> Isn't this just speculation? To play the game in your court, imagine that
belief in some supernatural ideas is crucial to
> acceptance in society x. If evidence contradicts the supernatural claim
(e.g., the shaman's prediction does not come to
> pass), anyone who questions the supernatural is marginalized (this occurs
in many societies). Marginalization = less
> access to shared resources and sexual partners = poorer reproductive
success. (It is just as easy to create a just-so
> story against your claim! As Justin points out, this type of
sociobiological reasoning is pretty facile.)
It's speculation, but well-founded speculation. We need tons and tons of truth-tracking beliefs about the world to survive, and thus we have reliable cognitive means to get there (actually, the order of explanation runs in both directions, but for the sake of simplicity I won't elaborate). But you're certainly right that the connative pressure to agree with the opinions of others are often strong--in fact, I'd speculate (like Allan Gibbard, who used to be my prof and was Justin's before I reached grade school) that such pressure is a human universal akin to cognitive dissonance.
-- Luke