Inferring New Beliefs

In my previous post, I distinguished between belief, disbelief, and nonbelief. Although it is true that you either believe a claim or don’t believe it, there are two ways in which you can not believe it: You can believe it to be false, in which case you disbelieve it, or you can have no beliefs regarding it, in which case you neither believe nor disbelieve it.

We saw that Thinkers will be comfortable nonbelieving very many claims. This is because unlike most people, they won’t feel compelled to form beliefs about a vast array of topics and in particular about what currently count as “hot topics.” If they haven’t devoted the time and energy necessary to reach a considered opinion about a topic, they will simply remain undecided.

On hearing this, we might be concerned about the well-being of Thinkers. Won’t their “belief deficit” make it difficult for them to function in daily life? Suppose, for example, that one of these Thinkers—let us call him Sam—is opening the carton of yogurt that he recently purchased. Since this carton is new to him, he will have no beliefs about it, other than that it purports to be a carton of yogurt. In particular, he will neither believe that the contents of this particular carton are safe to consume nor believe that they aren’t safe. He will instead be in a state of nonbelief, and presumably will refuse to consume it until he has tested it. Right?

Not really. This is because when circumstances call for it, a Thinker can form new beliefs on the spot. They do this by drawing inferences from beliefs they already hold. We encountered this phenomenon in our earlier discussion of slow thinking. During that discussion, I asked whether you have more toes on your left foot than a zebra has legs. You likely had never given this question a moment’s thought. You therefore didn’t believe that you have more toes on your left foot than a zebra has legs, and you didn’t disbelieve it, either. You instead nonbelieved it.

Given a few seconds, though, you were able to infer a new belief from beliefs you already held—namely, that you have five toes on your left foot, that zebras have four legs, and that five is more than four. You thereby came to believe that you have more toes on your left foot than a zebra has legs. This is an example of the way a thinker can not only generate new beliefs as needed but can justify those beliefs.

Notice that if you lack relevant beliefs, you will not be able to make such inferences. Suppose I tell you that adding hydrochloric acid (HCl) to a sample will result in the formation of carbon dioxide (CO₂) bubbles. If I now ask what chemical elements must be present in that sample, you will be clueless if you are ignorant of chemistry. If you know basic chemistry, though, you know that chemical reactions don’t change the identity of the elements involved in them and will conclude that the sample must contain both carbon and oxygen (since it is the only place the carbon dioxide could have come from).

Consider again the carton of yogurt. Although Sam has no beliefs about this particular carton, he likely has yogurt-related beliefs. Suppose, in particular, that he has consumed this brand of yogurt on many occasions, and that rather than making him sick, it nicely satisfied his appetite. On the basis of this experience, he can infer that this is a reliable brand of yogurt, and since this carton was properly sealed, he can also infer that consuming its contents would be not only safe but enjoyable. (There is no guarantee that this conclusion is correct, but it will be a reasonable, evidence-based conclusion for him to draw.)

Sam wouldn’t be able to do this, though, if he lacked relevant beliefs. Suppose that Sam is lost in the forest and very hungry. He encounters a strange-looking fruit, about which he knows absolutely nothing. Under these circumstances, he will have no basis for inferring a new belief about the edibility of the fruit. Maybe it is delicious and nutritious, but maybe it is poisonous. Under these circumstances, he will find himself in a quandary about what to do.

As we go about our daily business, our mind continually forms beliefs about our environment and about how our actions will affect our sensory perceptions. Engaging in this predictive processing, as it is called, would have benefitted our evolutionary ancestors, and as a result it is wired into us.

We will typically be oblivious to these unconsciously inferred beliefs, unless our subsequent experience disproves them. Suppose, for example, that on opening the carton labeled “yogurt,” Sam discovers that it is filled with, say, mayonnaise. He will be shocked. This is because, on the basis of the label, he had formed the belief that it would contain yogurt. If the carton hadn’t been labeled, though, his reaction might instead have been only mild surprise: “Oh, it’s full of mayonnaise!”

Although a Thinker will be slow to form beliefs, this can help rather than hinder their ability to function in daily life. Rather than being filled with spontaneous but unsubstantiated beliefs, as is the case with very many people, a Thinker’s mind will be filled with reasoned beliefs, and when circumstances call for it, the Thinker can infer new beliefs from their old beliefs. They can also, in conjunction with their mind-expansion regimen, spend the time and energy necessary to transform a nonbelief into a reasoned belief (or disbelief). One incentive for doing this would be if people kept pressing them for their opinion about [fill in a currently hot topic here].

Homework assignment: In conjunction with your own mind-expansion regimen, pick a current hot topic and do the research and thinking necessary to form a considered opinion. Remember that to do this, you will have to listen to thoughtful people on both sides of the issue. (There almost certainly will be such people on both sides, but you might have to look hard to find them.) Realize, too, that as the result of your efforts, you needn’t adopt the views of either side of the debate. Indeed, if you are thoughtful, you will likely arrive at a conclusion that is more nuanced than theirs.