Jamie_L

Well, all the money that somebody spend to get on the John Edwards show could be spent on other stuff. There's also all the time one wastes listening to lies, avoiding graveyards at night, walking around ladders, throwing salt over your shoulder, attending church who-knows how many days/week. Shirk all that off and imagine all the free time someone would gain to live a free life and enjoy more meaningful pursuits.

Well, it may not sound flashy, but what is the defense being given of superstition? "It makes you feel good." Doesn't sound much better. And furthermore, superstition often does not make you feel good. It can make you afraid, paranoid, obsessive, etc. And don't underestimate the value of not being manipulated. How many people have died due to following cult leaders? Or because they pursued unfounded, untested, or outright bogus health treatments? How many people have killed or martyred themselves because they believed in life after death? Critical thinking saves lives, and makes lives better.

We don't have a right to force people to live their lives a certain way. However, we can certainly point out ways of living that are harmful, dangerous, or potentially self-destructive. In fact, one might argue it's a moral obligation to try to help people avoid harm. If a person is willing to be misled, we can't force them not to be. Everyone is free to join a cult if they want. But does that mean it's a good idea? If your good friend joined a cult that you believed was dangerous, would you sit back and say "it's not my place to tell her how to live her life?" Or would you try to explain to her why she was in trouble?

Critical thinking is like insurance. That money you spend on insurance could make you much happier if you spent it on dinner, movies, cars, etc. But, if something bad does happen, you'll be screwed. The smart choice is to have insurance. Maybe you won't need it. Maybe you'll go your whole life without getting anything out of that insurance beyond piece of mind. But you never know...

Jamie

Mageth

What if the person in question is willing to be mislead? [sic]

I've never met a person who is willing to be misled. A person adhering to a particular superstition in spite of evidence presented against it obviously believes the superstition in spite of the evidence and doesn't think they're being misled. In fact, they might even think that the one presenting the contraevidence is attempting to mislead them.

Mr. Sammi

Somehow Philsoft,

you seem to miss the point. The question was about superstition, probablistic superstition was my addition to this art.

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT i THINK that god/nogod has no more than 50% chance of being true.

Fairly spoken, if I were to perform a survey on people asking if they believe in god or not in god, what would be the chances of them answering 1 or the other. Each person would have a 50% probability of answering one way or another. Or do you think otherwise?

clue in on superstition and not on your perception of reality.

This is like asking my daughter Sarah, in her office, to snake a guess, whether it is raining outside. Do you think she will take into consideration super-computing residual variables in combination with the last reading she had of outside in order to mathematically square the probabilities? or would she guess YES or NO. 50-50.

Not so silly after all.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

beausoleil

And I thought I was joking!

I am

Jamie:

I agree with you that it is better not to be superstitious. But the more I think about this the more I think I understand the frame of mind.

I know it is not healthy to eat pizza, but I really like it and I eat it. I see it as a quality of life issue. I could abstain from eating pizza and probably live a lttle longer, I also could save a little money eating something cheaper, but I don't. I enjoy pizza and I accept the consequences.

I think this is the way people rationalize superstitious thought. If they know it is false, they decide to believe it anyway (how, I don't know) because they like it. If they do not yet know it is false, all the better.

Autonemesis

Well, nothing succeeds like success, especially in science. Show us an alternate method that improves upon the success of the scientific method, and we'd be all over it. We'd switch in a second (as soon as we were convinced of it's superiority). If we were on the committee, we'd even vote you a Nobel prize.

Coragyps

Superstition is, in fact, a good thing, as it enabled Willie Dixon to write the song:
"I ain't superstitous, but a black cat crossed my trail....."

Philosoft

We shall see.

<strong> Eh?

<strong> Because that's what you wrote.

<strong> I am going to try to make this as simple as I can. You are asking two different questions. First, in a two-choice situation, a person may choose only 50% of the available outcomes. I think this is what you are referring to. Or perhaps you are referring to an initial probability, where it is assumed the probabilities are equal before anything is know about biases. Second, the probability a person will choose any one of the two outcomes is a more complex topic than a coin-flip because of the interaction of different forces. If I have $4 with me at the grocery store and I am hungry, the probability that I will buy either tampons (I am not female) or crackers is not 50/50. This is what I mean about forces interacting to influence the outcome.

<strong> Oh boy.

<strong> Nowhere have I implied she must know the exact probabilistic calculations in order to make something other than a 50/50 guess. Her choice may be influenced by the morning's temperature and/or humidity, relative to previous days'. Or by the presence or absence of clouds. Or by what she read in the newspaper or saw on the TV that morning. Your assertions erroneously imply that some decisions are made in an information vacuum.

Troma

---(OK. I am skeptical of the idea that the habit of meticulously observing the facts of nature and systematically interpreting them in terms of physical cause and effect(science) is the ONLY method of interpreting facts-no matter how successful.)--- Fwh.

Well it seems to be the most successful way of interpreting things. Also, how else could we interpret things with any kind of real success?

(and to be ornery, I would say that the belief in that notion is a type of superstition.)---Fwh

Fair enough. But just to set the record straight, I don't think that science is the only way. I simply don't know about any others that work at this moment.

fando

Random guessing.