaing

bus77 wrote:

I was primarily thinking of those that get seperated/seperate themselves from their tribe and culture for extended periods. It useually leads to people turning in on themselfs. And trying to become two people(talking to yourself) If the brain was somthing that could exist solely on its own then surely people would be happy with their own thoughts alone, and be able to come to conclusions seperatly. I suppose I'm leaving out emotional conciderations tho

Just think there is deep suspicion of those that get seperated from the tribe. It is only natural for the tribe to behave this way - to protect fabric of tribe/society.

A good example: If Jesus really did come again - he would have to keep quiet about it - or find his ass in a mental institution!

bus77

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

Just think there is deep suspicion of those that get seperated from the tribe. It is only natural for the tribe to behave this way - to protect fabric of tribe/society.

And it would be only natural for the individual returning to be wary coming back too

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

A good example: If Jesus really did come again - he would have to keep quiet about it - or find his ass in a mental institution!

Not really, you could just put him in an open top car preaching freedom, then blame his death on an evil empire.

SkepticOne

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

Just think there is deep suspicion of those that get seperated from the tribe. It is only natural for the tribe to behave this way - to protect fabric of tribe/society.

Would you agree that the same suspicion would apply to foreigners bringing ideas from other cultures? The same resistance to foreign ideas would also apply. Yet there are plenty of historical ideas that have been adopted by other cultures. Tribes don't stick rigidly to their own ideas; they are open to those of neighbouring tribes. For example the Islamic adoption of much of Greek philosophy and medicine which later found its way back to Europe.

Many believe that the ancient Greek philosopy in turn has its origins in Egypt and that the general openness of the Greeks to new ideas as opposed to purely handed down mythical ideas comes from their trade connections with (and consequent exposure to) other cultures. Whereas other societies were tied to the land, the poor soil in much of Greece meant that a far greater proportion of the population were involved in trade. If all these other cultures that the Greeks were exposed to had their own gods and religions then the Greek religion would have been seen as only one of many to a large proportion of the Greek people. This, they believe, led to the rise of speculation about the nature of the world and the succession of philosophers with different views on the subject.

elivsvonchiaing

SkepticOne wrote:

Would you agree that the same suspicion would apply to foreigners bringing ideas from other cultures? The same resistance to foreign ideas would also apply. Yet there are plenty of historical ideas that have been adopted by other cultures. Tribes don't stick rigidly to their own ideas; they are open to those of neighbouring tribes. For example the Islamic adoption of much of Greek philosophy and medicine which later found its way back to Europe.

To a large degree there is a lot of suspicion of other cultures. Practical ideas will quickly spread, however; e.g., gun-powder, paper-money etc (What have the Chinese done for us lately? )

When it comes to metaphysical beliefs there can be strong opposition to change - especially when there are "protectionist" beliefs carried with the metaphysical package; (Christianity probably only caught on because people feared ending up in the wicker-statue next year).

Islam probably invented the jihad to combat this. I do agree, however, at it's birth Islam was very open to foreign ideas and did adopt many.

SkepticOne

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

When it comes to metaphysical beliefs there can be strong opposition to change - especially when there are "protectionist" beliefs carried with the metaphysical package; (Christianity probably only caught on because people feared ending up in the wicker-statue next year).

Islam probably invented the jihad to combat this. I do agree, however, at it's birth Islam was very open to foreign ideas and did adopt many.

It's not surprising really that practical ideas gain acceptance quicker than metaphysical ones; their truth is easily demonstrated whereas with metaphysical ideas, a lot more argument is required and such metaphysical ideas may clash with local religious dogma. However it is interesting that it is not a purely one-way street with any sort of idea. It is not always the case that the invading force gets to impose its philosophy on the invaded.

Getting back to the original question on whether something is more right if more people believe it, this is clearly not the case although the onus will always be on those with the minority view to win over the majority. This is the way it should be, imo. Even if the majority's views may not be correct, the views held by the majority may have been important to the overall success of the society. The majority views may have played a role in binding the society together. For this reason it is understandable that there should be resistance to new ideas.