To be(lieve) or not to be(lieve)

[Yasa]

Should we believe in propositions that are put forth to explain things, yet have no evidence to support them?

There is nearly an infinite amount of such (potential) propositions, however I will give examples of just a few.

1. God exists. (Choose one out of hundreds of gods).

2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists (in attempt to explain the same things God would explain).

3. The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists (in attempt to explain the same things God would explain).

4. etc. (Okay I guess 2 and 3 fall under number 1).

Now, despite my biased view on the matter, I will also add a 'scientific' example in attempt to make things a little more even:

1. String Theory is valid.

As far as I am aware, there is no experimental evidence that can demonstrate the validity of String Theory.

So, should we believe in these claims, or dismiss them? If we should believe them, why? Remember that despite the potential for increased happiness and life-satisfaction for believing in these propositions, such beliefs hold drastic and often negative consequences for the entire world.

Note that I am not implying all such claims are false, but that judgment should be withheld. Also, I am not appealing to ridicule by including FSM and IPU, but rather these examples go to show that any proposition thought up to explain something that has no evidence supporting it should be believed as equally as all the others.

[Rog]

there are also many things that were proven to be real and then few decades later was proven to be wrong.
How can you believe on something you never tried for yourself? are you just having faith the other guy actually got it right?
But in reply to your question, no I do not believe in most things are said to me unless I can verify facts myself.

[HelioPrime]

Well there is a technical difference in some of those claims. Some claims are just invented claims made specifically to apply within rules promoted by certain people that you must either believe in all God's or none at all.

Quote by: Yasa Should we believe in propositions that are put forth to explain things, yet have no evidence to support them? ... 1. String Theory is valid. As far as I am aware, there is no experimental evidence that can demonstrate the validity of String Theory. So, should we believe in these claims, or dismiss them?

In the scientific community, string theory is not "accepted" as "valid" (to use your term) because there is not yet any experimental evidence to support it--and likely will never be. It remains an untested mathematical hypothesis, one worthy of study nonetheless.

You can inform yourself about string theory and the acceptance of it here.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Yasa Should we believe in propositions that are put forth to explain things, yet have no evidence to support them?

There's no "should". "Belief" in something as inherently impossible to test as god(s) lies, logically, outside the realm of science.

What we "should" do is apply our minds to the pursuit of knowledge and hope that someday some of our currently unanswerable questions will be answered, knowing full well that they will never all be answered.

[Dadoo]

Quote by: sdbest In the scientific community, string theory is not "accepted" as "valid" (to use your term) because there is not yet any experimental evidence to support it--and likely will never be. It remains an untested mathematical hypothesis, one worthy of study nonetheless

I agree.
I would add the "Godhead" is an untested philosophical hypothesis that is obviously worthy of study, as well and equally.
At the end of all theories of the fundamental variety, a common answer may be found, such as the "M"other theory unified 5 perspectives of the amalgamative singularity we call String Theory. Those "hundreds of gods" to chhose from are most likely one and the same,(Occam's razor) by their very definition(s), names aside.
Experimental evidence of Godhead & string theory may be found, if one were looking for it at the right 'time', and in the right 'place'.

[Yasa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 There's no "should". "Belief" in something as inherently impossible to test as god(s) lies, logically, outside the realm of science.

Why not? Belief in things that are impossible to test/disprove has huge consequences. Think of all the intolerance, wars, etc that has been caused in the name of faith for such things.

Logically we shouldn't believe them because there is an infinite amount of claims we could produce that would be untouchable by science, yet would all be of equal merit to be believed.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Rog there are also many things that were proven to be real and then few decades later was proven to be wrong. How can you believe on something you never tried for yourself? are you just having faith the other guy actually got it right? But in reply to your question, no I do not believe in most things are said to me unless I can verify facts myself.

So you think we should go out on a limb and put faith into any and every claim that 'could be found out to be the truth' later, despite having no evidence of support at this time? Might as well believe dragons and unicorns existed--after all, we just might find out in the future that they did!!

Sorry for the ridicule, but this line of thinking is not very practical as you should be able to see.



Regarding believing what others have discovered, you should look up testimony in logic. Here's a link with a bit of info: Testimony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In philosophy, a testimony is known as Statements that are based on personal experience or personal knowledge. A statement is accepted on the basis of person's testimony if his or her asserting it renders it acceptable. We can also, rationally accept a claim on the basis of another persons testimony unless (1. the claim is implausible; 2. The person or the source in which the claim is quoted lacks credibility; 3. The claim goes beyond what the person could know from his or her own experience and competence.)[3]"

Although there is a bunch more to the criteria, such as is the person an expert within the field of the claim? Does the person have a vested interest (getting payed to claim X, defending doctrine/religious or other specific group views such as conservationist, etc)? Do the experts within the field agree? And, obviously, does the person have the evidence to back up his testimony (where required)?

It's virtually impossible to live in today's society without taking others' testimony for truth. Believing what we hear on the radio, see on TV, read in books and newspapers is an essential part of learning and spreading information. But by all means, be careful not 'believe everything you read'--as you've already said you don't. I treat testimony as evidence. Therefore, I believe in claims that have evidence to back them up--something I can't say for the claims this thread is about.

[Dadoo]

Yes, Yasa...

And in the end people will believe what they believe; would have, could hav, and should have, aside.
Beliefs are very hard to escape.
You are soaking in them now, and we are completely oblivious to the primal beliefs we adopted and inherited as 'common' sense when we were still very young.