Imagine you would see a fact that contradict your deepest believes, the core of who you are. This fact is uncontestable, is evidence in its purest form, is something that happened and you know with 100% certainty that it happened. But this fact also is against what define you as a person, your most profound thoughts. Either political, religious , philosophical or moral believes, whatever sits deepetin you.
Do you think this evidence would make you change your mind, or not?
27 Comments
Hapankaali@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 31d
I make it a point of principle to never be dogmatic, and nothing can change my mind.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe · 4 pts · 31d
Lol.
Enjoy my upvote.
i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca · 18 pts · 31d
If it’s presented coherently and I can clearly map it against my own preconceived notions, yes.
If it’s a bunch of sloppy catchphrases that would require me to do a bunch of work and research to unpack their argument and THEN apply it to my world, no.
Nemo@slrpnk.net · 10 pts · 31d
I'm a natural skeptic. Everything I believe is up for reëxamination and debate.
tigermountain@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 30d
You'll be surprised when you find out how much cognitive dissonance people can tolerate.
CombatWombat@feddit.online · 6 pts · 31d
Absolutely. There are things that I believe that I know in my very heart of hearts are incorrect, and I simply have to believe them to continue operating as a human being. For me, it is much more important that an idea is useful than that it is correct. You can tell me as many times as you want that as one human of 8 billion on a tiny planet on the outskirts of an unremarkable galaxy that I simply do not matter, but I'll never stop believing that I do.
Elting@piefed.social · 6 pts · 31d
I would hope I could change my mind in light of overwhelming evidence, but likely I would rather make note of an alternative view and quietly reject it. Perhaps sitting with the evidence for a long time would make it more tenable to me.
toiletobserver@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 31d
Thanos was right, change my mind.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 30d
snap
you no longer exist thus your position and any argument you may have had for it is irrelevant.
....also like, he mainly said he did it because too many people = they starve and fight over scarce resources.
ecological systems will generally maintain a steady state so long as they can adapt to gradual changes, are not exposed to virulent invasive species, and do not have rapid population booms.
Thus, just snap to alter the genetics of species that tend to overbreed/overconsume in a resource rich environment to have proportionately lower fertility rates when their environment is seemingly abundant, or just, in general.
But nope, this doesn't occur forehead folds man, who is, i will remind you, a genius.
He decides to be an invasive species via his imperial expansionism, and then to massively unbalance every ecological system in the universe that involves sentient/sapient species... two things that are guaranteed to exacerbate and cause the thing he says he wants to stop or prevent.
Bro doesn't understand ecology or biology, he just has PTSD and CTE he erroneously thinks is stoicism.
Its like being presented with the trolley problem, but you have magic god powers that can just slow the trolley to a gradual stop....and then throwing the switch lever anyway.
Its ....really just bad writing, especially given that a fair number of the Avengers themsleves, in universe, should canonically know what I just explained. But this never occurs to any of them either.
SharkWeek@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 30d
toiletobserver@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 30d
I no longer exist? Thank you, I'll be napping if you need me
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 30d
I wouldn't have the beliefs I do today if I was incapable of being persuaded by logic, facts, and statistics.
wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe · 4 pts · 30d
Again? I'd just give up having values at this point and become even more absurdist I guess
RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 31d
No, evidence changes my opinions all the time.
quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 31d
I've changed before, I could probably do it again.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 31d
I can't really think of many deepest beliefs that could even be contradicted. The core of who I am isn't really to have strong opinions on something, but instead to be chill and touch grass from time to time.
groet@feddit.org · 1 pts · 30d
Sounds like you (and me) believe that humans are good creatures and will do moral things just because they are moral. Evil comes after from external influences.
What if a study proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that humans have objective morality in the form of a soul. And that this soul is objectively evil and all humans only do good things because we fear repercussions?
I would not believe it.
moondoggie@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 30d
I don’t have any beliefs that define me as a person and don’t really have any deepest believes. I grew up in the south for almost 30 years, moved to the west coast for five, then over to the east coast for another 20. Politics, religion, philosophy, and morality are all a sliding scale depending on what and how much is around you. Things are what they are where you are. The farther you expand your circle, the more room you have for new viewpoints. People everywhere are amazing and kind, people everywhere are boring and shitty. You’ve gotta keep your mouth shut and your mind open until you get the lay of the land. Then you find your family and grow together.
Still, I’d rather be dogmatic than catmatic.
SharkWeek@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 30d
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 30d
The proven truth will always change my mind. I guess I'm pro-science.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 2 pts · 30d
Like some hypothetical fact that killing folks is good. Nope. would not change my mind.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 30d
Only about belief (from cosmology to ethics), not material reality. And yes, they're two fields that simply cannot mix, but the latter can lead to/point towards the former.
dogs0n@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 30d
Definitely got the dog in me, I think I can get matic too.
FaceDeer@fedia.io · 2 pts · 30d
I would hope so, but you're laying it on pretty thick with this hypothetical scenario. Makes it hard to imagine.
RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 30d
I don't need beliefs that inflexible.
Aeri@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 28d
I mean it would probably fuck with me pretty bad. But ultimately I'd probably accept it Ifthe proof that as airtight?
sunsofold@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 28d
If I had my understanding of the world that deeply shaken, I'd be in the throws of Lovecraftian insanity. I would have even less certainty of anything than the already low certainty I have now. That's a 'vampire problem.' There's no way of guessing what I might do if I was that fundamentally derealised.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe · 2 pts · 31d
Sometimes.
So I work hard to not be.
To the rest of the question, we all struggle with data that conflicts with our paradigm, what we think we know.
It's not easy to try to integrate new information that conflicts with strongly founded views.
Junkers_Klunker@feddit.dk · 2 pts · 31d
I fucking hope so. But then again, I’m an idiot so i might not 🙃