Dimensions of beliefs without strong supporting evidence and reasons for holding them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beliefs without strong supporting evidence (BWSSE) are commonplace, such as religious beliefs and conspiracy theories. The goals of the current study were to identify dimensions of BWSSE in the general public and study how reasons for holding each dimension depend on the strength of the belief. Participants completed a BWSSE questionnaire online, and principal component analysis suggested that the questionnaire captured 6 dimensions of beliefs that range in strength: New Age Spiritual, Traditional Spiritual, Nonconformist, Science, Mythical, and Conspiracy Theory. Mixed-model analyses of variance showed that while high-strength believers in both New Age and Traditional Spiritual shifted their reasons-for-belief away from 'just believe' and towards personal experience, only Traditional Spiritual shifted away from 'just believe' to culture. In contrast, for Conspiracy Theory and Mythical, the dominant reason for belief was media, but for Conspiracy Theory only, there was a shift from media to education/personal research for high-strength believers. This demonstrates that although spiritual beliefs are strengthened by personal experience, conspiracy theory beliefs are strengthened by information gathering. Understanding the source of an existing belief is important for debiasing attempts to move people towards beliefs with strong supporting evidence, including greater acceptance of evidence provided by experts, a likely requirement for negotiating global humanitarian emergencies in the not-so-distant future. Statement of Relevance. Beliefs without strong supporting evidence (BWSSE) have been gaining attention in mainstream society; particularly, the sources of information that may contribute to their formation and resistance to correction. Understanding the source of an existing belief is important for debiasing attempts to move people towards beliefs with strong supporting evidence, including greater acceptance of evidence provided by experts, a likely requirement for negotiating global humanitarian emergencies in the not-so-distant future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".