Just because something is widely believed doesn’t make it true.

Some people are absolutely certain about certain truths. This says more about them than it does about the truth.

Only the ignorant have no doubts.

Sometimes a group is strong enough to impose its beliefs or its will on others, and it is sometimes prudent for others to at least pretend to believe. This of course doesn’t make these beliefs true.

We do not see the world as it is, but as it appears to us to be. This is dependent not only upon the world as it is but upon our perceiving senses and upon our processing brains. Our attention, thoughts, and preconceptions affect what we believe we see.

We will not discover the way the world really is by sitting in a darkened room and contemplating. We need to get out and experience the world as it really is and seek out beliefs that align with the way we find the world to really be.

Whilst there are no absolute truths, we still need to act and behave as though there were. If we are to act effectively in life we need to do so without continually questioning everything. There are thus truths we should accept as being ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, albeit always being willing to question them should circumstances or more information throw some doubt on them.

There is nothing hypocritical about acting firmly on the basis of something as though it were true, even though we know it might not be true. To get things done in this world we need to act decisively. However we should also keep an open mind about how things really are, and be willing to change our minds if there is convincing evidence that we should.

Some truths are more reasonable than others. We should base our explanations, decisions, and actions on the reasonableness of truths, not on some unachievable absoluteness of truth. The term ‘truth’, when applied in an everyday context, should thus be taken as reference to what it is reasonable to believe.

Notwithstanding our inability to be absolutely certain about anything in the real world, there is a consistency, a ‘stickiness’, about the real world which means for the most part that what we sense seems to be largely the same things most other people sense. We can however be readily mistaken in what we sense if we are only given a few moments to sense it, or we are only able to partially sense it, or we are distracted by other things when we sense it.

We should differentiate between what we sense, and what we assume or derive based upon what we sense. For example, we sense the sun rising above the horizon in the morning; we do not sense either the sun going around the world or the world going around the sun.

Circumstantial evidence is where there are a number of probably true relationships that compound to give a likely true statement. The final statement is not absolutely proven, but is what is judged likely to be the case. Generally we should act on the basis of what is most likely. However when the consequences of being wrong are severe it is often appropriate to demand a greater level of compounded probability through more circumstantial evidence. And we should also always keep in mind that that circumstantial evidence leads to probable, not certain, and thus remain open to potentially contrary evidence.

The reasonableness of truths can be determined using the following guidelines:

◦ The ‘truth’ should be consistent with other facts considered to be true, and with the absence of facts that would indicate it to be false.
◦ The ‘truth’ must, at least in principle, be capable of being proven false. This distinguishes statements from science from statements of faith. Statements of faith are rarely capable of being proven false.
◦ The ‘truth’ should be the most general and most simple consistent with (a) and (b). Obscure explanations should be rejected in favor of simple explanations, unless of course they better fit the evidence.

The most useful truths are usually those which are general, and can be widely applied, but which are easily capable of being proven false should they be so.

If someone is not willing to accept the guidelines for determining the reasonableness of truth, then there is no point in arguing with them about what is and isn’t true.

The discovery of what it is reasonable to believe about the real world should be sought through direct measurement of the real world, and the deriving of rules based on patterns observed. These rules however are only ever the best we have to date, and can and should be modified when we gain further reliable observations that don’t fit these patterns. Indeed the advancement of our scientific understanding of the world is based on actively looking to find examples of where our methods don’t work or are wrong, and then modifying our understanding to account for the shortcomings.

The vast majority of what we believe is based on third party verification and we do not have time to verify it for ourselves. But we need to have some reasonable confidence that the third party verification exists and that we can go and look at it if we want to.

There is an immense amount of third party information, and much of it is contradictory. The following are guidelines on what it is reasonable to believe:

◦ Information which is widely accepted and we know has been widely tested;
◦ Information which whilst it may not be widely accepted (yet) is testable, and if there is any doubt can thus be tested;
◦ Information we know comes from a source that has a reputation for honesty and integrity;
◦ Information we believe makes sense in that it fits in with the other things we believe, recognizing the risk that we may believe this because of rationalization.

Circumstances when we should be wary of third party information include:

◦ Information that cannot be readily verified;
◦ Information generated by those with a strong vested interest;
◦ Information that comes from a source we know to lack honesty and integrity.

However these guidelines are not absolute. For example, information generated by those with a vested interest is not necessarily biased. Often it is only those with a vested interest who make the effort to gather certain types of information.

Sometimes it is necessary to distinguish clearly what we take to be the truth from the conclusions we draw from it. Truths are sometimes ‘inconvenient’. Nevertheless we should not pretend they don’t exist. What conclusions we choose to draw from truths are rarely an inevitable consequence of the truths themselves.

People often believe something because they would like it to be true, or because it would be of benefit to them if it were true. Whilst this may be more comforting for them, it will usually lead to difficulties and ultimately more problems than would be the case if they accepted a more objective truth.

Just because you can’t prove something is false doesn’t mean it is true. Just because you can’t prove something is true doesn’t mean it is false.

In simplistic terms, a truth remains true as long as it is the best to be had; it becomes false as soon as it can be bettered.

People do not naturally seek out evidence to refute their beliefs. They are more likely to read books and newspapers that confirm their current viewpoints rather than question them. Nevertheless it is by getting alternative viewpoints and being willing to modify our beliefs that our personal beliefs improve in terms of being more aligned with how the world really is rather than how we would like the world to be.

People tend to view evidence that confirms their beliefs as reliable, and evidence that goes against them as questionable. Thus their current beliefs are relatively easily reinforced and strengthened.

Information that is vivid, concrete and personal tends to have a strong impact on us, much more so than abstract or second hand information. Personal experiences have a greater impact than ones we read or hear about. However our personal experiences are often atypical; they are after all rare events, and it is likely to be hit or miss whether or not they are representative. Nevertheless people often give far more weight to events they personally experience than to statistical information. People sometimes base their whole value judgments and lives on generalizing from a single intense personal experience. Yet it is the statistical information that is the more representative and useful in terms of how the world really is.

The majority of people think there is something in astrology or the paranormal, despite the fact that they defy all the known laws of physics. No psychic or paranormal event has ever been proven under controlled conditions and there is long history of fraud.

Don’t necessarily take facts at face value. If you have any reason to doubt them, check them if you reasonably can. There are many statements claimed to be facts that are not.

Be curious about unexpected experiences or outcomes, and never ignore evidence or facts that contradict existing ‘truths’ or beliefs. By all means question the contradicting evidence or facts since they may be unreliable; however never ignore them simply because they are inconvenient. There are many examples of evidence that was initially ignored or covered up and which later proved to be important and the basis of new understandings. We should always think of our current beliefs as simply being the best we have to date, and see any contradictory evidence as an opportunity to improve our understanding.

Seek out the most persuasive arguments that challenge your existing opinions. It is not defending your opinions irrespective of whether they are right or wrong that is important, it is defending opinions you believe are right. You should thus always be willing to test whether or not they are right by listening to the strongest arguments you can find to the contrary.

Just because there is evidence that contradicts what we currently believe, it doesn’t mean we should simply abandon what we currently believe. We need to ensure our truths and beliefs account for both new evidence and old. Usually a modification of our previous truths and beliefs will allow us to account for both the new and old evidence. Only occasionally will we require a complete reversal and change in previous truths and beliefs.

Be wary of believing information is reliable simply because it is quoted in many different places. Information that has been independently verified many times is likely to be reliable. However often information from a given source is simply re-quoted by others without any additional verification, and often hundreds or thousands of quotes for a given piece of information may all be reliant upon a single source, which may or may not be reliable.

If you want to test a hypothesis do not seek out tests that confirm the hypothesis. With the exception of the trivial case where there is a limited number of items, you cannot prove a hypothesis no matter how many examples to support it that you find. Rather perform tests that would disprove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is false you will probably quickly find out. If it survives these tests then it becomes a reasonable hypothesis to hold on to.

It is better to know a little about things that are important than to know a lot about things that are unimportant.

Personality gets in the way of truth. Pride and arrogance in particular stand in the way of many people seeing things as they really are.

If you believe you already know it all then you will make no effort to learn anything new. Many people are severely limited by their own certainties and suffer accordingly, at a loss to understand why the world doesn’t just fall into place around them.

Beliefs that rely on faith cannot be proved or disproved. For example: belief that we are an alien experiment with the aliens manipulating us, cannot be proved false. However nor is it a particularly useful belief in that it does not help us better interact with and control the real world.

If someone declares something as certain, then they are exhibiting faith, not rationale thinking.

Some people have absolute conviction in the truths they believe in. The strength of their conviction has no bearing whatsoever on the extent to which what they believe is a reasonable truth to hold.

Most of our deeply engrained beliefs arise implicitly as a result of the environment we are in, where we simply pick up the beliefs of those around us. By the time we are able to question these beliefs they are already inherent, and our natural tendency is to only pay attention to or to credit evidence that confirms our existing beliefs and to ignore, avoid, or discredit evidence that might contradict these beliefs.

The most appropriate response to coming across evidence that contradicts our current beliefs is to welcome it as an opportunity to modify or change our beliefs to ones that better match the way the world really is. We should thus welcome with curiosity and excitement any evidence that questions our beliefs rather than seek to ignore or suppress it.

We have a strong tendency to believe things that are beneficial to us, and disbelieve those that are disadvantageous.

If someone talks of having witnessed a miracle, ask yourself which is more likely: the occurrence of the miracle, or the person having been mistaken or exaggerating or lying.

There are many people who will tenaciously hold onto strong beliefs despite there being no reasonable evidence, and even where there may be much evidence to the contrary. Convincing such people that their beliefs are wrong or inappropriate is more a question of psychology than it is the application of rational argument.

People’s political or religious beliefs are largely dictated by the environment they grew up in and by the people around them.

Just because someone holds different beliefs to yourself doesn’t mean you should try to change their beliefs.

Religion, or any heartfelt belief in some unseen order underpinning existence, provides many people with a route to a satisfying and fulfilling life.

Sometimes friendship is worth more than being proven right.

Having faith in a higher being is not a bad thing. Harming others in the name of faith is a bad thing. Using faith as a reason to discriminate negatively against others is a bad thing. Forcing faith aggressively on others is a bad thing.

During times of uncertainty, such as during economic upheavals that affect people’s daily lives, the clear message provided by extremists are far more attractive to people than the vagueness provided by moderates, irrespective of the dangers following extremists invariably brings. A lesson is that moderates must also make their vision clear.