[Shocking?] Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Science is true whether or not we believe in it."

[Strange]

There is no evidence that I shall die by tomorrow. Observation: Life strives to survive another second, another minute, hour, day, etc. Thus, I assume I shall be alive

 

 

You, or I, could be hit by a bus. Or (as happened to two relatives) drop dead completely unexpectedly.

 

I choose to believe that won't happen.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Strange

[Phi for All]

Furthermore, I don't need to believe/trust in any data sequence.

Are you saying that one must trust something?

 

Trust is all we can expect from good science. Trust is a form of belief that works best with science. Faith is good for religion, but science doesn't prove anything and instead relies on theory, which in turn relies on preponderance of evidence. If the evidence is trusted, the theories based on it can be trusted. Time and experience enforces that trust. In the end, the way we believe in a theory is by finding it worthy of our trust.

 

So yes, most definitely, I'm saying that you must trust in order to progress in science. Not hope, that's just wishful thinking, and not faith, which is strong belief without reason. Trust is very important.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

Jeez. Yes, religious beliefs are beliefs, but not all beliefs are religious.

 

You need to see if a local college has an introductory class in logic.

 

 

Jesus H Christ. Maybe that college will do a reading comprehension course as well.

 

I am going to type this slowly, so you have a chance of understanding it.

 

I am not talking about the probability of tomorrow occurring. That is a given.

 

I. AM. NOT. TALKING. ABOUT. THE. PROBABILITY. OF. TOMORROW.

 

Get it?

 

What I said was:

 

There is no scientific evidence to say whether I will be alive tomorrow or not. So, I prefer to believe that I will be. It makes life easier.

 

So, yes, beliefs are a necessary part of surviving in a world with unknowns. Some people belief that everyone is good, others belief that everyone is wicked. They live their lives according to these beliefs.

 

 

You have not yet presented these empirical results. You have simply repeated your assertions (a.k.a. beliefs).

 

 

Yes, we have to trust that the measurements we make, the data we get, etc. are reliable and objective (in some sense) and can be used to test our hypotheses.

In other words, are you saying there is no empirical evidence that shows that humans may live for a period of x time?

 

 

 

 

Trust is all we can expect from good science. Trust is a form of belief that works best with science. Faith is good for religion, but science doesn't prove anything and instead relies on theory, which in turn relies on preponderance of evidence. If the evidence is trusted, the theories based on it can be trusted. Time and experience enforces that trust. In the end, the way we believe in a theory is by finding it worthy of our trust.

 

So yes, most definitely, I'm saying that you must trust in order to progress in science. Not hope, that's just wishful thinking, and not faith, which is strong belief without reason. Trust is very important.

(1)

Contrarily,

 

Newton trusted that God did certain things, and so he didn't derive all he could have probably derived. (See Principia Mathematica)

 

Einstein trusted that "God didn't play dice", and so he probably had a more difficult time than he needed to with quantum wierdness.

 

etc

 

 

 

 

(2)

You don't need to trust in probabilities.

Whether or not probabilities are trusted, applicable science remains applicable science.

 

 

You may need to redundantly believe in that which is already empirically observable, or that which applies mathematically/reasonably, but others have already found a way to avoid that trust scenario.

Edited March 12, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

In other words, are you saying there is no empirical evidence that shows that humans may live for a period of x time?

 

 

Of course not. What is wrong with you?

 

Can you guarantee that I will be alive tomorrow? Or next week? Or next year? Based on evidence? I certainly can't. (Apparently, I have an 11% chance of dying in the next 10 years.)

 

 

 

 

You don't need to trust in probabilities.

 

You do need to trust data. And the peer review process. And the repeatability and replicability of results.

 

If you don't trust anything then you can never know anything with any confidence. You are in a world of ignorance and uncertainty. Or in a world of false confidence where you think you know things for certain, even though the evidence may not support it. (Either of those might explain quite a lot about your pretentious posts.)

Edited March 12, 2017 by Strange

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

Of course not. What is wrong with you?

 

Can you guarantee that I will be alive tomorrow? Or next week? Or next year? Based on evidence? I certainly can't. (Apparently, I have an 11% chance of dying in the next 10 years.)

 

 

 

You do need to trust data. And the peer review process. And the repeatability and replicability of results.

 

If you don't trust anything then you can never know anything with any confidence. You are in a world of ignorance and uncertainty. Or in a world of false confidence where you think you know things for certain, even though the evidence may not support it. (Either of those might explain quite a lot about your pretentious posts.)

No such thing as certainty anyway, as far as science goes.

(Uncertainty principle)

 

 

I still express that given that science contains no non science, it would be silly to proceed with belief, when it is likely that non science shall partake.

[Strange]

I still express that given that science contains no non science, it would be silly to proceed with belief, when it is likely that non science shall partake.

 

 

I agree that one should try and remove beliefs and other psychological biases from science. And the scientific method does a good job of doing that. It doesn't, however, require that scientists have no beliefs. In fact, if they didn't believe in their hypotheses, before they are confirmed, why would they bother trying to test and confirm them. I think they would end up coming up with an idea and then saying, "but I have no reason to believe it is right, so I'll just forget about it." And science would grind to a halt.

 

There is also a world outside science where beliefs are important.

 

So, it seems to me that you are wrong in every possible way.

 

I am going to carry on with my belief I will survive another day. (And year. And decade.)

 

 

 

No such thing as certainty anyway, as far as science goes.

(Uncertainty principle)

 

I don't think you understand what the uncertainty principle says.

[Phi for All]

(1)

Contrarily,

 

Newton trusted that God did certain things, and so he didn't derive all he could have probably derived. (See Principia Mathematica)

 

How could he? Newton had no empirical evidence of god(s), so he believed using faith, not trust.

 

You have some very glaring misconceptions about philosophy and science in general. What's really unfortunate is that you're in a place that could help if you would start asking questions rather than trying to re-write what's already been established.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

How could he? Newton had no empirical evidence of god(s), so he believed using faith, not trust.

 

You have some very glaring misconceptions about philosophy and science in general. What's really unfortunate is that you're in a place that could help if you would start asking questions rather than trying to re-write what's already been established.

 

As you prior mentioned (and as is indicated in hundreds of dictionaries) belief is a form of trust.

So newton trusted/believed in god, and didn't bother to compute what he probably could have computed, as per Principia description.

 

 

I agree that one should try and remove beliefs and other psychological biases from science. And the scientific method does a good job of doing that. It doesn't, however, require that scientists have no beliefs. In fact, if they didn't believe in their hypotheses, before they are confirmed, why would they bother trying to test and confirm them. I think they would end up coming up with an idea and then saying, "but I have no reason to believe it is right, so I'll just forget about it." And science would grind to a halt.

 

There is also a world outside science where beliefs are important.

 

So, it seems to me that you are wrong in every possible way.

 

I am going to carry on with my belief I will survive another day. (And year. And decade.)

 

 

I don't think you understand what the uncertainty principle says.

 

I still observe my prior comment; for still in the scientific hypothesis stage, one need not believe. One may rank events on probabilities, and establish probabilistic predictions, absent trusting/believing in such.

[Phi for All]

 

As you prior mentioned (and as is indicated in hundreds of dictionaries) belief is a form of trust.

So newton trusted/believed in god, and didn't bother to compute what he probably could have computed, as per Principia description.

 

No, I would argue that trust, hope, and faith are all forms of belief. Your way doesn't make much sense. It's belief that takes many forms.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

OT posts have been removed, as promised.

[Sensei]

 

There is no evidence that I shall die by tomorrow. Observation: Life strives to survive another second, another minute, hour, day, etc. Thus, I assume I shall be alive

You, or I, could be hit by a bus. Or (as happened to two relatives) drop dead completely unexpectedly.

 

I choose to believe that won't happen.

 

 

There is approximately 7.5 billion people on the world, and ~ 150 thousands of people die per day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate

So average chance to die tomorrow is 150k / 7.5 bln = 1:50000

But the real chance to die changes with time, region of world, as a result of actions or lack of them,

unhealthy life style, unhealthy job, risky hobbies, lack of medicament/vaccination.. etc. etc.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Sensei

[southp4w95]

I don't like Tyson's quote. What humans have believed to be "science" has been proven wrong throughout history. This is why I believe the pursuit for knowledge can never end.

 

As for argument from authority being a fallacy, I disagree. Having authority doesn't delegitimize someone, but it doesn't support their argument either. Usually people are in a position of authority for a reason, but authority is meant to be questioned.

[swansont]

I don't like Tyson's quote. What humans have believed to be "science" has been proven wrong throughout history. This is why I believe the pursuit for knowledge can never end.

But when science is "wrong" (and there's a lot packed into that description), it is almost invariably because it's been replaced by better science, and by scientists. The explanations afforded by science still remain the best explanations for whatever it is we're studying.

 

As for argument from authority being a fallacy, I disagree. Having authority doesn't delegitimize someone, but it doesn't support their argument either. Usually people are in a position of authority for a reason, but authority is meant to be questioned.

That seems to be a contradiction.

[Moontanman]

Not so popular quotes:

 

Quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote by Robert A. Wilson:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote by Jim Walker

 

 

 

I express: One need not contact a paradigm, observed to likely express non-science (i.e. belief), when already, science persists.

 

So, what are your thoughts, do you think beliefs are necessary?

Footnote:

Snippet from "non-beliefism". (Sig)

Non beliefism (invented in 2016) is probably atheism's successor.

For more information, see "nonbeliefism", in the top level domain (TLD).

 

 

I have no problem with the quotes, they would appear to be quite accurate, Non-Beliefism, cannot apply to everything, unless you are simply being pedantic. I think you are, as many do, using the word belief inappropriately. I would assert you are using the word belief disingenuously to obfuscate the issue. I am an atheist yet I believe in many things. Many things have a track record of reliability. At the very least many things have a level of confidence that allows you to accept them until better data comes in. Belief is also scaled according to the claim, if you told me you have a dog, I would assume you have a dog. If you told me you have a dog that flies I would not believe you until you showed me the dog flying...

 

I believe I'll have another beer!

[southp4w95]

But when science is "wrong" (and there's a lot packed into that description), it is almost invariably because it's been replaced by better science, and by scientists. The explanations afforded by science still remain the best explanations for whatever it is we're studying.

 

 

That seems to be a contradiction.

 

Well, we are constantly proving ourselves wrong, and making new discoveries every day using science. Of course I'm taking in a general sense, because the scientific process across many different fields/professions. It doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but shows that there's something more than we can explain.

 

I would like to ask, in your opinion, what makes science better? I believe that most science expands upon what we already know (better science), although there have been a few examples where a commonly accepted scientific theory has been proven to be flat-out wrong (great science).

 

Of course it's a contradiction, authority is to be trusted yet taken with a grain of salt. Usually the argument from authority is a logical fallacy when said authoritarian figure is attempting to step out of their bubble of authority. Now that you have me thinking about this, I may be wrong, as it seems that Tyson, as a scientist has now stepped into the realm of beliefs.

[swansont]

Of course it's a contradiction, authority is to be trusted yet taken with a grain of salt. Usually the argument from authority is a logical fallacy when said authoritarian figure is attempting to step out of their bubble of authority. Now that you have me thinking about this, I may be wrong, as it seems that Tyson, as a scientist has now stepped into the realm of beliefs.

I think he's pointing out that beliefs are in a different realm than science, while still staying within science. He's not trying to explain anything about beliefs, other than the fact that they are not generally subject to the rigor of science.

[Strange]

As for argument from authority being a fallacy, I disagree. Having authority doesn't delegitimize someone, but it doesn't support their argument either. Usually people are in a position of authority for a reason, but authority is meant to be questioned.

 

 

So it seems you agree that argument from authority (i.e. saying that what someone says must be correct because of who they are) is a fallacy.

[southp4w95]

Argument from authority is certainly a fallacy, but I would say only if someone steps out of their bounds of authority. I wouldn't want my doctor working on my car. Or my mechanic doing my testicular exam.

 

And from the quote, it seems to me that he is definitely expressing a belief that science "speaks for itself." I disagree with this, because different people interpret the results of science in different ways.

 

edit: a word

Edited March 16, 2017 by southp4w95

[Strange]

Argument from authority is certainly a fallacy, but I would say only if someone steps out of their bounds of authority.

 

 

No, it is still a fallacy. If a world-renowned astro-physicist and expert on general relativity tells you that black holes are full of cheese, you should not believe that because of his authority.

 

You should never argue that X is true because so-and-so says so (even if they are the world's leading expert on X).

Edited March 16, 2017 by Strange

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

No, it is still a fallacy. If a world-renowned astro-physicist and expert on general relativity tells you that black holes are full of cheese, you should not believe that because of his authority.

 

You should never argue that X is true because so-and-so says so (even if they are the world's leading expert on X).

 

Regardless of Neil's expression, belief is not scientific.

 

Beliefs may refer to science, but beliefs may also refer to non-science. (I use the word refer here with particular reason)

 

For example, why would one select a model that is observed to likely contain failing|haphazard predictions (i.e. belief ...), instead of one that is observed to likely contain empirical, testable sequences (i.e. science)?

Edited March 17, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Lord Antares]

 

No, it is still a fallacy. If a world-renowned astro-physicist and expert on general relativity tells you that black holes are full of cheese, you should not believe that because of his authority.

 

You should never argue that X is true because so-and-so says so (even if they are the world's leading expert on X).

 

While it is obvious that an appeal to authority in itself as an argument is a fallacy, you are making a caricature of the issue.

 

An expert of a subject is (much) more likely to be right in a discussion about said subject than a layman. While an appeal to authority is largely useless between two people of similar ''authority'', it can help with laymen.

 

For example, if I am reading a thread about a subject I don't understand well (let's say chemistry) and I see an argumentative conflict between a resident expert in chemistry and a newer member (who maybe has a few net neg rep points if it helps the case), I can conclude that the probability that the expert is right is significantly higher than the other member being right. I am esentially using an appeal to authority there, but would I be wrong to use it? Of course, this depends on the subject and on my expertise. If I understood the subject well, I wouldn't have to resort to this.

 

A renowned astrophycists would never tell you the moon is made of cheese because he knows better, so that's not really an appropriate example. Whatever he says has a higher likelihood of being right than whatever most other people say.

 

My point is, appeal to authority is not always a bad thing.

[Strange]

For example, why would one select a model that is observed to likely contain failing|haphazard predictions (i.e. belief ...), instead of one that is observed to likely contain empirical, testable sequences (i.e. science)?

 

 

Because one believes that is a more effective method.

 

While it is obvious that an appeal to authority in itself as an argument is a fallacy, you are making a caricature of the issue.

 

That is because some people don't seem to understand why it is a fallacy, or even what "appeal to authority" means. It isn't an "appeal to authority" (in the sense of the fallacy) to refer to experts as the best source of information.

 

 

 

A renowned astrophycists would never tell you the moon is made of cheese because he knows better, so that's not really an appropriate example.

 

That is an example of the fallacy: he would never tell you something that is incorrect because he is a renowned expert.

 

There are, for example, Nobel Prize winners who will tell you equally ridiculous things and some people will assume that they must be right because they have a Nobel Prize.

 

 

My point is, appeal to authority is not always a bad thing.

 

Of course not. Saying that it is always wrong to listen to experts would also be a fallacy!

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

Because one believes that is a more effective method.

 

Irrelevant.

The point here is, science is observed to contain testable, empirical sequences, unlike belief, whether or not you consider belief to be effective.

Edited March 17, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

 

The point here is, science is observed to contain testable, empirical sequences, unlike belief, whether or not you consider belief to be effective.

 

 

I don't think anyone is going to argue with that. Well, I might change "observed" to "defined"; especially as science is occasionally observed to be affected [temporarily] by the personal beliefs of individual scientists.

 

But more generally, belief seems to be an essential component of human life - despite your belief to the contrary.

[Lord Antares]

 

 

That is an example of the fallacy: he would never tell you something that is incorrect because he is a renowned expert.

 

There are, for example, Nobel Prize winners who will tell you equally ridiculous things and some people will assume that they must be right because they have a Nobel Prize.

 

 

No, I didn't say he would never tell you something that is incorrect. I said it is very unlikely that he would say something that stupid.

Both laymen and experts alike can say stuff that is outright wrong, but the chance of the latter saying it is lower than the former saying it.

 

Besides, it's very different if they are talking about what their expertise covers and what it doesn't cover.

For example, if they talk about established science which they studied a lot, they are most likely to be correct.

 

But, for example, when Stephen Hawking talks about wormholes and time travel, that is not to be taken seriously, as it is not his (or anyone's) area of expertise. So I would consider an appeal to authority only valid if they are talking about the field they are expert in. No one knows what goes on inside of a black hole, so any appeal to authority there is fallacious.