The point has been made by a few folks that the collective we do not rely
sufficiently upon data before believing things. I would agree, but would
also say that there are times when individuals believe in something
because they have "data" that they are unable to articulate or when
science does not (yet) have an answer.
For example, I'm sure the world at large thought that Edison and Gandhi
were fools for doing what they did: umpty-thousand experiments to make a
light bulb and living the belief that non-violence was the only way.
However, they persisted, and today we have a profound respect for the two
men, their ideas and accomplishments.
In addition, to use Rick's example:
> - Other things are not believed that should be (There's a problem coming
>if we keep using up non-renewable resources and keep dumping long-lasting
I know people who were trained in the sciences who do not believe that
this is a problem because, they say, there is insufficient scientific
proof to prove that these are problems. They say, in fact, that the data
points to humanity always being able to think its way out of messes, so
even if we use up all the oil, we will find a replacement source of power.
I don't think it's whether or not you have non-data-based beliefs, because
there are many areas where there is insufficient data. It's more a matter
of what non-data-based beliefs you hold.
Live to Learn
"Brian Gordon" <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <firstname.lastname@example.org> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>