Ethics and Tolerance Regarding Certain Beliefs

[Draemora]

Alchemy
Numerology
Astrology
Quackery in medicine
Creationism
Pseudoscience
Metaphysics
Etc...

The above are examples of ideas and beliefs that range from barely believable to simply insane when taken literally. How does one act toward these topics? With respect? With a laugh?

Also, should one help individuals or groups that are hurting themselves, physically and/or psychologically, by trying to coerce them out of said beliefs?

I ask this because I know several nice and/or important people who believe in one or more of these ideas and are unconsciously suffering from them. For example, I know of someone who's health is deteriorating due to an overreliance on homeopathy and alternative medicine. Granted, alternative medicine might have some things going for it, although a large part of it is quackery. How would one approach someone in this scenario, or any other situation that involves similar beliefs?

This isn't a very centralized debate topic, I apologize for that, but I didn't want to narrow it down.

[Ryan]

Addressing someone who has a belief in a field of science in which facts and scientific method are not mediums for advancement, should be done delicately. The person who holds such beliefs should be made aware that as they are not founded in facts or discovered through the scientific method, they should not receive the same amount of trust as facts and science should. All of the theories proposed by such fields should always be taken both with a grain of salt as well as doubt.

Also, in many cases, people promoting such fields are often con artists using the field's obscurity to take advantage of peoples lack of understanding. While not all such people are con artists, all such people should receive an equal amount of doubt as the lack of uncertainty in the field. I would not trust an astrologer to predict the future accurately, nor would I trust an alchemist with my precious metals to make them more precious. These are just a few examples.

Also, not all of the fields you listed apply to the topic I believe you were addressing. Alchemy, Numerology, Astrology, and Pseudoscience belong in one category while Creationism, Homeopathy, and Metaphysics belong in another. The first 4 are all fields in which there is no scientific base - no facts - no process. The other 3 are all either reasonable or unreasonable processed conclusions or belief systems. Creationism, while not based in facts is brought about by a fundamental series of logical conclusions based on a premise that is undeniable. Homeopathy is also not based in facts but is based on the rational conclusions due to prior experiences. And Metaphysics is a philosophical branch that purely uses reason to ask fundamental questions of the universe. Each of these last 3 hold base in the scientific method, while the other 4 are basically made up fields.

[Draemora]

That's what I meant by a bad topic. The ideas I posted are broad, but related in the sense that they can prey on people's minds.

I would actually classify them like this...

Philosophies:
Metaphysics
Alchemy and Creationism (both are philosophies to an extent)

Pseudoscience (based on unreliable sources, hazy use of scientific method):
Homeopathy
Theories proposed by creationists
The "scientific" part of Alchemy

Prediction:
Numerology
Astrology (has a philosophical base)

[Ryan]

Alchemy is an ancient tradition focused on the transmutation and creation of impossible elixirs and metals. How that qualifies as philosophy - the study of general problems is vague at best - I would not qualify Alchemy as philosophy.

Prediction sciences such as numerology and astrology are not based in fact rather random chance and as such should not be called prediction as much as guessing. Compare the number of times that these sciences are wrong compared to the number of times they are right, and it becomes less prediction and more luck.

[Draemora]

Alchemy involves a transmutation of the soul as well as physical objects. The search for the, aptly named, philosopher's stone is both a literal quest and a path of mental change to perfection. Alchemy can very much be a philosophy.

That's what I meant by ideas that prey on the mind. Numerology and astrology are forms of prediction that lack a logical base. Hence, they are not better than guessing. Nevertheless, they are still intended to be a form of predicting things.

I think you're taking what I write a bit too literally.

[Ryan]

I have not heard of the philosophy associated with the metaphysical and metaphorical meanings behind the purposes of alchemy, I apologize for my rash dismissal of that.

In any case, to prevent further misunderstanding and promote the debate to the topic you originally intended, it is best if we instead try to pose your topic more clearly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe you intended to ask how one should react if presented with a person who holds a belief that is widely regarded as non-based. These beliefs include but are not limited to the ones described in your first post. Other beliefs that fall into this category would be beliefs in which a person would not devise in todays world had they not been taught it by another. Cell phones are magic would be a good albeit primitive example of what I am attempting to explain. Someone in a modern society would not think that cell phones are magical unless someone told them that was how it was so.


If the above is a correct interpretation of what you were intending to ask, then I would argue the best way to deal with a person that holds such beliefs is to use logic and reasoning, along with their own premises to show that they must be mistaken.

[Draemora]

Hmm... More or less.

The problem with using logic and reasoning, with the intent to persuade, is that the subject might react adversely.

The subject might stick to the years and past experiences of the belief. He or she might do it out of ignorance or the simple, yet irrational, comfort of an old tradition.
The subject might be devastated by the realization and suffer unforeseen consequences such as depression or a loss of focus.
The subject might distance him or herself from you due to the opposing beliefs and your claim of him or her being irrational.

On the other hand,
They might react positively, buy they will still probably cling to your guidance.

These are mere possibilities, but they are nonetheless very probable.

[Ryan]

I'm not suggesting that you use logic to disprove their belief system or have it crash down on them. I'm also not suggesting that you provide another belief system that you believe is more right.

Basically the mode of persuasion should be as follows:
Assume logic works - this step is important, if they don't let logic work then they are beyond hope and you should probably just ignore them
Assume certain belief in their system is true - this will bring them to trust what your saying and not immediately reject you based on an opposing view.
Use logic to show fundamental fallacy - using the belief you assumed true along with good logic, show that the belief inherently implies that either another belief of theirs is false, or that something they know to be true in the world is false.

An example of this series of logic - In Alchemy there is a theoretical universal solvent called alkahest. Such a solvent can never be found - reason, it would dissolve everything until it reached the center of the earth. Such a solvent could never be used since it would dissolve any container used to store it. As such - the search for this solvent is useless.

I first assumed my logic worked. Then assumed that Alkahest might exist. Then showed that the belief that I should search for such a solvent is useless and futile. This is a very primitive example, but hopefully demonstrates my point.

By doing this, instead of crushing the subject's world views, you instead make them doubt their current world views. When people doubt their world view is when they are open and accepting to other views. Having been exposed to this type of logical reasoning though, the subject is less likely to accept world views that are not coherent or based in semi-factual claims.

[Lyserg Zeroz]

It depends on many things (for example, the kind of person you are discussing with, the belief in discussion, the purpose of the discussion).

If someone else is approaching you to talk about some silly belief system, then I think it's better to ignore or be respectful.
I would probably be interested in the why they believe whatever they believe in, and if possible start a respectful discussion. In my opinion a good start would be to ask why this person believes in whatever belief system they have, and maybe have them explain it to you. Some people believe stuff simply because they were indoctrinated to believe them, some never gave good thought about why they actually believe what they believe in, some believe something just because they think it is a comfortable or interesting belief, or because they don't know better. In this case the discussion is not on the belief itself, but on the why a person got to believe it, then you can make someone doubt a belief system even without discussing the belief system itself (of course, most of the time this is not enough, but it's a start).