Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn’t Need Your Belief.
Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn’t Need Your Belief.
You're viewing a single thread.
Belief has nothing to do with science.
I think you mean faith. Faith has nothing to do with science.
But belief absolutely does. Science is all about convincing people (scientists) to believe or disbelieve some idea.One of the first things I learned in bio lab in college is that you never believe anything in science. You accept or reject based on evidence.
Accept or reject, are just different words for believe or disbelieve. The evidence guides your belief.
Maybe to you. Scientific terms often include terms that have other connotations elsewhere, for example, significant or correlation.
Nothing in science is based on belief.
You still have to believe the author and the peer reviewers did the correct thing through the process. You have to believe the results presented are real and accurate. Etc, etc.
For example, one of the many scandals of recent times is Franchesca Gino at Harvard publishing false research papers that present false data. People believed it was all real and genuine until a group of people started to do a deep dive into her research.
Do you accept that, or believe it? What is the difference scientifically?
Webster definition 3C of Accept "to recognize as true" seems to be what I'm talking about here. Is that different than what you mean?
3C then points to Believe as a synonym. The transitive definition 1B, or intransitive 1A, seems to correlate with what Accept definition 3C means, hence the synonym nature of them. Can you clarify exactly where I'm wrong?
Beliefs are subjective. They can be held without evidence.
Scientific acceptance is the opposite.
I likely won't be able to change your mind because you believe they mean the same thing. I assure you they don't. You can't come to a scientific conclusion based on conviction. You have to accept or reject the null hypothesis based on evidence which even then doesn't necessarily verify your hypothesis. You also have to run everything through statistical analyses to be sure that the results couldn't occur randomly. Everything can change with new evidence and stronger tests (larger sample sizes, double blinds, etc.) Webster's won't teach you that. It records vernacular.
Vernacular is literally what we're talking about. The definition of words.
You seem to be wrapping a number of ideas around the word Believe. Most notably the idea that a belief is fixed. When I say believe, I literally mean only and exactly "Accept as true", or "To hold as true", nothing more. It's literally the 1st definition. And more or less what all the other definitions are wrapped around.
What we hold as true can change at any time, and for a number of reasons. The study of them is called Epistemology. Yes. It's a real branch of science.
It's possible what you're trying to get across, is the idea that science accepts nothing as "true". It can only reject ideas as "false". And the ideas that remain un-rejected as false, are accepted, not as true, but as the best explanation we have so far. In which case I can see your point. However, remember that beliefs aren't fixed. They can also be rejected when new conflicting data is collected. That still sounds like what you mean by accept. Am I wrong?
I think you've missed some of what I'm saying. Vernacular changes through common (popular) use of a word. I'm referring to strict definitions that are found in science.
I never indicated that beliefs are fixed, only that they are subjective and not based on evidence. That is by definition not scientific.
You're starting to get it in the third paragraph, but you're holding on to this idea that beliefs and acceptance are the same. Again, nothing in science is based on beliefs.
Good scientists look for ways they are wrong; people holding onto beliefs look for ways to back up why they're right.
Edit: I should also add that Webster's adds words every year based on popular usage. That's vernacular, common usage. That's why it also lists the word literally as also meaning its antonym, because people commonly use it incorrectly.
I’m referring to strict definitions that are found in science.
Where exactly are the strict scientific definitions you're using for Believe and Accept? Do you have a link?
I showed you the strict definitions I was using.Good scientists look for ways they are wrong; people holding onto beliefs look for ways to back up why they’re right.
Both of those are epistemologies. One good, and one bad. But epistemologies are only ways to reach a belief. They aren't part of the belief itself. Much like the road isn't the destination. You're including in the definition of Belief, a pattern of behavior, a specific epistemology. But it doesn't have one. Not even in common vernacular. In some specific religious contexts it might, as you say. But Belief is used in vastly more contexts than religion. Someone who believes it won't rain, isn't obligated to hold that belief when they see dark storm clouds approaching. Or are you saying they they'll have to make excuses for why it won't rain? Else they didn't actualy Believe, and just Accepted that it wouldn't rain?
Like I said, I likely won't be able to change your mind because you're holding on to a belief of what that word means in regards to scientific acceptance. I don't expect you to go in search of how you're wrong because it seems like you're holding on to ways that make you feel right. Either way, I've said all I can. Good luck to you!
Here are some links:
It records vernacular.
And vernacular is how people understand each other. When you say, "Science has nothing to do with belief," then most people are going to interpret that according to the common-use meaning. If I say, "I believe I turned off the oven," I'm not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I'm saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.
If you want to communicate in a way that people will understand, then I don't think you should going around using the word "belief" to mean this nonstandard, technical definition without qualifications or explanation. And I definitely don't think that you should assume that anyone who disagrees with statements made with that nonstandard definition is simply committed to rejecting reason and evidence, as opposed to the much more obvious and reasonable interpretation that they're simply interpreting the word in the standard, common use way.
If I say, "I believe I turned off the oven," I'm not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I'm saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.
Right, it's subjective and based on your own experience without concrete evidence. That's what I'm saying. Science is objective and must rely on evidence.
I'm not insisting that belief necessarily means anything faith-based. It could, but that's not what we're focusing on here. Only that it has a different meaning than accept as far as science is concerned.
That's incredibly dumb.
My observations about turning off the oven are just as objective and evidence-based as any other observations. I saw whether I did it or not very clearly with my own two eyes. If you want to get into, "Senses are inherently subjective," fine, but that includes using your eyes to read a scale during an experiment. You're trying to draw an insane distinction between reading a scale and reading a dial on an oven, it makes absolutely zero sense, and you don't understand anything about science, epistemology, or philosophy in general. You're going full Dunning-Kruger here.
Yes, senses are inherently subjective. Yes, reading a scale with your eyes can throw off the result. There is an accepted protocol on how to read a meniscus in a graduated cylinder for this reason or any scale for that matter.
When you say I believe I turned off the oven, you are subjectively recalling something. You aren't looking at the oven, you're remembering it. You aren't checking that it's off. You're saying that to the best of my memory, I turned it off. "I'm pretty sure." That is subjective.
Ah yes. I often use the two interchangeably.
You shouldn't. They're entirely different.
There are many paths to believing something, or accepting it as true.
The least reliable is faith. It's just "wishing makes it true." Another, is personal experience. But that's easily biased, and even fooled by our limited and faulty senses. Actual repeatable evidence is the best we have so far.The evidence should convince people.
Scientists are failing to adequately communicate with the public.
Agreed. There's definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public.
It's crazy to me that so much of the general public don't understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results.
True but the public is also being willfully ignorant
Then said public should not reap the benefits of scientific research.
Ship them off to an island and let them live without science.
It's like vaccines. Sure it sounds nice to say that, but denying it to these dipshits is going to get me hurt
Not of they're isolated away from the rest of society.
Send them to St Helena?
I don't care where.
Chances are that a lot of religion will disappear if wr get rid of them. Win/win.
Yes it does. Most people can't read a case study, and fewer can understand it.
To them, science requires trust in humans and faith that no one is lying.
Most people can't read a case study, and fewer can understand it.
This is the problem.
Eh.. yes and no. I've got an engineering degree, I've learned how to design studies and do science properly, and I still struggle when a study is on topics I'm less familiar with. I can't imagine most people going through these. They're not accessible.
And if you're just reading the abstract and conclusion, or worse a science article, you've got to hope they've interpreted things properly. Which articles are particularly bad at because they need to sound like news.
Or they need a competent journalist to translate the findings without being sensational.
But then they still need to trust the journalist. And considering how much crap science gets published even in supposedly high quality journals, and how little quality peer review happens, even the journalists don't have a scientific basis for much of science reporting.
Part of the problem is the "publish or die" mentality.
Personally, I think the Journal of Negative Results needs more love.
Yes, that's a huge issue. Another issue is that the reward for doing peer reviews is far too low, and publishing negative peer reviews comes with the risk of making an enemy in the same field, who might do your next peer review. So you only call out egregiously bad science or just rubber stamp every peer review, because there's nothing in it for you to publish a negative peer review.
I've read meta studies that said that huge amounts of published scientific studies cannot be reproduced. I can't remember the exact number, but it was >30%.
So if the published science itself is already full of garbage, how is a journalist (who is themselves not a scientist or at least not a scientist in the specific field) know what study is good and what is garbage? And even then, how many people read science journalism compared to boulevard media?
John Bohannon comes to mind, with his purposeful bogus study that claimed that eating chocolate can help with weight loss. He used overfitting and p-hacking to create a study that was purposely garbage and got it published. His goal was to show how easy it is to publish a sensationalist-but-garbage paper. This went so well that every trashy boulevard paper but also many major newspapers ran it, often as a title page news story.
In an interview he said that he got hundreds of calls, all on the level of "Which brand of chocolate helps best?", and only a single serious inquiry doubting his methods.
He published his own debunk shortly after publishing the original story, it it got pretty much no media attention at all.
He basically couldn't even recall his own bogus study, and to this day many people worldwide still believe that chocolate can help with weight loss.
The reproducibility crisis is a huge issue - there's even a whole movement now called "registered reports" where journals accept studies based on methodology before results are known, which helps prevent p-hacking and publication bias that leads to all those unreproducable findings.
Yeah, the problem is that proper science is incredibly hard to do, and incredibly time intensive and thus expensive.
And since only a single metric (amount of published content) is really rewarded, anything else (including the fail-safes necessary for proper science) falls by the wayside.
lol science is fked because you can never be certainn and everything a theory while belief based systems are always certain and always act like theory means false
We might need a science based religion, we could call it Scientology
I'm pretty sure that was the basis of the Foundation series. And I'm here for it
It does when it comes to funding.
Not even then.
There's a little bit in a hypothesis, but I take your point. It just requires good faith approaches and conclusions.
There's a little bit in a hypothesis
Not in a properly formed hypothesis.
You shouldn't have faith in anything in science.
Good faith isn't the same as spiritual faith. It just means good intentions.
Really? Because half a nation of ignorant hayseeds NOT believing in science kind of got us to where we are now.
How about instead of posting pithy uselessness you actually think about things for a moment
Science doesn't require belief.
The problem is that people believe in religion, and their religious leaders have a vested interest in keeping them dumb.
most people need belief and faith in science because they'll never understand it
They don't need belief and faith, they need to trust it. Something that both Republicans and Democrats have eroded because it didn't fit their narrative.
Faith is a different word for trust. They are synonyms.
Faith specifically refers to religion. Allowing them to use it in regards to science is where we got these loons claiming that science is a religion.
So you have to be religious to be faithful to your spouse?
No, faith doesn't refer to religion. You can have faith that your investment works, you can have faith in democracy or the judicial system, and in many other things.
In fact, if you check out what Wikipedia has to say about it, there's a whole section on "Secular Faith", which includes faith in e.g. philosophical ideas, ethics, personal values and principles and so on.
Faith is just a strong conviction or trust, that's how it's defined. And sure, you can have faith in God. But you can also have faith that the scientific method works and that the amount of published garbage studies is low enough to not break the system.
And this faith can be shaken when learning about meta studies estimating that about 30% of scientific papers are bogus, plagiarized and/or not reproducible.
Or when learning about John Bohannon, and his purposely bogus study on that chocolate helps with weight loss, which he published to show how easy it is to publish nonsense papers, and not only did this study make it onto headlines of newspapers worldwide, but his retraction of the study totally failed to get any publicity at all. He basically couldn't retract his own study from public knowledge.
And like with religious faith, learning about these issues can either lead to either increased understanding, a shaken faith in science in general or an angry counter-attack.
If you don't understand everything in every field of science (and it's impossible to do so), then you have to trust what you cannot prove. And that's literally the same thing as faith. Because it is faith. You blindly trust something without having proof, just trusting that when someone else claims to have proof, that they actually do have proof.
I trust the scientific method, I don't have faith.
Trust and faith should not be used interchangeably.
Trust means that you have good reason to believe in something.
Faith is just wishing on a star.
You will find that everyone who has faith claims to have a good reason to believe in it.
Faith is trust is believing in something without definitive proof. If you have proof, you don't trust, you know.
You will find that everyone who has faith claims to have a good reason to believe in it.
Good reason is subjective. I require evidence before I believe something.
If you have proof, you don't trust, you know.
Trust can be placed based on past experiences. I trust my sister will call me. I have faith in nothing.
You seem to have a very narrow and incorrect definition of the word faith, that you place so much faith in, that you don't even seem to want to look it up in a dictionary.
Your faith in your definition of the word faith goes so far, that you just repeat your incorrect definition and completely shut out any reasoning or any sources that might say otherwise.
The evidence says something else, but your faith in your definition of that word makes it impossible for you to consider any other option.