Four Fingers

Mike said, "Billy killed Candy."
Billy's prints were found on the murder weapon.

Given these facts, and assuming the standard assumptions about people and life, the simplest explanation of what had really happend is that Billy indeed killed Candy. Another posibility, though, is that Mike framed Billy, and then lied when he said that Billy had killed Candy. Of course, taking the prints on the weapon into account, this possibility is much less reasonable than the first one.


Now let's say we hate Mike because he runs a software monopoly. And let's say we love Billy, because he's very charismatic and he's always nice to us. It'd make us much happier if Mike turned out to be the killer, who framed Billy. Even though this possibility is less probable, we'd enjoy hearing about it, and in a sense, believing in it as well.

Whenever we'd find an article on the web, pointing out the possiblity that Mike lied, we'd rejoice, read it a couple of time, and then forward it to all of our friends. This happend because it makes us feel good to do so. When, in contrast, we'd come across an article presenting the more probable possiblity, we'd stop reading it in the middle and try to forget it. This happens because reading the article makes us feel bad.


Even though at first we would acknowledge that the second possibility is unlikely, slowly we'd start believing in it. Slowly, it'd become our default explanation to what happend when Candy died. And then, when Candy's friend would die, and Monty would be blamed for it, we'd say it was Mike again. After all, he's already killed Candy and blamed Billy for it, so it's pretty likely that he also killed her friend, and then framed Monty.


What happend here is that gradually we built a firm belief that Mike is an evil person, even though we were choosing the less likely possibilites everytime. We lied to ourselves, because it made us happier.


Now, isn't it possible and highly-feasable that a group of religiously fanatic people decided to attack those of other religions? Isn't it probably that it took advantage of the crappy security in airports, took over airplanes, and then crashed them into buildings? It's possible; it's probable; and it has happend before.

Interestingly, some people choose to believe the less-likely possiblity, that Bush and the CIA were behind the attacks. That somehow they tricked the entire world. People choose to belive that not fanaticism lead the events, but rather that a huge and complicated master-plan stood behind them.

Maybe, just maybe, this happens because they already dislike Bush, and it would make them happier to have Bush as the villain. What if Bush is really a great guy? What if some false assumptions assumed to make us happier, turned us against him - just a bit. But then, something else happend that made us hate him more. And slowly, we were certain that he is an evil man. Slowly, we followed the less likely path and formed a lie in our brain. We formed a false belief that Bush is not the great guy he really is.

When you watch Bowling for Columbine, do you enjoy it because the actual truth is exposed, or because you enjoy believing the certain truth that is shown? Why do you like conspiracy theories so much? Isn't the truth good enough for you?

Think about it.

__________________
"Always do right - this will gratify some and astonish the rest."

wilbjammin

So... I'm really confused here. First off, how is this a philosophy post? Secondly, are you suggesting that Micheal Moore is wrong because his evidence could be wrong about Bush? It seems to me that if you're going to take that approach you should do the same things that scholars of all subjects do - research, post evidence, and give a convincing argument using that evidence. Micheal Moore didn't say that Bush planned the terrorist attacks, so I really don't follow your logic here. Also, why do you think Bush is such a great guy? It sounds like your evidence for this is that the counterfactual to this (which you pose as only speculation) might be wrong. I just don't get it... how does this prove or support anything?

__________________
Innominate.

Mantus

A damn nice post Four Fingers

Allot to think and talk about so ill get started.

Four Fingers is correct in his observation that people tend to be dogmatic towards their own point of view.

I will try to use the case of Mike, Billy and the dead Candy to illustrate how this determination to prove one’s own point can run amok in a large group of people.

Lets assume that both Mike and Billy are truly bad people.

- Mike says Billy did it.
- Group A (the skeptics) doesn’t like either; they say either could have killed Candy.

At this point several new groups arrive on the seen. These are people new to the issue and do not have a full view of it.

- Group B never had a reason to think Mike was bad.
- Group C believes that Mike did it.
- Group D believes that Billy did it.
- Group E start disliking Mike because they assume he killed Candy.
- Group F start liking Billy because they assume he was the victim of Mike.

This is an example of what could happen if an argument ensues between the different groups.

- Group A claims that either man could have killed Candy.
- Group C claims that Mike did kill Candy and think that Group A supports their claim.
- Group D claims that group A only supports the theory that Mike killed Candy.
- Group E claims that group A and C supports their claims.
- Group F claims that group A and C supports their claims.
- Group B claims that group A and C like Billy because they have support of F.
- Group D claims that A and C claim that Mike killed Candy because they like Billy.
- Group B claims that group D supports their claims.
- Group F claims that group D likes Mike.
- Group C claims that group D thinks Mike innocent only because they like Mike.

By this time we have a hell of knot to untangle. That’s not even the end of it…

Four Fingers’ observation is correct; each group only sees the evidence that supports their own case. They end up using other group’s cases to support their own even though the groups have different views. As the arguments get mixed up groups opposing a certain argument will attack totally irrelevant groups (who borrow the competition’s argument) in an attempt to indirectly disprove their competition.

Mantus

Concerning Bowling for Columbine I rather enjoyed the movie for its social commentary rather then the message. I believe Mike contradicted himself. His intent was to show that gun’s are bad and that they don’t solve anything. Instead the movie showed me that guns are not the cause but symptom of our degrading society and I really enjoyed the movie for that.

People who are against guns might not have seen the contradiction in the movie or like Four Fingers illustrates only saw what they wanted to see. When such a person walks up to me and asks if I like the movie and hears my positive response they might assume that I like the movie for the same reason they do. Further more when they are arguing with some one who is pro-gun they might use my positive opinion of the movie to support their own point. Even though I don’t like it for the reason they do. Now a person might hear this and think that if two people share the same view then they might be right, so this person chooses to believe the anti-gun advocate out of faith.

I believe this is a nice illustration of how poor beliefs are able to proliferate and gain support.

Four Fingers

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was trying to discuss a certain phenomenon, which is universal, and thusly belongs to the philosophy forum. The phenomenon is well-known and has been studied for a long time. I'm talking about the familiar situation of people holding obviously false beliefs. What people think is true often differs from what is actually true.


One intereseting approach to studying the phenomenon is trying to see how these beliefs are formed. I've constructed a virtual situation demonstrating how our brains might trick us into believing something that is untrue. What followed was a real-world example of the same self-deluding process. Another interesting example is how people in France preferred to believe that Dreyfus was guilty even though it was proven beyond all doubt that he was innocent.


We should fight this phenomenon, and there's no better place to start than in our own silly brains. To see if you're building a false belief, try to see why you enjoy certain political articles you read. If you enjoy them because you feel that they have educated you and have shown you the truth, then all is good. But if you see that you're enjoying it because it greatly fits together with your emotions - then something is smelly up there, in your mind.


My closing claim was that most of the people who think that Bush and the CIA were behind 9/11 were in fact lying to themselves. They trust a less-probable possiblity because it fits perfectly with their current emotions regarding Bush. Don't let this happen to you.

__________________
"Always do right - this will gratify some and astonish the rest."

Mantus

Or are you lying to yourself?

I am a skeptic in such a situation. I don’t find the governments explanations satisfactory and therefore am not ready to put my faith in it.

Journeyman

Off topic, but the first two sentences of FF's post ignited a brain fart in my head.

If I killed someone with my bare hands, would the cops say they found my finger prints on the murder weapon?

wilbjammin

Ah, I get it... I think there was something about how that was worded that really confused me. Maybe because it was in parabol form...

Anyway... It reminds me of 1999 when we had a bunch of protesters on campus and when asked why they were protesting they all said the same things, but could really give any facts... it was kinda scary. All of that emotion, all of that action, and without any information... Of course, it wasn't much better than the college Republicans standing on the steps of the President's Hall in a pro-war rally. A veteran walked by and shook his head, "Why don't you all just join up then?"

Its good to pay attention to what your values are, why you have them, and how they affect how you look at events. Agreed.

__________________
Innominate.