The use of uninformative models, or, what do you choose to believe?
 

We all choose our perspectives, whether it's a conscious choice or not.

One way to choose is to use aesthetic value. For instance, religious folk may choose the religious model because on some fundamental level, they find the notion appealing. Similarly, science-y atheist types may choose science-y atheism because on some fundamental level, they find the idea of an approximately deterministic, reducible reality appealing (this explains the phenomenon of the science-y atheist who is completely and willfully clueless when it comes to cultivating in his/herself a comprehensive understanding of science or the scientific method).

Or, one can ignore aesthetics and rely entirely on model predictive value. According to this criterion, the science-y atheist model wins hands down.

A third option, and what think I tend to do: choose to believe things that are useful. This option works well in most situations, since it defaults to favoring predictive value, and, if all models have equal predictive value (for instance, all models of the afterlife have equal predictive value since all rely on unforgivable extrapolation) it lets me believe whatever I think is nice.

How do you decide what to believe?

I decided long ago to keep my decisions about what is really flexible, because I noticed some goofball was bound to get along, deadset in his beliefs & therefore willing to die & well, on the way. An illustration of the main reason I believe that we are part of an only slowly changing physical reality: I'm going camping this weekend on an island in the St. Croix. I haven't been there for years but I'm confident it will only be slightly different. I'm a sciency-godist, I guess, since there's so much I can't explain, & I know that might not even be a reasonable answer to your question, but even at my (tender) age I haven't really decided what to believe. I believe in what my senses provide, but not in my conceptions of or reactions to those provisions.

That's an interesting question. My perspective is close to yours. We can have many phenomenological descriptions of the world and I don't see why I should waste my time deciding between all of them. My thought process is cut away the fat and give it your best guess if you have to.

I'm all about usefullness... I just hadn't given it a title. I believe that what people believe about the afterlife, for example, is exactly what is right and what will happen for them. I don't need a comforting thought, though. Dead is dead.
I tend to abosorb the information and discard what I don't feel is helpful or in line with my current beliefs. It's like those damn extra puzzle pieces that are left in the box after the whole image is complete. You know they came from somwhere, but if they don't fit, get rid of them. At least that's how I approach a lot of it. Then again, I usually keep the extra pieces and try to turn them into something else, so maybe that's not a good analogy. I typically acknowledge the information and store it somewhere, because the likelihood of running across it again is rather high in some cases and I need to know how to argue my point.

I think I do the same thing, noodle. I try to incorporate all the information I can, but there's a lot that isn't immediately useful or even accurate.

I guess this is fundamentally a question about how one deals with unresolvable uncertainty. Does it make sense to cling to familiar ideas even when they are functionally no different from other, less familiar but perhaps more useful ideas?

To decide anything, you have to use your imagination, right? Our personally useful ideas come from inside, & are decided between unconsciously. Choosing between the outside ones might be counterproductive.

We haven't had intercourse in an elevator yet, for instance.

I've never thought of choices as being unconscious or non-conscious. When I make a choice, I examine two (or more) options; I pick one and quite purposely deny the other. Do you have an example of an unconsious choice?

Is it possible to choose to believe something because it is true? Maybe that's what you meant regarding predictive value.

People make unconscious choices all of the time. I think that it's mainly a matter of choosing to believe something without actually understanding the implications of that belief. I think that's it's mostly a result of a lack of self reflections.

It is possible to choose to believe something because it is true. But given the vast amount of completely unverifiable assertions and the fact that they all must necessarily be built upon a foundation of unverifiable assertions, it's much more likely that one is choosing to believe something for a reason that isn't truth-based.

Choosing to believe in the most true-seeming idea at any given time doesn't equate with a commitment to truth, it equates to a commitment to plausibility.

I have neither the time nor the patience to "believe" in things. If it's not reality, it's a waste of time.

You can't avoid believing in things.

filtherton, MSD confirmed predictions of the end of the world by calling believers idiots. I believe some misspeaking might have been involved: I'm an uninformative model my damn self.