Rick presented a number of examples and illustrations of how beliefs can
be at odds with scientific evidence. At the heart of Rick's comments and
question [following]
> How can we come to a more reliable basis for deciding what to believe and
> what not to believe? This is part of being a learning organization... When
> collectively we come to hold a more effective (more valid) set of beliefs.
is the distinction between the rational and emotional. I may respond from
a rational stance that I see no scientific evidence of cosmic justice and
yet my belief can be unshakable. Humans frequently fail to integrate
rational knowledge with intuitive knowledge, and the result is that these
two ways of knowing continue to be in conflict.
Additionally, people have varying degrees of demand for evidence. The
evidence needed to satisfy and fortify my belief in UFOs may be
significantly greater than the evidence required to support my belief in a
divine creator, even though I have no evidence for either. Social norms
may play a part in making some beliefs easier or more difficult to accept.
Unless we eliminate intuitive ways of knowing and emotions, I do not think
that the goal of totally reliable knowledge can exist. There will always
be a portion of our knowledge that reaches beyond what can be seen and
experienced, tied to creativity, experimentation, exploration, and faith.
kind regards,
Vana Prewitt
Praxis Learning Systems
Chapel Hill, NC USA
www.PraxisLearning.com
--Vana Prewitt <vana@PraxisLearning.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>