What factors contribute to individuals holding onto their personal beliefs despite scientific evidence contradicting them?

[Alvin_255]

There are many factors and reasons that lead a person to hold onto their beliefs and personal opinions, even when they contradict certain facts and scientific theories. The most prominent of these factors and reasons can be summarized as follows:

1. Cognitive Frameworks that Underpin Beliefs and Opinions: When individuals rely on a metaphysical or ideological framework for their convictions and beliefs, rooted in emotional psychological influences and specific logical constructs, they often find that the central roots of their religious or ideological beliefs are based on emotional ties rather than rational reasoning. This emotional connection provides them with a sense of security and psychological stability, allowing them to reject any scientific theory or fact that contradicts their beliefs.

2. Personal Existential Concepts: Sometimes, when a person believes in a particular view of consciousness and existence, this perspective serves as a criterion for evaluating and judging various cognitive and scientific outputs. For example, if someone believes that existence is merely an illusion and that individual consciousness is also an individual illusion claiming to know the truths, it becomes easy for that person to reject any scientific product, regardless of its significance or evidence.

3. Incorrect Scientific Concepts: If an individual possesses incorrect scientific concepts, such as a misunderstanding of the scientific theory and its distinction from scientific truth, they may consider any scientific theory as merely a non-fixed possibility, regardless of the evidence supporting it. They might assert that scientific truth is only absolute and cannot be denied or refuted, which allows them to dismiss any credible scientific theory that contradicts their personal beliefs.

4. Ignorance of Scientific Methodologies and Rational Knowledge: When a person is unable to understand the epistemology of sciences, its methodologies, verification methods, and other aspects related to scientific thinking, along with ignorance of reasoning tools, types of logic, forms of evidence, and methods of judgment and preference, it becomes easy for them to reject any scientific or cognitive product that conflicts with their personal beliefs.

 

[dosho12]

I beieve in science but they are some criteria in which cause me not to believe in some scientific theories but not all
1. I dont believe in theory of evolution that human beings came from chimpanzee, and that the bing bang happen on its own
2. I believe in the existence of a soul even though that cant be proven scientifically
3. contradiction of scientific theories like the bing bang theory which explains the universe came from a singular point and it is still expanding while steady state theory explains that the universe is unchanging and does not evolve so which is true

I have listed them based on the factors

 

[Alvin_255]

I beieve in science but they are some criteria in which cause me not to believe in some scientific theories but not all
1. I dont believe in theory of evolution that human beings came from chimpanzee, and that the bing bang happen on its own
2. I believe in the existence of a soul even though that cant be proven scientifically
3. contradiction of scientific theories like the bing bang theory which explains the universe came from a singular point and it is still expanding while steady state theory explains that the universe is unchanging and does not evolve so which is true

I have listed them based on the factors

Science is based on facts, not beliefs. In order to be a theory it has to have facts to support it.

Evolution is an established fact. So in the common vernacular usage, this means that evolution itself is true. Darwin’s theory was the first successful explanation of the observed facts of evolution. Darwin’s theory is true, but it is incomplete. We know a lot more now and it is no longer “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.”

The definition of evolution is essentially, “Changes in the heritable characteristics in a population over time.”

This has been shown to occur every single day. Small amounts of time resulting in small changes in the populations. Large amounts of time can result in very large changes in the populations. When populations split, due to many possible different reasons, you may end up with two different species that go their own way and down their own evolutionary path, resulting in the end in very different creatures.

Evolution existed before Darwin. Darwin did not invent it. However he understood it better than anyone up until that point. He pulled together massive evidence to show how it worked. And that is his theory of evolution. It was the first theory of evolution that actually could be tested and found to have actual scientific support, which is the observed tested evidence of the evolution itself.

Darwin's theory has since been added to tremendously and surpassed. It is remarkable that it has held consistent despite all the modern discoveries of things such as biochemistry, proteomics, genetics, chromosomes, cell structure, and many many other things that he had no idea of. Every single one of those things just contributed more evidence to support the theory of evolution, and only made it better. So, yes, that is a successful predictive model. And that is why he gets credit for having such a well-founded well demonstrated explanation.

 

[Alvin_255]

I beieve in science but they are some criteria in which cause me not to believe in some scientific theories but not all
1. I dont believe in theory of evolution that human beings came from chimpanzee, and that the bing bang happen on its own
2. I believe in the existence of a soul even though that cant be proven scientifically
3. contradiction of scientific theories like the bing bang theory which explains the universe came from a singular point and it is still expanding while steady state theory explains that the universe is unchanging and does not evolve so which is true

I have listed them based on the factors

All in all You misunderstand the scientific use of the word “theory”. A theory can never be proved, it can only be disproved. Newton's gravity is a theory. Electromagnetic theory, which describes how our power grids and electric motors, is a theory.

Science has two classes of idea: facts, and explanations. Facts are measurements, observations. Explanations are what we use to explain to what causes the facts. They start as a hypothesis. You then devise experiments to test the hypothesis by using it to make predictions. If the predictions don’t turn out, the hypothesis is discarded. If you repeatedly make predictions, and repeatedly find they are right, the hypothesis becomes a theory. And theory is as good as it gets. It stands until a better theory comes along,

And the Big Bang Theory is the best we have. The other major theory, the Steady State Theory, was discarded decades ago because it couldn’t explain a whole lot of stuff that the Big Bang Theory could.

 

[dosho12]

In order to be a theory it has to have facts to support it.

And what happen when the theory get debunked or have some contradiction foristance science say nothing can go faster than the speed of light, tachyons are particles which is said they can move faster than light, or as i said about the bing bang theory and the stead theory if both have some facts then they may be both wrong because they cant both right

 

[Alvin_255]

I beieve in science but they are some criteria in which cause me not to believe in some scientific theories but not all
1. I dont believe in theory of evolution that human beings came from chimpanzee, and that the bing bang happen on its own
2. I believe in the existence of a soul even though that cant be proven scientifically
3. contradiction of scientific theories like the bing bang theory which explains the universe came from a singular point and it is still expanding while steady state theory explains that the universe is unchanging and does not evolve so which is true

I have listed them based on the factors

And about the existence of soul take this and digest When someone dies we say he /she passed away, don't we? But, body is still there so who passed away. It's the same body, still even most beautiful peagents look terrible when they are dead. So what's lacking ??

However in Philosophical Sciences, like metaphysics:

Following Aristotle and Aquinas, the principle that explains human non-material operations (which is called 'soul’) is totally different from matter and energy, hence it completely escapes the scope of natural sciences — no experiment can be performed about it.

 

[mshamba_hachekwi]

Indoctrination: Being constantly fed religious rhetoric from childhood definitely does something to you.

 

[Mnyenz]

where iz jf translator???

kiswahili please.

 

[Fortilo]

Because they're lots of natural forces in human life that defy science...

And science have failed to answer all of the humans life problems and sufferings.

Sometimes instead of answering the most difficult questions it justify them....

Mind you, im speaking as a scientist.

 

[Alvin_255]

Indoctrination: Being constantly fed religious rhetoric from childhood definitely does something to you.

One might equally ask, if you still use the same numbers you used as a child, or the same letters, are you not overly biased?

Questioning whether something is true based on how you came by it is known as the Genetic Fallacy. In reality, whether you heard about something as a child, or later in life has no impact on whether or not it is well-founded.
If your religious beliefs are identical to those you held when you were five years old, then this would suggest a lack of development, in the same way that if your reading and counting had not improved since you were five, you would be considered to have poor numeracy and literacy. However, aside from people with learning disabilities, I’ve never met anyone who believed in the same way they believed as a child. People’s ideas about God develop.

This does not mean that their early ideas were wrong, any more than we consider the numbers one to ten wrong simply because we learned them as children. Understanding calculus does not mean you cease to believe in addition.

 

[dosho12]

If scientific laws and theory can be proven and disproven then
What about Laws which can not be proven or disproven like Murphy's Law should we call it scientific laws, philosophical laws or religious laws

 

[zerominus10]

Wajomba samahanini kidogo naomba kuuliza hivi hapa Choo kipo maeneo gani? Nataka nikapunguze mzigo gogo linaita

 

[RESILIENT KATO]

When scientific reasons fail to solve situations in real life then deep rooted beliefs are optional!

A patient diagnosis shows no signs of illnesses and still a patient complains and visual symptoms are real why don't we try the other side!!?

Science doesn't solve everyday life situations we encounter!

By experience

 

[Alvin_255]

Because they're lots of natural forces in human life that defy science...

And science have failed to answer all of the humans life problems and sufferings.

Sometimes instead of answering the most difficult questions it justify them....

Mind you, im speaking as a scientist.

In a literal sense, there is no ultimate solution to all human problems. Problems are inherent in the nature of physical existence. Today’s solutions are tomorrow’s problems. Horses were a problem on city streets, which was solved by the automobile. Now automobiles are the problem. If we look at the problem of early death, we might solve the problem, by extending the average lifespan from 50 years to 100 years. Then we will have the problem of how to extend the brief lifetime of 100 years to something longer. And if people never died of old age, then we would have created a problem of choosing between death by overpopulation and euthanasia.

In the more restricted sense of “solution,” that is, the general improvement of the human condition, there is indeed more required than just science. The kinds of solutions contemplated in the previous paragraph can be accomplished by science, but improvement in the general condition of society requires something that speaks to the spirit of humankind, not just to our bodies. This thing that speaks to our spirits has always sprung out of religion. Although religion today seems to be a source of problems more than of solutions, it was not always so, and will not always be so.

In summary, while science is a powerful tool for addressing human problems, a multifaceted approach that includes ethical considerations, social engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for creating lasting solutions.
RESILIENT KATO

 

[dosho12]

If i see an animal and prove it its cat and all of the majority prove its a cat, then after two years another person disprove me and found that it was not a cat it was a dog, the after some years another person disprove and found it is donkey not a dog so should we say for fact its donkey or say for now its donkey cause may be another person may test the theory and found its not,
if theory can diproven by another theory how should we trust a present theory if some day it may be disproven

 

[Alvin_255]

If i see an animal and prove it its cat and all of the majority prove its a cat, then after two years another person disprove me and found that it was not a cat it was a dog, the after some years another person disprove and found it is donkey not a dog so should we say for fact its donkey or say for now its donkey cause may be another person may test the theory and found its not,
if theory can diproven by another theory how should we trust a present theory if some day it may be disproven

First you should understand what is theory

There are two definitions.

In popular parlance, a theory is a hypothesis just an idea or suggestion.

To a scientist, a theory is a set of explanations of the workings of something observed.

A scientific theory is constructed to explain an observed or discovered fact or phenomenon. It is put together by collating all the descriptions, measurements, experimental data and relevant observations and then turning them into a coherent explanatory account.

The value of a theory is firstly dependent on how reliable the original observations are. Generally, a theory would not be constructed until the observations themselves had been repeatedly confirmed by multiple independent sources.

Secondly, it must provide reproducible calculations and experimental protocols in support of its stated explanations. The theory then invites anyone to see how well those explanations actually work in predicting what happens when tested against the observations. It invites other scientists to demolish and falsify, if possible, the calculations and experimental methodology used to construct those explanations. A theory is also forever subject to revision if fresh observations or new data emerge. A theory is a work in progress.

 

[Fortilo]

In a literal sense, there is no ultimate solution to all human problems. Problems are inherent in the nature of physical existence. Today’s solutions are tomorrow’s problems. Horses were a problem on city streets, which was solved by the automobile. Now automobiles are the problem. If we look at the problem of early death, we might solve the problem, by extending the average lifespan from 50 years to 100 years. Then we will have the problem of how to extend the brief lifetime of 100 years to something longer. And if people never died of old age, then we would have created a problem of choosing between death by overpopulation and euthanasia.

In the more restricted sense of “solution,” that is, the general improvement of the human condition, there is indeed more required than just science. The kinds of solutions contemplated in the previous paragraph can be accomplished by science, but improvement in the general condition of society requires something that speaks to the spirit of humankind, not just to our bodies. This thing that speaks to our spirits has always sprung out of religion. Although religion today seems to be a source of problems more than of solutions, it was not always so, and will not always be so.

In summary, while science is a powerful tool for addressing human problems, a multifaceted approach that includes ethical considerations, social engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for creating lasting solutions.
RESILIENT KATO

Well,
Now, you have placed all the answers on the first paragraph to this explanation, by throwing the important questions of life to Time....
Humans doesn't have time to wait for science to tell them what to do with their lives, they have to live.

And as a matter of fact science can't handle the brutal reality of species extinction under its watch...

If science is not final and still ongoing why do you want people to believe it.

Questions like why some people die early than others despite being on the same conditions?

The speculations and contradictions to lots of scientific discoveries makes it difficult for humans to adhere to lots of science practices and conclusions.

 

[mshamba_hachekwi]

One might equally ask, if you still use the same numbers you used as a child, or the same letters, are you not overly biased?

Questioning whether something is true based on how you came by it is known as the Genetic Fallacy. In reality, whether you heard about something as a child, or later in life has no impact on whether or not it is well-founded.
If your religious beliefs are identical to those you held when you were five years old, then this would suggest a lack of development, in the same way that if your reading and counting had not improved since you were five, you would be considered to have poor numeracy and literacy. However, aside from people with learning disabilities, I’ve never met anyone who believed in the same way they believed as a child. People’s ideas about God develop.

This does not mean that their early ideas were wrong, any more than we consider the numbers one to ten wrong simply because we learned them as children. Understanding calculus does not mean you cease to believe in addition.

Damn right.

See the problem with religious people, at least in my experience, is that they think being irreligous means knowing everything about science.

They think being irreligious means you have all the answers.

They think having all the answers is important.

They overlook the very simple reasons behind secularism.

They don't understand that it's not about the answers, it's about being content with those answers....

 

[dosho12]

Damn right.

See the problem with religious people, at least in my experience, is that they think being irreligous means knowing everything about science.

They think being irreligious means you have all the answers.

They think having all the answers is important.

They overlook the very simple reasons behind secularism.

They don't understand that it's not about the answers, it's about being content with those answers....

Agreed but also irreligious people should know that being religious does not mean you don't believe in science at all
And just like science can disprove anything which is not fact also religion can disapprove something which is does not abide by the holy scriptures

 

[Alvin_255]

Well,
Now, you have placed all the answers on the first paragraph to this explanation, by throwing the important questions of life to Time....
Humans doesn't have time to wait for science to tell them what to do with their lives, they have to live.

And as a matter of fact science can't handle the brutal reality of species extinction under its watch...

If science is not final and still ongoing why do you want people to believe it.

Questions like why some people die early than others despite being on the same conditions?

The speculations and contradictions to lots of scientific discoveries makes it difficult for humans to adhere to lots of science practices and conclusions.

I asked a Japanese friend's of mine and he said

Before we were born, we did not get asked if we want to live. Our life just happened without our approval. Our life is not our own making. Life is a gift. So, in a way, we do not own our own lives; it was gifted to us.

If you believe in God, then God created your life. You owe your existence to God, and you have a mission to know Him and find out what He wants to do with your life.

If you don’t believe in a God, then you are created by chance. You owe your existence to nothing and no one. You were lucky you were born. You can live as you please without any sort of framework or guideline.

It’s a flip of a coin. Some live for very long periods; others die on the day they were born. There is no rhyme or reason to the circumstances of life and death.