No, science is not something to believe in, it’s something to trust because they’ve given proof to their claims. Your comment really makes me think a lot of people don’t really know what science is about and just replaced God with it
I didn’t say “have faith”, I said “believe”. If you don’t kniw the difference, then you shouldn’t be lecturing anybody about anything. Ironically, though, I suspect it’s precisely this difference you’re accusing me of misunderstanding. Which means that you’re just arguing semantics.
Science is based on axioms.
Said axioms are not like Tennants of faith.
They are the most commonly AGREED upon building blocks of a/the theory.
Science is not believed in, it is AGREED upon.
It is consensus.
Sure, you can believe a theory is correct until proven or disproven, but that’s kind of missing the point… I think the word “feel” is better used here.
You support the unproved by emotional means, and you state it clearly. It means nothing, like faith, yet it doesn’t constrict you to new evidence.
i mean, sure, but that doesn’t mean that it would be inaccurate to say i “believe” the scientific consensus on most things, in a colloquial sense, anyway. the fact that the reason i think evolution is true is because of all the evidence for it and not just because forrest valkai said so doesn’t make the sentence “i believe in evolution” untrue.
That is true as far as you are concerned, and due to the fact that there is a concensus usage of the word in this context.
The fact of the matter is that due to said concensus, the word is vague, and has historical and religious meaning and weight to it alongside modern scientific dialogue.
That means that believing in science can also be interpreted by a religious person as you, accepting on faith, the words of Forrest Valkai, because that’s how he understands faith. He accepts the words of Saint Paul, or Muhammed, or Shakiamuni.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying the linguistic tradition here is wrong. I challenge the concensus here.
That word shouldn’t be used in context of the scientific theory. It confuses the hell out of religious people.
I don’t know your background in physics. If you were to say “I feel that neutrinos make up most of what we call Black Matter”, I’d get the impression that you’re basing that statement on emotion, a gut feeling, aesthetics or something equally flimsy. If you said “I know that neutrinos…” I’d call bullshit because afaik there isn’t any conclusive evidence yet either way.
If you said “I believe that neutrinos…” I’d assume that, despite the lack of conclusive evidence, according to your current level of understanding of the currently available evidence, you have reasoned that this is the strongest current hypothesis. Now, if you said “I have faith that neutrinos…”, I’d completely dismiss you as a crazy person.
So I don’t think that we disagree about concepts here. We’re disagreeing about which words we use to represent those concepts.
If that is the case, then yes. We disagree on Semantics, but also on the confusion caused due to ambiguity:
To use your example, I believe means “Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, and according to my personal level of understanding of the current evidence, I reason that…”
Another common use is: “regardless of evidence, thought or understanding, my religious dogma declares that…”
See… Now… That’s almost diametrically opposed.
Almost reminiscent of Nietzsche’s descriptions of churches as graveyards, and the people praying to a dead god.
So you can argue that it is semantics, but I think it is also to avoid ambiguity.
To speak plainly and to the point.
Tl;Dr -“I do not only reject god, but his vocabulary”.
So what do you suggest I say instead of “believe” or “feel”? Because I think it’s equally important to distinguish the sort of “belief” I was referring to from actually “knowing” something.
The sort of belief you mentioned is not a belief nor a feeling, it is exactly what it is - a hypothesis, lacking conclusive evidence, yet appears to be a logical conclusion born of certain arguments and facts that support it.
Therefore, “I support the idea of”, or “I recognize that”, or “I feel that” are much more appropriate than “I believe that”. You can paint in whatever shade of certainty you wish.
“Knowing” is just the highest level of confidence in the hypothesis.
No, it does not. That’s exactly where you’re wrong.
I believe that there’s a black hole in the center of the Milky Way. I don’t know enough about astrophysics to deeply analyze and understand all the evidence for myself. I can’t check all the math, I don’t have access to all the telescopes used to collect the relevant data to personally make sure that they were properly calibrated and I don’t understand the signal processing that was done on that data well enough to veto it myself. But I do know that other people have that knowledge and access to the equipment, and I understand and trust in the scientific method and peer review processes that led to that conclusion. And I understand the simplified explanations that were given to me about gravitation and so on that support the finding, and they are compatible with the rest of what I was taught. I believe in it, with good reason. It is not a blind belief. But it is a belief.
Now, if I believed without any evidence that three thousand years ago, before people knew what schizophrenia was, some sheepherder was somehow granted knowledge of the future by a mysterious force claiming to have created the Universe, and from there believed in said claim, that would be very blind indeed. That’s faith. It’s completely different.
Imagine that, believing in something that actually gives you reasons to believe in it.
No, science is not something to believe in, it’s something to trust because they’ve given proof to their claims. Your comment really makes me think a lot of people don’t really know what science is about and just replaced God with it
I didn’t say “have faith”, I said “believe”. If you don’t kniw the difference, then you shouldn’t be lecturing anybody about anything. Ironically, though, I suspect it’s precisely this difference you’re accusing me of misunderstanding. Which means that you’re just arguing semantics.
Science is based on axioms. Said axioms are not like Tennants of faith. They are the most commonly AGREED upon building blocks of a/the theory.
Science is not believed in, it is AGREED upon. It is consensus.
Sure, you can believe a theory is correct until proven or disproven, but that’s kind of missing the point… I think the word “feel” is better used here.
You support the unproved by emotional means, and you state it clearly. It means nothing, like faith, yet it doesn’t constrict you to new evidence.
i mean, sure, but that doesn’t mean that it would be inaccurate to say i “believe” the scientific consensus on most things, in a colloquial sense, anyway. the fact that the reason i think evolution is true is because of all the evidence for it and not just because forrest valkai said so doesn’t make the sentence “i believe in evolution” untrue.
That is true as far as you are concerned, and due to the fact that there is a concensus usage of the word in this context.
The fact of the matter is that due to said concensus, the word is vague, and has historical and religious meaning and weight to it alongside modern scientific dialogue.
That means that believing in science can also be interpreted by a religious person as you, accepting on faith, the words of Forrest Valkai, because that’s how he understands faith. He accepts the words of Saint Paul, or Muhammed, or Shakiamuni.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying the linguistic tradition here is wrong. I challenge the concensus here. That word shouldn’t be used in context of the scientific theory. It confuses the hell out of religious people.
That still seems like semantics to me.
I don’t know your background in physics. If you were to say “I feel that neutrinos make up most of what we call Black Matter”, I’d get the impression that you’re basing that statement on emotion, a gut feeling, aesthetics or something equally flimsy. If you said “I know that neutrinos…” I’d call bullshit because afaik there isn’t any conclusive evidence yet either way.
If you said “I believe that neutrinos…” I’d assume that, despite the lack of conclusive evidence, according to your current level of understanding of the currently available evidence, you have reasoned that this is the strongest current hypothesis. Now, if you said “I have faith that neutrinos…”, I’d completely dismiss you as a crazy person.
So I don’t think that we disagree about concepts here. We’re disagreeing about which words we use to represent those concepts.
If that is the case, then yes. We disagree on Semantics, but also on the confusion caused due to ambiguity:
To use your example, I believe means “Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, and according to my personal level of understanding of the current evidence, I reason that…”
Another common use is: “regardless of evidence, thought or understanding, my religious dogma declares that…”
See… Now… That’s almost diametrically opposed. Almost reminiscent of Nietzsche’s descriptions of churches as graveyards, and the people praying to a dead god.
So you can argue that it is semantics, but I think it is also to avoid ambiguity. To speak plainly and to the point.
Tl;Dr -“I do not only reject god, but his vocabulary”.
So what do you suggest I say instead of “believe” or “feel”? Because I think it’s equally important to distinguish the sort of “belief” I was referring to from actually “knowing” something.
The sort of belief you mentioned is not a belief nor a feeling, it is exactly what it is - a hypothesis, lacking conclusive evidence, yet appears to be a logical conclusion born of certain arguments and facts that support it.
Therefore, “I support the idea of”, or “I recognize that”, or “I feel that” are much more appropriate than “I believe that”. You can paint in whatever shade of certainty you wish.
“Knowing” is just the highest level of confidence in the hypothesis.
Believing implies doing it blindly, and that’s literally not how science works
No, it does not. That’s exactly where you’re wrong.
I believe that there’s a black hole in the center of the Milky Way. I don’t know enough about astrophysics to deeply analyze and understand all the evidence for myself. I can’t check all the math, I don’t have access to all the telescopes used to collect the relevant data to personally make sure that they were properly calibrated and I don’t understand the signal processing that was done on that data well enough to veto it myself. But I do know that other people have that knowledge and access to the equipment, and I understand and trust in the scientific method and peer review processes that led to that conclusion. And I understand the simplified explanations that were given to me about gravitation and so on that support the finding, and they are compatible with the rest of what I was taught. I believe in it, with good reason. It is not a blind belief. But it is a belief.
Now, if I believed without any evidence that three thousand years ago, before people knew what schizophrenia was, some sheepherder was somehow granted knowledge of the future by a mysterious force claiming to have created the Universe, and from there believed in said claim, that would be very blind indeed. That’s faith. It’s completely different.