Perhaps it is part of the joke- but for those unaware- evidence does not support Jung having said this. The quote is generally believed to be misattributed to Jung. Jung is quoted as saying: “ Thinking is difficult, therefore let the herd pronounce judgment!” but not as a direct quote- it is part of a larger quote wherein Jung is pantomiming what he puts forth as a motto from a hypothetical person who he calls the “relatively unconscious man.” This “relatively unconscious man” is a creature of instinct and reactionsim. As per Jung’s full thought- this is a person who clings to the common and obvious- in other words the person who seeks the simplest and most convenient explanation to suit them- the “observable or intuitive” of which we know many complex things don’t fit our “common sense” expectations when we use more in depth analysis to look at data scientifically.
Precisely. The interesting part coming in at where we define belief. It would seem silly to say that fact is belief- but in essence fact IS a belief system. That’s where we must be especially careful in discussing entrenchment of belief or reproaching those who reject fact- the burden of proof is in large part what leads to dissent. In other words- two scientists will both likely believe in gravity- they’ll hold it is observable fact that if you drop something- it falls to the ground. They may disagree in how or why that happens though. Of course a scientist should be willing to abandon their existing conception of gravity if new information invalidates it- as should a pay person- but what is the burden of proof they will accept before they change that idea?
To the “familiar” and using gravity as an example- a person, especially one who has lived or worked in space, could argue gravity is a fluke- certainly if we drop an item in space it doesn’t fall- observable evidence would tell them the premise things always fall is untrue. Of course if we have more information and that perhaps outside the common and observable, we can understand and demonstrate that gravity still works and why under those conditions we don’t seem to experience it. That’s where we enter a divide where the observable or familiar and a refusal to accept that beyond what we can see or understand leads us astray.
Of course we can’t simply expect people to take a default attitude that if they can’t understand something they should simply accept it as true- that has far to much potential for abuse. So there is a sort of line where the accepted standard of proof has to exist to sort of indicate where the point something seems to counter what we know but has been…
.. demonstrated to a high burden of proof and should be accepted lies. It’s hard to put a solid and universal set of rules on it. Technically we could argue that the refusal of scientists to accept something as fact which hasn’t been ran through the scientific method and subjected to appropriate controls and protocols and peer verified is an example of people refusing to accept that which doesn’t adhere to their belief system. Even in science there isn’t so much fact as theory- theory and the probability that a theory is held as true once it has been vetted and until another theory does the same which counters it’s veracity.
Of course the argument is a bit silly- but we do know even in science ideas can form cults of sorts when the humans involved fail to adhere to the principles that govern the scientific method.
That’s why there does have to be some careful thought to how we frame such ideas as seemingly simple as accepting reality. Lol.
I think it would too, but you’d need the right set up and some rules tweaks- it would have to be more like a human racquetball court where there were walls close to bounce off or else you’d end up chasing the ball or lots of dead play time.
Of course we can’t simply expect people to take a default attitude that if they can’t understand something they should simply accept it as true- that has far to much potential for abuse. So there is a sort of line where the accepted standard of proof has to exist to sort of indicate where the point something seems to counter what we know but has been…
Of course the argument is a bit silly- but we do know even in science ideas can form cults of sorts when the humans involved fail to adhere to the principles that govern the scientific method.
That’s why there does have to be some careful thought to how we frame such ideas as seemingly simple as accepting reality. Lol.