Here, I promise you, was “breaking” news from not long ago: “United States Representative Tim Burchett says aliens could be stationed in five or six underwater bases off the U.S. coast.”
That doesn’t beat this blasé announcement, given with all the verve of a notice that there are new times for trash pickup: “Underwater UFOs new area of interest for lawmakers“.
You do not have to decide whether there are or there are are not, “five or six underwater bases off the U.S. coast” which not-so-secretly house visitors, or possibly invaders, from another planet.
In other words, you do not have to go to full belief on either side of the question. Or for many questions, as we’ll see. You may sit at uncertainty and remain there until such time, which may never come, new evidence probative of the matter arrives. Even then, unless that evidence is definitive, remaining in the calm sunshine of uncertainty is often best.
What might be definitive evidence in this case? Hillary ripping off her human mask on live TV, in front of hundreds of unimpeachable witnesses (say, a convention of nuns), revealing herself to be a lizard alien (I saw V). Or a video, authenticated as genuine by whatever authorities you admire, of Burchett giggling with his friends as he describes a clever new fund-raising idea.
What wouldn’t be definitive is a video, even genuine, of Burchett tearfully confessing the same. Some would take that as evidence “they” had got to him. In the same way, Burchett’s imprecision—he says five or six bases—adds to his verisimilitude. If he had said (try this out loud) “There are five hidden bases”, it sounds less believable.
A little while ago we discussed the difference between beliefs and acts. This distinction is crucial. Review that if you have time. Here is a brief reminder.
A belief is a proposition you claim is true given some set of evidence, all of it, both stated and tacit or implicit. If the evidence itself, in all its aspects is true, then your belief is a universal or necessary truth. If the evidence is dicey, or false in parts, even if you do not know this, then your belief is a local truth. Only true give your incomplete (let us say) evidence, that is.
Reminder: the logical contrary of your local-truth is a local-falsity, either locally or universally.
Because none of us can know everything, most propositions are in between universal falsities and truths. Many propositions we entertain are only uncertain given whatever evidence is at hand. This is probability.
We constantly must act on propositions, even when they are uncertain. The classic example is whether to carry an umbrella given the chance it will rain (you judge) is 70%. You do not need to believe it will rain to carry, and you do not need to believe it will remain dry to not carry. You can stay at uncertainty the whole time. Until the day is over, when you know. The uncertainty is only one facet of the act.
Thus, at the beginning of the day, when you are considering adding rubbers to your shoes (which I don’t think anybody does anymore, but I recall my dad doing this when I was a boy in Detroit), it would be silly to insist to your wife that it will definitely rain when you hold that 70% uncertainty, and it would be just as unhelpful for her to retort that it will certainly remain dry when she also holds that same uncertainty.
The desire to move to belief is what causes fights. And over-certainty. And then stubborn error.
Two things happen when you succumb to the desire to believe when you are at uncertainty only.
The first is that you seek out, often rashly, any additional evidence which corroborates your proposition, and you fail to search for evidence which disconfirms it. You will always succeed in discovering confirming evidence if you put your mind to it. It’s too easy. Take seeing the video of Burchett “confessing.” Either side in the debate can use this to confirm their proposition.
The second is, after you reach belief, you will ache to stay there. You will tend to reject new disconfirming evidence, and can even become angry if is suggested to you. Few want to be “talked out of” their beliefs. This is how enemies are made. It it how fights start. Two sides end up yelling at each other.
Keep this in mind especially when dealing with bold new theories of how the world supposedly really works. I heard the other day Epstein was importing barrels of sulphuric acid in which he dissolved his victims. That is the proposition. It is fine to remain at uncertainty on this curious proposition.
There is no good or compelling reason to move to belief on either side of things like this. Even if you judge the chance of it as low indeed, you do not need to insist on its falsity. The only acts which may be required of you on this would be to listen to somebody who has moved to belief. To which you can be polite and say “I see.” If you are not required to act, then silence is golden.
Acrimony over these extraordinary claims is common. I’m seeing long-time mutuals split. Much turmoil can be avoided if only people remember they do not have to make decisions. You do not have to believe. You can stay at uncertainty.
Video
Here are the various ways to support this work:
But Briggs, how would you characterize being friends with someone who holds beliefs you disagree with?
Is that even possible? 🤔
I sometimes feel that the psychology of belief (or, maybe more accurately, of declaring belief) is along the lines of: “our beliefs distinguish us from ‘them’ and to believe what we believe will number you among the chosen.” Thence comes the phenomenon of believing (claiming belief) without (actual) belief. Real belief vs. merely professed belief can usually be detected in crisis: what will the believer put on the line?