I came in this morning and noticed that there were no new messages. Is
TIPS dying out? Oh well, I'll send out to you some thought I was having
this morning and see if any of you nibble.
In teaching my courses, I often think about what seems to be a gulf
between how I view the world and how many of my students, as well as the
wider American culture, seem to view the world. This difference involves
the notion of "belief" and what is required to say that one's belief is
valid. Let me give two examples of what I mean. William L. Laurence, a
reporter for the New York _Herald-Tribune_ during the mid-1900s,
described an incident in which an editor had killed a story on cosmic
rays. The editor explained to the writer of the story that the
"publisher doesn't like cosmic rays, and neither do I. Furthermore, let
me tell you, I don't believe in atoms and have but slight faith in
molecules" (quoted in Burnham, 1987). I have had similar experiences
with students. I have sometimes been told by students that they don't
"believe in" some class topic (such as human evolution), as if the
matter were one of faith instead of a preponderance of evidence.
In Western culture, our ideas about belief (especially those underlying
our notions about "valid beliefs") are deeply influenced by the model of
faith as exemplified especially by religious figures. According to my
dictionary, faith is an "unquestioning belief that DOES NOT REQUIRE
proof or evidence." In a post I wrote last February, I said that:
"...this definition paints an ideal that is not often, or perhaps is
never, seen in real life: people always require SOME evidence if they
are going to continue to hold a belief. The problem is how they process
new information with regard to this belief. My guess is that, when a
belief is based on faith, what this means IN PRACTICE is that people are
more likely to discount evidence that is not consistent with their
beliefs..."
In our courses, our students' attitudes (even the nonreligious ones I
would suspect) must be deeply influenced by the models of faith that
they have been shown in religious teachings, as well as in the media,
since early childhood. In my own experience, the message I was taught
was that, to believe without evidence is a sign of one's moral or
spiritual worthiness. I think that this is a message that many of us
have been taught in the wider culture as well as in our own particular
subcultures (and it probably is one reason why scientists are seen
relatively often in a negative light). Even more important, if one
continues to have faith even in the face of contradictory evidence,
one's worthiness and even superiority becomes even more apparent.
What is the basis of faith? Can it be anything more than one's "feeling"
about something--a feeling based on emotion and intuition? Since the
1960s, in particular, American culture has raised "feeling" to a vaulted
position, it seems to me. One's feelings now take precedence over the
quantity and quality of reasoned argument. In my experience with
students, my family, and others, many people seem to have the following
attitude: "if I 'feel' that you're wrong, then you're probably missing
something important in your reasoning." They then feel justified in
holding on to their faith in the belief under question, and seem
relatively unbothered by this.
This attitude seems to me be be most problematic when the belief
involves things that are unseen (such as atoms in the example above or
human evolution), unknown (because the topic has been relatively
unstudied), or nonphysical (such as the mental events studied by us
psychologists). With such beliefs, scientific evidence tends to be
circumstantial and inferential. It may be easier to discount such
evidence when one has faith that one's own beliefs are valid.
If I am right about this, then our jobs in the classroom are very
difficult indeed--perhaps impossible for most students. In teaching the
_science_ of psychology, we are trying to help develop in them a
worldview where faith has no place. We cannot expect to convince many of
them that this is the case. It is very difficult to learn that, NO
MATTER HOW CERTAIN ONE "FEELS" THAT ONE'S BELIEF IS CORRECT, THIS IS NOT
EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE BELIEF. It is difficult because, in the ideal
model of faith, evidence is not required.
This is how I am seeing all of this right now. What are your thoughts on
this?
Jeff
Reference: Burnham, J. C. (1987). _How superstition won and science
lost: Popularizing science and health in the United States_. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"No one can accept the fundamental hypotheses of scientific psychology
and be in the least mystical."
Knight Dunlap
