Experiment in Perception

[Heterodoxus]

I just finished watching a televised experiment in perception involving one (1) box of very cheap wine, two (2) empty wine bottles, and two (2) printed wine bottle labels. Wine from the SAME box was poured into both bottles.

Then, a label was affixed to each bottle. One label (red) looked like it had been printed on an also cheap home computer printer. The other (white) appeared to be an expensive French wine bottle label. A group of people were then asked to sample the wine and determine which sample tasted best (remember: the cheap wine in both bottles was from the SAME box).

First, the participants sampled the wine from the bottle with the cheap-looking red label. None liked the wine from that bottle, and each person commented variously upon its apparent cheapness.

Next, each participant sampled the wine in the bottle with the expensive-looking French label (the same wine they tasted from the cheap-looking bottle). Each person praised highly its fragrance and taste. One participant even claimed "it's the best wine I've ever tasted!"

I don't recall the participants' reactions when they were told that the wine they had tasted ─twice─ came from the SAME inexpensive box. But, this simple experiment made me think: if each person's preconceived notions of the product (based upon the appearance and their perception of each label) so significantly affected their taste buds, then how might their brains be affected when hearing or reading religious dogma?

I'd like to see or learn about such an experiment.

[technomage]

But, this simple experiment made me think: if each person's preconceived notions of the product (based upon the appearance and their perception of each label) so significantly affected their taste buds, then how might their brains be affected when hearing or reading religious dogma?

It would be a difficult test to run, but the results would likely be interesting ... most religious adherents have at least a baseline familiarity with their faith, so a "single-blind" test would be nearly impossible.

[Soyeong]

I don't recall the participants' reactions when they were told that the wine they had tasted─twice─came from the SAME inexpensive box. But, this simple experiment made me think: if each person's preconceived notions of the product (based upon the appearance and their perception of each label) so significantly affected their taste buds, then how might their brains be affected when hearing or reading religious dogma?

It doesn't follow to go from the fact that senses can be deceived to questioning religious dogma in particular unless it's the sort dogma that one feels to be true rather than thinks to be true based on the evidence and logic. Yes, it is possible to unknowingly misinterpret evidence and use flawed logic, but at some point, we have to have faith in our ability to do those things properly or we can't function at all.

[KingsGambit]

Dogma itself would probably be difficult to single-blind for the reasons stated above, depending on how broadly or narrowly it is defined. I could see an experiment where people are presented with obscure pieces of scripture from various religions.

[Tanakh Keeper]

I don't recall the participants' reactions when they were told that the wine they had tasted ─twice─ came from the SAME inexpensive box.

I'd guess that they'd either disbelieve that statement or start rationalizing their statements. Most people go a long way before they admit they made a mistake.

But, this simple experiment made me think: if each person's preconceived notions of the product (based upon the appearance and their perception of each label) so significantly affected their taste buds, then how might their brains be affected when hearing or reading religious dogma?

I'd like to see or learn about such an experiment.[/FONT][/SIZE]

I might have something. It concerns Christianity sucesses of converting Jews to Christianity. Almost all converts are either ignorant of Judaism or are at a low point in their lives or both. So Judaism can be compared to an inexpensive label at this time. An evangelical approaches...they start love-bombing and twisting scripture. They present a fancy label so to speak. This ignorant person probably had preconceived notions about Christianity, but had their brains negatively affected by the fancy labels.

Hmmm...it's not a perfect analogy of course. The original wine bottles of Judaism and Christianity are completely different, with Judaism being an aged Chateau Lafite and Christianity being a bottle of Boone Farms. But the concept of fancy labels to obscure the content is there.

[Cow Poke]

Will the participants be drinking the wine while answering the religious questions?

[David Hayward]

I suspect that what is proved in the wine "experiment" is that:

a) people will tend to give the "right" answer, if they can discern (from the label, in this case) what it should be;

b) groups of people will influence the individuals in that group to give a conformal common answer;

c) there's an awful lot of snobbery about wine, and nobody wants to lose face, especially in a group situation, and especially before thousands of TV viewers, by describing an apparently cheap wine as as good as or better than an apparently expesive wine.

I expect a similar experiment, performed with religious dogma as the subject -- if it could be designed -- would give results similar to the above.

There may be more objections to the experimental design -- it seems very lacking in rigour, and is hardly a scientific experiment.

David

[Cow Poke]

c) there's an awful lot of snobbery about wine, and nobody wants to lose face, especially in a group situation, and especially before thousands of TV viewers, by describing an apparently cheap wine as as good as or better than an apparently expensive wine.

I think this nails it.

Somehow, I don't think this experiment would work the same way with breakfast cereal or peanut butter.

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't follow to go from the fact that senses can be deceived to questioning religious dogma in particular unless it's the sort dogma that one feels to be true rather than thinks to be true based on the evidence and logic. Yes, it is possible to unknowingly misinterpret evidence and use flawed logic, but at some point, we have to have faith in our ability to do those things properly or we can't function at all.

I question the value of 'evidence and logic' to determine which of the many thousands of diverse beliefs is true, since most define their own 'evidence and logic' to justify what they believe is true. In reality all these people holding extremely contradictory views function very well justifying their own beliefs differently.

[Soyeong]

I question the value of 'evidence and logic' to determine which of the many thousands of diverse beliefs is true, since most define their own 'evidence and logic' to justify what they believe is true. In reality all these people holding extremely contradictory views function very well justifying their own beliefs differently.

I said we couldn't function if we don't have faith in our ability to use logic and interpret evidence, not if our faith is misplaced. Feel free to question the value of evidence and logic all you want, but if you have a point to make, then please suggest something more valuable for determining which beliefs are true.