Superstition & Francis Bacon
[I]Superstition[/i] is usually, at least in philosophical circles, considered a bad thing. It's closely related to ignorance and the magical thinking that it engenders.
From what I know (not that much), superstition is given the technical term False Cause Fallacy. Basically, it's to erroneously infer causation without good evidence. Variants of the fallacy include post hoc ergo propter hoc and cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Francis Bacon has a few things to say about superstition and I want to run them by you for your comments:
[Quote=Francis Bacon]The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.[/quote]
In the above quote, Bacon is clearly referring to Confirmation Bias but it, more or less, agrees with the philosophical interpretation of superstitions. Confirmation bias can lead to inferring false causes and the negative connotation is still there.
However...
There's another quote by Francis Bacon that seems to be contradict this interpretation of superstition (given below):
[Quote=Francis Bacon]There is superstition in avoiding superstition.[/quote]
In this quote Bacon seems to be warning us against rejecting superstitions as untruths. Said differently, Bacon thinks superstitions are not entirely worthless.
My worldview is quite accomodating of the second quote. I think, even with all the knowledge we've gained, we've barely scratched the surface of what can be known. In a nutshell, our ignorance greatly surpasses our knowledge. In this epistemic lacuna, many possibilities give birth; from fairies to Gods. So, I feel there's a good chance that some superstitions are true.
Is Bacon saying something similar or does he have something different in mind? Did he make a harmless error or is there something deep in his statements?
From what I know (not that much), superstition is given the technical term False Cause Fallacy. Basically, it's to erroneously infer causation without good evidence. Variants of the fallacy include post hoc ergo propter hoc and cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Francis Bacon has a few things to say about superstition and I want to run them by you for your comments:
[Quote=Francis Bacon]The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.[/quote]
In the above quote, Bacon is clearly referring to Confirmation Bias but it, more or less, agrees with the philosophical interpretation of superstitions. Confirmation bias can lead to inferring false causes and the negative connotation is still there.
However...
There's another quote by Francis Bacon that seems to be contradict this interpretation of superstition (given below):
[Quote=Francis Bacon]There is superstition in avoiding superstition.[/quote]
In this quote Bacon seems to be warning us against rejecting superstitions as untruths. Said differently, Bacon thinks superstitions are not entirely worthless.
My worldview is quite accomodating of the second quote. I think, even with all the knowledge we've gained, we've barely scratched the surface of what can be known. In a nutshell, our ignorance greatly surpasses our knowledge. In this epistemic lacuna, many possibilities give birth; from fairies to Gods. So, I feel there's a good chance that some superstitions are true.
Is Bacon saying something similar or does he have something different in mind? Did he make a harmless error or is there something deep in his statements?
Comments (9)
However, I sense a great danger in the full import of the second quote "There is superstition in avoiding superstition". To me it reopens the door to the dark ages, witch-burning and all that. Clearly, such a worldview can be extremely difficult to handle and fanaticism is almost a certainty.
On the other hand, take the modern scientific approach to superstition. It's much more benign.
So, for best results, it's better to think of superstitions as untruths and avoid them.
When a baseball player chooses to wear a certain lucky hat or a pair of socks, or preform a pre-game ritual, anthropologists might term such behavior as superstitious. Such behavior might be going on everywhere, among everyone, but couched in contemporarily acceptable terms.
I like the idea of thought contagion (memes) to explain the spread of beliefs. Other truth-testing processes provide us with the tools to assess the truth value of whatever behavior, phenomena or claim is being made. I'm a white belt wizard still in this dojo of mixed mental arts.
(This is a NOT a Wiccan forum) <------- Is this a true belief?
I've had a momentary vision where you are all wearing pointy hats and writing runes in a magic mirror and the runes are causing things to happen.
I think there's a big difference between what is unknown, and what is supernatural. Despite scientific explanation, I can't really understand how tiny atoms organize themselves in such a way that allows me to exist, but there's no denying that I am here, along with billions of other humans.
I tend to believe in what can be repeated, or verified under controlled conditions. Oh, 6 is your lucky number? Roll a die 100 times, and see if it comes up more than the other five numbers. Then roll it another 100 times, and check the results again.
As another example, I don't buy into out-of-body experiences. I believe people experience what really feels like an out-of-body experience. Our brain is quite powerful and imaginative, and is capable of providing us with that sort of sensation. But let's hold up some flash cards while you are 'out-of-body', and see how many you can recall.
He was warning against extremism, while arguing that atheism would be better than 'superstition', which in context largely meant Catholic rituals, though witchcraft might also have been in his sights. Let's have Danton but not Robespierre, kind of thing.
One person's superstition is of course another's deeply-held belief. I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have a certain range of habits that they live by, habits that aren't easy to justify to others by reason or evidence. Touch wood, I'm not like that.
But...
Don't you think such a view puts the cart before the horse? We don't, rather shouldn't, dictate what can or cannot happen. To the contrary, we observe our reality and then discover, as opposed to invent, what is possible/impossible. I mean nature is the repository of facts and we merely receive them. The relation between nature and us isn't an equality. Therein our ignorance assumes a significance - we can't rule out truth in superstition completely; at least not to the degree we do now.
:D
Isn't being completely non-superstitious better than being moderately superstitious (avoiding extremes). The latter is susceptible to a slippery slope...leading to fanaticism.
'Better than...'
I don't know. I think I have known at least one fanatical person, for example, part of whose fanaticism consisted of being anti-superstition. The fanatic heart can beat in a super-rationalist body. Stalinists were the worst.
And I really don't know anyone, whom I know reasonably well, who does not have rituals of behaviour that would be hard to justify to the super-rationalist. I feel it's better to own up to how we are. Some people check the astrology column even though they 'know' it's rubbish. When I and my oldest friend go walking, it's a rule not to boast of the fine weather till the walk's finished, in case we make it go wrong, even though of course we're sensible chaps and don't 'really' think that.
When I looked back at how my tiny pension fund had been managed over 30 years, at a cost of 1% perannum of its value, by a rationally-minded investment adviser, I realised a fortune-teller and an eye to the prevailing wind would have been cheaper and just as good. The markets are after all sometimes, as Keynes put it, guided by 'animal spirits'.
However...
There's a major difference between, as you call it, super-rationlists and religious fanatics.
First, we must remind ourselves that humans have been killing each other since recorded history. This is a fact, undeniable and still true to this day.
Religion came along and it multiplied the ''reasons'' for killing: apostasy, adultery, witchcraft, heresy, not to mention inter-faith clashes.
A super-rationalist, who has quit religion, loses religious reasons to harm and kill. S/he may still kill but this isn't a flaw in the super-rationalist. S/he is just being human and picks other reasons to kill - anger, jealousy, psychopathy, power, etc. The same can't be said of the religious fanatic - s/he derives grounds, religious ones, to kill.