Skip to main content

Reason vs other methods of influencing belief

There are (at least) two ways in which we can attempt to influence the beliefs of others: 

(i) we can use reason. We can provide scientific and other evidence to support beliefs, subject them to critical scrutiny, reveal contradictions and inconsistencies, and so on.
 (ii) we can appeal to such mechanisms as peer-pressure, emotional manipulation, reward and punishment, humour, sarcasm, repetition, fear (especially of uncertainty), tribalism, censorship, vanity, and so on.
Now, we philosophers put a lot of emphasis on (i) rather than (ii), don't we? Why is that?
I suggest the answer is: because reason is truth-sensitive. Try to make a well-reasoned case for believing the Earth's core is made of cheese, or that the Antarctic is populated by ant-people, or that Prince Philip is an alien lizard in disguise. You're not going to find it easy. Apply the filter of reason - under which I include the scientific method - to incoming beliefs and only those with a fairly good chance of being true are likely to get through. That's why we favour the filter of reason. We want to believe, and want others to believe, what's true.

The mechanisms listed under (ii), on the other hand, can just as easily be used to instil true beliefs as false beliefs. They are truth-insensitive. 

Cults, advertising salespeople, and so on tend to favour the latter mechanisms in order to try to get people to believe. Applied consistently and systematically, they can be very powerful mechanisms.  Religious schools have traditionally relied primarily upon such mechanisms for inculcating religious belief in young people. Religious schools are traditionally tribal; they apply: peer pressure, fear of hell, hope of heaven, rose-tinted versions of belief in which the less attractive parts are airbrushed out or ignored, endless repetition of key dogmas, positive images of saints, Popes, imams and rabbis, and scary images of the world of the unbeliever and all its terrifying uncertainties. Political parties also exploit these mechanisms very effectively. 

If we want to believe what is true (and I do) applying reason is a very good idea. But that's not to say that the other mechanisms are not important. Yes, no one with an interest in promoting a concern with truth should rely wholly on the latter, truth-insensitive mechanisms. However, the fact is, reason alone will likely fail in many cases to persuade. A cogent argument is often far less persuasive than a few emotive anecdotes, for example. Compare statistics on alternative medicine with a few well-chosen tales of astonishing 'cures' - the latter will emotionally trump the former, and sit more easily in the memory, every time. Tabloid front pages almost always lead with anecdotes rather than dry data, and for good reason - juicy, personalised tales sell newspapers; statistics and charts do not. 

So, it's not that philosophers and freethinkers should shy away from using humour, emotive anecdotes, peer pressure, and so on. These mechanisms probably should form a part of our arsenal. But the bottom line is, they should not be the foundation. Our foundation should always involve applying reason as far as it will go. Once we lose that foundation, we're no better than the cults or advertising agencies ourselves. 

And of course, when people accuse the free thought movement, philosophers, etc. of being a cult, of being just another 'religion', and so on, we can now explain why we are not.
We free thinkers always reach for the sword of reason. It is a double-edged sword. It cuts both ways. It favours not the 'teacher's' view over the 'pupil's' but the truth. It's a weapon that the pupil can just as easily and effectively use against their teacher. Which is why many so-called educators prefer to either downplay the role of reason it or avoid it altogether. They rely instead on those other mechanisms which do, always, favour the view of the teacher over that of the pupil, irrespective of what's actually true. Trouble is, the result is not education but indoctrination.


Jason Thibodeau said…
There is another reason to prefer reason to the mechanisms in (ii), a moral reason. Appealing to reason in order to change someone's beliefs is consistent with respecting that person's autonomy. Manipulation and appeals to fear, peer-pressure, and rewards and punishments all undermine autonomy. The principle here is that a person who values her capacity to make her own decisions about what to believe and what to do should value the information necessary to making good decisions. Information relevant to making decisions about what to believe and what to do is known as reasons. Thus, autonomy requires access to reasons.

Since autonomy should be respected, we ought to appeal to reason and eschew the other mechanisms.
Blair said…
What about "nudging" people to good actions through appropriate laws? E.g. making organ donation opt-in rather than opt-out. Or forbidding tobacco ads. This clearly belongs to II, but it doesn't seem bad.

Popular posts from this blog

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o