Operating on Knowledge vs. Belief

[pat_k]

Thought I'd share a discussion I've been having over on Salon's Tabletalk (where I'm pmk). The post that started it all made post of the week. :-) A TableTalker also posted it on Mecury Rising (a great little blog).

http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?[e-mail]7faxBczHX.16@.773b2b60/3469">link I have a theory that some people operate on belief, others operate on knowledge. Although I sometimes think of them as two distinct populations, people undoubtedly fall somewhere on a continuum. They may operate as belief people in some areas of their lives and knowledge people in others.

For knowledge people, things need to add up, beliefs are theories that are constantly being tested. They figure out how things fit together and fill in gaps as they seek to understand their world.

Belief people come to their beliefs by looking to others. They adopt conclusions and don’t need to know the basis. Beliefs are beliefs, not theories. Belief people adopt a belief because people they identify with believe it. They are influenced by the beliefs of people that "cut to the chase." They are more likely to be influenced by people who accept and respect them as they are than people who look down on them.

"Knowledge people" are doomed to frustration when they try to influence "belief people" by giving them the information that would lead another knowledge person to reach some knowledge-based conclusion. A belief person doesn’t adopt their beliefs in that way. They know what they know and arguing details with them does little to change that.

Certainly, some belief people may change their beliefs when enough information is thrown their way, but most don't budge until others around them do. When "everybody knows" something, they join right in. Doesn’t matter what they believed yesterday, they just adopt the new beliefs.

When dealing with belief people, knowledge people need to learn to simply assert their conclusions with assurance. No need to muck up a general truth with qualifications. No need to provide the details that led them to their conclusion. Listen to Rush for a short time. You’ll notice that he just spouts a series of conclusions. Whys and wherefores are rare.

Ever wondered by why polls sometimes turn on a dime? I think those giant swings are belief people flipping. Beliefs can turn on a dime. There is no need to spend time reconstructing the basis to reach a new conclusion. When some critical mass is reached and enough people have adopted a belief, that belief spreads like wildfire.

There is enormous variation in how people process information and function in the world. Just like a person with a photographic memory has a hard time imagining how a person that forgets so much can function, a "knowledge person" has a hard time imagining what it is like to be a "belief person," and vice versa.

Both belief people and knowledge people can be led in the wrong direction through the manipulation of information or the dissemination of "everybody knows" propaganda. There are times that faith/confidence/belief serves us much better than analysis. For example, many looked at the evidence and concluded "you’ll never get a Senator to object on January 6th". Others had confidence that it was possible, and so kept pushing.

Although I might find it useful to have a photographic memory, I would hope that those with photographic memories don’t look down on those who do not. Unfortunately, knowledge people sometimes see belief people as obstinate or lazy knowledge people. As a consequence, they make unproductive negative judgments.

Belief people are what they are and trying to change them into knowledge people, or trying to figure out why they are belief people, or berating them for being belief people, is not helpful.

Whether or not this theory is true, it sure saves me a lot of frustration and grief. It also gives me hope. We don’t need inform or educate "everybody" – we shouldn’t even try. We can ignore misguided belief people. We just need to reach that critical mass and the misguided belief people will come around on their own.

Commentary on a "real world" example (Luther v. Franken) follows at post 3625.

The discussion picks up again at post 3688

[annabanana]

1. now THAT'S an interesting hypothesis

I Believe!, I Believe!

..... now let's see if it holds water...

[bryant69]

2. Interesting

But I think it's a little too simplistic. For one thing people make different decisions in different ways - a person might be a knowledge person when it comes to their specific field, and a belief person when it comes to an area he or she feels less sure of.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pat_k]

8. A simple operational model provides clear guidance in communication.

Sure, it's simplistic. In its simpliciy, it serves as a useful operational theory. As I said in this post:

...I’d like to emphasize that the "belief people/knowledge people" theory is one I find useful in promoting more effective communication. Stripping it down to simple terms helps guide the selection of responses. The goal is to be more effective in bringing about change in the public realm. The responses informed by the belief vs. knowledge dichotomy are tested in real life. I've found communication guided by the theory to be more effective, but more importantly, I believe the theory helps to focus our efforts more effectively...

Click here for an annotated real world knowledge vs. belief dialog (scroll down for annoationed version). The dialog is intended to illustrate how operating out the belief people/knowledge people theory leads to a different approach, one that I have found to be more effective -- and helps me keep my sanity.

[SpiralHawk]

3. Great topic for discussion

Must whizz off for a meeting...but hope to come back and join tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks, pat

[leftofthedial]

4. I believe I operate on knowledge

[msmcghee]

5. I like it . .

. . because it recognizes an important difference in how humans operate. I have also spent a lot of time thinking about these things. Some additional thoughts I have had along these lines . .

We all depend on our knowledge about the world - our worldview - for our survival. But survival has always been an "iffy" proposition for humans.

We therefore defend and protect our worldviews according to how much underlying threat we feel for our survival.

"Belief" people IMO are those who have grown up with a personality that feels a lot of threat to their survival.

They reduce the chronic anxiety this causes by becoming a "belief" person - where logic is not necessary and they can find many others who agree with their belief system. As the writer points out - approval and acceptance of others, especially powerful others who appear totally self-assured, are big factors here.

We all use some "belief" and some "knowledge" in our coping with existence.

When a culture (or a person) is severely threatened - they will often switch from an incomplete and error prone "knowledge" system of coping to a seemingly more secure "belief" system that offers immediate good feelings - no matter the reality.

Someone in the Republican Party understands this very well. Need I say more?

[pat_k]

10. If you treat a cat like a dog, you will probably be frustrated...

To some degree, the reasons people are the way they are, while very interesting, doesn't provide much help in dealing with them. But, folks did post some interesting thoughts and observations on the whys as part of the discussion on TableTalk (thoughts about the relation to authority, locus of control, and so on). In fact, I posted some thoughts similar to yours (link):

I think there are a variety of motivations behind operating on belief. External locus of control is not necessarily the formost attribute. I think internal attributes, such as impatience or need for simplicity are perhaps more salient forces. Impatience and irresponsibility certainly seem to be key attributes that lead a number of belief people to jump on the radical conservative bandwagon. (A vast majority of those folks seem to be Impatient and irresponsible people.)

I think everyone operates on belief in areas of their lives. If a person doesn’t view themselves as a good judge of character, they might adopt their opinion about a person from someone they regard a reliable judge. If they have a high degree of confidence in the judgement, they’ll stubbornly hang onto it even when confronted with clear evidence of error (If X believes Y is ethical, Y’s bad acts must not have been intentional.)

If a member of my family is in trouble, I believe I must do whatever I can to help. Why? Because they are members of my family. Circular and certainly not a knowledge-based conclusion, but it is one I have adopted.

When you start to identify and pick apart your beliefs, I think you’ll find some that are similarly circular or that have been adopted on faith.

Operating on belief does not preclude rationalization. Once a belief is adopted, a person can go to great lengths to rationalize it. For examples, just take a look at a couple of Scalia's opinions or St. Thomas Aquinas. For someone operating on belief, facts and ideas pulled together to support a belief do not actually serve as the basis of the belief. If the rationalization is shown to be flawed, the belief person will simply attempt to put together a new case.

WRT to the "belief people vs. knowledge people" theory – I use it as an operational theory -- a theory that informs how I communicate or act when dealing with someone I’ve identified as operating on belief rather than knowledge. As I wrote in that initial post:

Belief people are what they are and trying to change them into knowledge people, or trying to figure out why they are belief people, or berating them for being belief people, is not helpful.

Whether or not this theory is true, it sure saves me a lot of frustration and grief. It also gives me hope. We don’t need inform or educate "everybody" – we shouldn’t even try. We can ignore misguided belief people. We just need to reach that critical mass and the misguided belief people will come around on their own.

[msmcghee]

14. I'd suggest that understanding why people are . . .

. . the way they are is the only effective way to figure out how to deal with them.

I am suggesting that while there is an underlying personality bias toward "belief" as a way to gain a feeling of security in a dangerous world for most people - what we choose to place in our "belief" zone and how zealously we try to protect it is subject to many variables.

If we understand that people are mostly trying to reduce the anxiety and sense of impotence in their lives then we can attempt to "frame" our worldview in a way that cancels those feelings - or even replaces them with feelings of security.

The greatest problem that we liberals seem to have IMO is that we tend to believe that reason is the all-powerful elixir that will eventually prevail, if given the chance.

I believe the Republicans have discovered that no humans make decisions based on reason. Humans are not Vulcans. Vulcans can not exist as a life form. Living entities can not make even the most elementary choices unless they sense a payoff that affects their well-being - something that inescapably causes emotion - the force behind all decisons we make.

Like all living things with neurons and chemicals flowing through our bodies we make decisions solely for emotional reasons. Even when diligently applying logic, we follow that logical path because it "feels" better to (some of) us than a more ideological approach might.

Liberals, like conservatives, are highly inclined to follow belief systems as opposed to logic - as Bob Somersby has been pointing out in his blog these last few days. http://www.dailyhowler.com/ All it takes is a sufficient threat.

The only way a conservative would ever accept a liberal approach to a problem solution is if it feels better to them that the alternatives. Reaching your critical mass will be a lot easier if you understand that principle.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. Just adding grist to the mill - a slightly different perspective on a very interesting topic.

[pat_k]

22. I think we're on the same wavelength...

The greatest problem that we liberals seem to have IMO is that we tend to believe that reason is the all-powerful elixir that will eventually prevail, if given the chance.

An enormous problem. Most people who identify as progressive or liberal firmly believe that if they could just educate people -- provide enough of them with enough information -- it would set them straight. I believe this view leads to a whole lot of ineffective action and fails to comport with reality. In short, lots of action is being dictated by an unexamined and dysfunctional belief.

The "belief-people/knowledge-people" (bp/kp) lens directly undercuts that dysfunctional belief and the associated ineffective action. Keeping it simple is critical. The changes suggested in the Franken-Luther example were dictated by a very simplistic view of what was going on. Simplicity has power.

The whole bp/kp discussion presumes a context in which there are opposing views held by two different groups. The bp/kp model is intended to help knowledge people on the knowledge-based side deal more effectively with belief people in the other camp. The bp/kp model helps guide certain types of communication decisions, but does not help much in formulating the effective talking points one should have in their arsenal. It is not intended to be used for that purpose.

I think we are on the same wavelength. There is more to it for you because you are considering a broader scope. Defining goals and developing strategic communications to support those goals are complex processes that are not unique to politics. There are various models of human motivation that can be productively applied as we develop persuasive and engaging communication. For example, needs are powerful drivers of action and belief (need for safety, autonomy, connection, efficacy, contribution, respect, affection) and must be taken into account in all communications. If you are interested in a sampling of my thoughts on the subject see Framing 145 or Framing #320.

A key point to keep in mind is that we don’t need to worry so much about whether or not our messages will persuade "them" (i.e., misguided belief people). They are not our primary targets. We are way, way, too hung up on what they will say, how they will response, or whether or not we will get through to them. It is immobilizing us and undermining our ability to accomplish the things that 80% of the folks in this nation are in agreement on.

(BTW. Since knowledge people are unlikely to adopt beliefs that do not comport with reality, it can often appear that everyone in the opposition is a belief person. Just because so many people in the opposition are belief people, don’t make the mistake of equating belief people with the opposition. It is important to remember that belief people are distributed across the spectrum. Sure, they are capable of adopting deeply flawed beliefs, but they are just as capable of adopting reality-based beliefs. They just do so in a “belief-based” way.)

[jody]

That's the "religion vs science" debate using "belief vs knowledge"? n/t

[Karenina]

6. Spot on!!!!

Kicked and nominated!

[Igel]

7. It's simplistic.

My old, evil, advisor nicely pounded into my thick skull that there isn't just "knowledge" vs. "belief."

Knowledge can be based on observation and consist of fairly detailed and incontrovertible "facts"; we can take observations and, through deduction, produce a 2nd generation of "facts" which rely on generalizations; we can also produce another kind of "fact" that relies on interpretation. The observations won't change, but the generalizations or interpretations can change. And it's possible for the observations to be erroneous, or have interpretations presented as observations.

We can then take these kinds of fact to come to logical conclusions, which we also ambiguously call "facts".

The conclusions can be more firmly rooted in observation or less firmly rooted in generalizations or interpretations, or even less firmly rooted in other, previously drawn conclusions. And we call these second order conclusions "facts." Frequently a small change in the available data yields a large change in the less immediately grounded "facts", or realizing that something isn't so much an observation as a tenuous conclusion can also trigger a re-evaluation.

Not only does this all work, logically, but then we have to deal with *non-rigorous* kinds of thought. People evaluate statistics and risk very, very poorly. Moreover, it's not always possible to use deduction. Frequently you have to conduct *abduction*, going from very limited data or a single token to a generalization, where the actual course of the thinking can easily vary from person to person. And yet we can't not do this, because frequently some decision is required. Still, we tend to label the result of abduction "fact".

Then there are things that we have rooted very loosely, if at all, in observation: these are beliefs. They can sometimes be called "theories", in some fields.

One has to be exceedingly careful to keep separate the different kinds of facts, and distinguish them from observation.

[pat_k]

13. The dichotomy is not intended to be comprehensive.

Certainly, the way we interact with and mentally represent our world is incredibly complex. The forces that shape variation in response are a legion. The "knowledge people vs. belief people" theory is not intended to be comprehensive. It is an operational theory that helps to capture and explain observed behavior in the political realm.

"Belief people" is a shorthand. It is one that I have found useful in the political realm because in my experience people are fairly consistent in their use of one or the other style of thinking (primarily belief-based or primarily knowledge based).

Expanding on the shorthand, you can think of "belief people" as people who have formulated conclusions that are primarily based on belief. Similarly, you can think of "knowledge people" as people who have formulated conclusions that are primarily based on knowledge.

And, as noted in the replies above, I find this simple theory useful in promoting more effective communication. It helps me accept that the information I find persuasive is unlikely to persuade people who have the characteristics I have associated with "belief people." Building a "belief person" model helps me change my expectations. Instead of doing the same old same old and feeling like I'm banging my head against a wall, I'm operating from a new set of assumptions. The resulting approach seems to work better.

If you expect a cat to act like a dog (or vice versa) you'll be frustrated. To adjust expectations and build your own "theory of cats" or "theory of dogs", you need to drop the "shoulds" and observe.

[infinitehangover]

18. there is the problem of a 'fact' being based on a 'belief'.

and empirical testing relies on the faith of its own self-existence.

[pat_k]

9. Example: Al Franken v. Mark Luther

Here's the sample "real world" dialog. Posting here to make it easier to read (it spans a couple posts on TableTalk):.
-------------------------
When knowledge people do try to influence belief people, they are unlikely to make progress unless they make some changes in how they communicate. I thought it might be helpful to illustrate some of these changes with a "real life" example.

The July 20 exchange between Al Franken and Mark Luther (the Franken Show's resident dittohead) provides a good example of a typical "knowledge person vs. belief person" exchange.

------- Summary of Franken-Luther Argument -------

The exchange is about Rush's characterization of Wilson's actions. Mark Luther believes Rush's assertions that:

Point 1. In his 2/11/03 Op Ed, Wilson expressed agreement with Bush. That is, Wilson agreed that Saddam was a bad guy and we'd have to take him out.

Point 2. Six months later Wilson is supposedly outraged about it. He changed his tune because he suddenly got hired on to the Kerry campaign as an advisor.

The conclusion is essentially that it was Wilson, not the Bush Regime, did something bad.

Franken takes apart the assertions:

Counterpoint 1. To support the notion that Wilson agreed that we would have to take out Saddam, Rush read a quote from the 2/11/03 Op Ed. He implied the quote was the conclusion of of the piece. The quote was not an assertion that "we had to take Saddam out" (a point Luther concedes), and was actually from the middle of the piece. Contrary to Rush's characterization, Wilson concluded that

"We should do everything possible to avoid the understandable temptation to send U.S. troops to fight a war of "liberation" that can be waged only by the Iraqis themselves. The projection of power need not equate with the projection of force."

So, Rush is lying about the conclusion of the piece.

Counterpoint 2. From Wilson's July 6, 2003 NYT piece: "The next day
Franken’s conclusion: “The reason Wilson "changed his tune" is that in March, ElBaradei (IAEA Director General) revealed that the documents that served as the basis of the Niger Unraniam allegations (docs he had been begging from the US) were forgeries. After that, and only after that, Wilson contacted the WH and said "Hey, you guys made a mistake and need to correct it"

After mentioning a couple other lies, the argument concludes with the following exchange. A version of the exchange with commentary follows in the next post.

------------ Conclusion of Franken-Luther Argument -------------

Franken: "What he is implying here are a whole bunch of things that aren't true. And you know what, because you are a typical Rush listener, you draw the same conclusion that he wants you do draw. This is exactly the kind of thing he does all the time, and he fools you Mark. YOu are fooled."

Luther: Do you think we know everything there is to know about the Wilson-Plame affair yet?

Franken: That's not the question. The question is, do you feel misled?

Luther: No, I don't feel misled.

Franken: Well then you are a fool Mark, you are being a fool.

Luther: Well, maybe I am, but we all know this is complex enough that I don't think all the facts are out yet. I don't think anyone really knows the whole

Franken: (talking over) He tells you this is the conclusion of the piece. He implies that a week after the thing he's supposed to be outraged by this. Knowing that in his Op Ed piece, he had said, immediately after the speech, he said, I was confused by this, I thought he must have been talking about some other country. Rush has to know that. Rush must have read the Op Ed piece. The piece he wrote in the Times.

Luther: I'll grant you that. I'll grant you that. Rush did report on that Op Ed piece to give it his own slant. And you have clarified that by reading

Franken: (talking over) And this was the piece that you selected Mark

Luther: That's right

Franken: and I'll show you time and time again this man is lying to you, and you are a fool for believing him.

Luther: Alright, but let's

Franken: (talking over) All right, gotta go.


---- Conclusion with Commentary ----

Franken: "What he is implying here are a whole bunch of things that aren't true. And you know what, because you are a typical Rush listener, you draw the same conclusion that he wants you do draw. This is exactly the kind of thing he does all the time, and he fools you Mark. YOu are fooled."

Luther: Do you think we know everything there is to know about the Wilson/Plame affair yet?

PMK comment: This response is a red flag that you are dealing with a belief person. Luther has adopted Rush's conclusion. He believes what he believes. The conclusion is valid and there must be other facts out there that make it so.

Franken: That's not the question. The question is, do you feel misled?

PMK comment: Asking, "Do you feel misled?" is asking a belief person to reverse a belief they have adopted, and to do so in the same way a knowledge person would. It is not productive to seek admissions of error from belief people. When they adopt a new belief, they do so without such re-evaluation. Sometimes, they'll even deny they held a contrary belief before.

It would have been more effective to respond "Yes, we have all the facts."

A response like this is tough for knowledge-based people because they know that absolute knowledge is rare. But, we do in fact know everything necessary to reverse the beliefs Luther has adopted. As a belief person, Luther has not actually based his belief on the items Rush cited, so expecting him to revisit those items in light of the new information is unproductive. Luther has adopted Rush's conclusion. Once adopted as a belief, Luther will seek some "out" to hang on to it.

Rather than expecting Luther to draw the correct knowledge-based conclusion from the new information, it would be more effective to assert the correct conclusion with confidence in a way that leaves no exits. For example, "Yes, we know everything we need to know. Rush is wrong. You are wrong. When Wilson learned that the administration had misled the nation and would not correct their mistake, he did the patriotic thing. He told the American people the truth."]

Luther: No, I don't feel misled.

PMK comment: The exchange would have gone in a different direction had Franken responded as suggested above. Luther probably wouldn't have given up Rush's conclusions, but if Franken continued to respond in a way that left no outs, Luther's inability to find an exit would make it more difficult to hang onto the erroneous belief, particularly when a clearly stated opposing conclusion is rattling around in his head.

Franken: Well then you are a fool Mark, you are being a fool.

Luther: Well, maybe I am, but we all know this is complex enough that I don't think all the facts are out yet. I don't think anyone really knows the whole

PMK: When Luther says, "Maybe I am" he isn't thinking he could be a fool, so don't take it as a concession. He is thinking "Maybe I am, but I know I'm not." A direct response that closes the loophole is in order. Any "maybe, maybe not" response from a belief person should be addressed in this way. For example, in this case, Franken might have said, "No maybe about it. If you don't think Wilson was right to expose a lie that was leading us into a war, then you are a fool."

Franken: (talking over) He tells you this is the conclusion of the piece. He implies that a week after the thing he's supposed to be outraged by this. KNowing that in his Op Ed piece, he had said, immediately after the speech, he said, I was confused by this, I thought he must have been talking about some other country. Rush has to know that. Rush must have read the Op Ed piece. The piece he wrote in the Times.

Luther: I'll grant you that. I'll grant you that. Rush did report on that Op Ed piece to give it his own slant. And you have clarified that by reading

PMK: Although he "grants" Rush "slanted" some details, he still has loopholes -- e.g, we don't know everything -- that allow him to hang onto the belief that it was Wilson, not the Bush Regime that did something bad.

Franken: (talking over) And this was the piece that you selected Mark

Luther: That's right

Franken: and I'll show you time and time again this man is lying to you, and you are a fool for believing him.

Luther: Alright, but let's

Franken: (talking over) All right, gotta go.

PMK: Cutting off like this can be productive, but only after you have made statements that leave "no exit." You can leave belief person sputtering.]

[wli]

11. neither. Probability.

[stepnw1f]

12. Very Good Insight

Is it ok for others to spread this?

[pat_k]

19. Yes! Yes! Spread the ideas in any form you like. Lift bits. Whatever.

Yes! Spread the ideas around in any form you like. Lift bits. Whatever.

We are all trying to bring about change in the public realm and need all the tools we can get our hands on to succeed. I think others will find these ideas valuable and i would love to see them spread far and wide.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. For those that feel like they have been banging their head against the wall, the belief/knowledge people model provides different way to look at things. Whether or not it reflects a basic reality, it suggests adjustments in the way we communicate and where we focus our efforts. When you have been banging your head against a wall, it is usually worthwhile to try something new.

When contending with a widely-held belief that is destructive to the public interest, the operational theory suggests that we do not need to focus much effort on the people that are currently holding fast to that belief. It suggests we need to identify and target people that are receptive to an alternative that serves the public interest. (There are plenty of people standing on the sidelines or on the fence out there.) The theory tells us that, even though we do not target them directly, more and more misguided folks will jump on the "beneficial belief" boat as that belief spreads or achieves an "everybody knows" status.

[JNelson6563]

15. Analytical thinking vs. emotional thinking

Some can apply analytical thinking to certain topics but not all. Some never attain much in the way of analytical thinking. I believe our "emotional IQ" Or "emotional maturity" determines these capabilities.

Julie

[infinitehangover]

16. J.L Austin sez...

Austin (English-language-based Philosophy professor) had this observation about statements such as "I know..." or "I believe...". WHen one utters "I know that Hydrogen is the less dense element.", one would ask "How do you know that?". However if one states "I believe petting a dog too early in the morning is a bad gesture" the other would ask "Why do you believe that?"
The response to a statement and the grammatical structure is key to understanding our shared usage of our language.
To go a bit further one might be easily able to deduce that a 'How' is much easier to locate, as it tends to be tangible. In our case a chemistry book would be the 'How'. However a 'Why' is much harder to define. One could go as far as saying subjective. But I'm still having issues as to whether objective exists...

[roseBudd]

17. I've noticed that Reagan's welfare recipients drive cadillacs persists ...

even though common sense should tell you that welfare recipients can't get loans for luxury cars because their income miunus their shelter needs makes them ineligable.

[sandnsea]

20. why staying on message matters

As you said above, this isn't intended to be a comprehensive analysis of human behavior. I agree with that because human behavior isn't that simple, everybody lives by a belief system.

But there is enough truth your post, particularly as it relates to people voting against "wussy metrosexual liberals". It's belief voting, not logic voting. That's why building an image is important, and staying on message to support that image is critical. This is to reach the so-called "independent" voters, who are really people too intimidated by macho propaganda to stand up to it.

[pat_k]

24. Repetition is enormously important -- anger seems to help too

Yes. Repetition is vital. Too often we assume a message is out because we've heard it -- or some form of it -- a dozen times. We get bored with ourselves and so we "mix things up."

Until you can randomly pick 10 houses in your neighborhood, and verify that they've heard a message, you have to assume it ain't out.

And, for some reason, it seems that for belief people, people who are angrier are righter.

[sandnsea]

27. I'd say, the simpler, the righter

I think for belief people, if it's complicated, it's because somebody is trying to bamboozle you. Being right should be easy, and shouldn't require any anger to make a point.

[Mythsaje]

21. This is why one could say

"This war is wrong."

"Why do you say that?"

"Well, over half of America believes it. That must make it true."

[Darranar]

23. All "knowledge" is based on belief. Everyone assumes things. n/t

[pat_k]

25. Of course

See responses to previous posts, particularly this one

[sweetheart]

26. fluffy terms for "stupid"

Lots of people are dumb as doorknobs... call it belief, republicanism,
brainwashing or immaturity. Knoweldge begets knowledge, so there is
every interest in developing such things... and the light shines in
the darkness of stupidity and ignorance.