Why do scientists believe in science?

[bimbo36]

Because they cant believe that they are chicken

But they believe they can fly

Edited August 3, 2017 by bimbo36

[beecee]

55 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

That two or even ten may 'note' as you express above, doesn't alter that unavoidable facts were presented amidst the original post.

 

Btw, did you forget your prior expression?

I forgot nothing, but you seem to have side stepped my previous statement thus.

"Is English your first language? Because as at least two others have noted, your claims/beliefs/philosophical musings, are confusing to say the least".

Quote

 

That there is limited evidence, does not suddenly warrant that scientists are ignoring evidence.

Belief is a model that permits just this; belief constitutes low concern for evidence.

Scientific methodology does not permit this low evidence concern. Scientific hypotheses, by definition still typically concern empirical evidence, however limited.

Both belief and scientific hypothesis for example, concern truth, but science typically concerns empirical evidence, while the belief especially concerns or permits non-evidence.

 

[1] Reputable scientists do not ignore evidence, rather they logically lean towards where the main body/weight of evidence dictates.eg: The anomalous galactic rotations did not suddenly invalidate the whole of our theory/s of gravity, rather a hypothetical DM was envisaged which since has now been supported by evidence.[see the bullet cluster article]

[2] Belief is belief: If evidence dictates a certain model like the BB, one can chose to logically claim the BB is the current accepted view/belief of the evolution of the universe/spacetime.

[3]The scientific methodology or a scientific theory is the best model currently explaining a specific observation, and  where the bulk of relevant evidence points....That is what is generally accepted as most likely.

[4]Belief and scientific hypothesis, as well as any scientific theory is not primarally concerned or after this "truth" or "reality" that you speak of: Science models constructively what we observe, and stands or falls on the successful predictions it can make [GR] and the observations that it explains: If by chance this reality and/or truth is hit upon, all well and good.

 

Otherwise as already stated, your claims at best are philosophical musings, or at worst just plain confusing, and you seem rather infatuated and tied up with your cult belief that one should not believe in anything, despite the strength of the evidence pointing to that concept.                 If I have misinterpreted what you are trying to say, it just supports mine and others thoughts on your own  rather confusing mixed up style and apparent cult belief.               

Edited August 3, 2017 by beecee

[beecee]

49 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

The OP's topic, isn't complex; simply, that one may believe in evidence, does not suddenly remove that belief occurs mostly on the horizon of non-evidence.

No where had I shown any ignorance of the fact that belief may occur on the horizon of evidence. (See OP)

Anyway, there are already opposing words that entail paradigms that highly concern evidence, belief is just not one of those.

Confusing at best, gobblydook at worst.

Quote

 

FOOTNOTE:

It shouldn't be too pressing on the brain, to observe that belief is a model that opposes science; belief by definition permits low concern for evidence overall, while science/scientific methodology has no such permission.

 

Rubbish at worst, confusing at best. It is even less pressing on the brain to observe that belief or the accepting of any scientific model as opposed to another model or hypothesis, is based on the weight of evidence, the success or otherwise of its predictions, and the validating by observations of that particular scientific model.

Whether you chose to see that as acceptance or belief is of little concern in the greater scheme of things.

Edited August 4, 2017 by beecee

[Evgenia]

32 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

That there is limited evidence, does not suddenly warrant that scientists are ignoring evidence.

Belief is a model that permits just this; belief constitutes low concern for evidence.

Scientific methodology does not permit this low evidence concern. Scientific hypotheses, by definition still typically concern empirical evidence, however limited.

Both belief and scientific hypothesis for example, concern truth, but science typically concerns empirical evidence, while belief especially concerns or permits non-evidence.

Thank you for the note. The Dark Energy concept has no empirical evidence yet, but still it's one of scientific models they need in cosmology. Isn't it?

[beecee]

35 minutes ago, Evgenia said:

Thank you for the note. The Dark Energy concept has no empirical evidence yet, but still it's one of scientific models they need in cosmology. Isn't it?

The DE concept certainly does have empirical evidence: Not knowing its true nature, does not invalidate it. 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/09/-dark-energy-is-real-theres-now-clear-evidence-says-an-international-team-of-astronomers-.html

extracts:

Over a decade ago, astronomers observing the brightness of distant supernovae realised that the expansion of the Universe appeared to be accelerating. The acceleration is attributed to the repulsive force associated with dark energy now thought to make up 73 per cent of the content of the cosmos. The researchers who made this discovery received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011

Clear evidence for dark energy comes from the Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect named after Rainer Sachs and Arthur Wolfe. The Cosmic Microwave Background, the radiation of the residual heat of the Big Bang, is seen all over the sky. In 1967 Sachs and Wolfe proposed that light from this radiation would become slightly bluer as it passed through the gravitational fields of lumps of matter, an effect known as gravitational redshift.

Since the first Integrated Sachs Wolfe papers, several astronomers have questioned the original detections of the effect and thus called some of the strongest evidence yet for dark energy into question. In the new paper, the product of nearly two years of work, the team have re-examined all the arguments against the Integrated Sachs Wolfe detection as well as improving the maps used in the original work. In their painstaking analysis, they conclude that there is a 99.996 per cent chance that dark energy is responsible for the hotter parts of the cosmic microwave background maps (or the same level of significance as the recent discovery of the Higgs boson).

Edited August 4, 2017 by beecee

[beecee]

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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I forgot nothing, but you seem to have side stepped my previous statement thus.

"Is English your first language? Because as at least two others have noted, your claims/beliefs/philosophical musings, are confusing to say the least".

[1] Reputable scientists do not ignore evidence, rather they logically lean towards where the main body/weight of evidence dictates.eg: The anomalous galactic rotations did not suddenly invalidate the whole of our theory/s of gravity, rather a hypothetical DM was envisaged which since has now been supported by evidence.[see the bullet cluster article]

[2] Belief is belief: If evidence dictates a certain model like the BB, one can chose to logically claim the BB is the current accepted view/belief of the evolution of the universe/spacetime.

[3]The scientific methodology or a scientific theory is the best model currently explaining a specific observation, and  where the bulk of relevant evidence points....That is what is generally accepted as most likely.

[4]Belief and scientific hypothesis, as well as any scientific theory is not primarally concerned or after this "truth" or "reality" that you speak of: Science models constructively what we observe, and stands or falls on the successful predictions it can make [GR] and the observations that it explains: If by chance this reality and/or truth is hit upon, all well and good.

 

Otherwise as already stated, your claims at best are philosophical musings, or at worst just plain confusing, and you seem rather infatuated and tied up with your cult belief that one should not believe in anything, despite the strength of the evidence pointing to that concept.                 If I have misinterpreted what you are trying to say, it just supports mine and others thoughts on your own  rather confusing mixed up style and apparent cult belief.               

Part A

Your expression contains nonsensical data.

Why bother to ignore the evidence?

The evidence as shown in the original post (not my claims) persists whether or not I exist, and the evidence shows that beliefs tend to occur on the horizon of non-evidence. 

 

Part B

Where had I mentioned that scientists always ignored evidence? (Hint: No where)

Scientists may act in a manner that highly concerns evidence but still, they too are subject to belief's neglectful design:

 

FOOTNOTE:

Newton believed in absolute time (See Wikipedia data), blocking him from considering a more workable theory.

Edited August 4, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[beecee]

36 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

FOOTNOTE:

Newton believed in absolute time (See Wikipedia data), blocking him from considering a more workable theory.

I will ignore the unsupported, opinionated claims you have made, as just typical of any cult or cult following.....

Newton lived more then 300 years ago, and his model of gravity is still used for the vast [if not all] space endeavours. 

Hint: We could of course use GR and Einstein's maths, and get far more precise, accurate answers, along with the associated complicated calculations that go with it, but the simple fact stands that Newtonian gives the necessary correct answers within accepted tolerances.

 

In essence to admonish any concept of belief completely is totally illogical and evidenced by the obvious cultish behaviour you have seen fit to employ to get your invalid message across.

Edited August 4, 2017 by beecee

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Confusing at best, gobblydook at worst.

Rubbish at worst, confusing at best. It is even less pressing on the brain to observe that belief or the accepting of any scientific model as opposed to another model or hypothesis, is based on the weight of evidence, the success or otherwise of its predictions, and the validating by observations of that particular scientific model.

Whether you chose to see that as acceptance or belief is of little concern in the greater scheme of things.

One need not do quantum computing, such that one may observe that belief permits low evidence concern, while scientific methodology, does not. (as is evidenced, in the original post)

The fact above, persists, whether or not I exist; belief by definition/research data, opposes science. Science is mankind's best tool. Why bother to partake in a paradigm that opposes mankind's best tool?

 

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

The fact above, persists, whether or not I exist; belief by definition/research data, opposes science. Science is mankind's best tool. Why bother to partake in a paradigm that opposes mankind's best tool?

 

Again, In essence to admonish any concept of belief completely is totally illogical and evidenced by the obvious cultish behaviour you have seen fit to employ to get your invalid message across.

Edited August 4, 2017 by beecee

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

I will ignore the unsupported, opinionated claims you have made, as just typical of any cult or cult following.....

Newton lived more then 300 years ago, and his model of gravity is still used for the vast [if not all] space endeavours. 

Hint: We could of course use GR and Einstein's maths, and get far more precise, accurate answers, along with the associated complicated calculations that go with it, but the simple fact stands that Newtonian gives the necessary correct answers within accepted tolerances.

Rather than disregard science, I underline science's urgent relevance amidst mankind's evolution. (As you probably quickly observe in the contents of the advertising removed url)

Neither am I disregarding Newton's work.

That Newton blundered somewhere, does not suddenly warrant that all of his research is nonsense.

On the contrary, I express that he too, despite his genius, is subject to belief's neglectful design. (His beliefs are not odd, for most beings were theists in Newton's time)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

Again, In essence to admonish any concept of belief completely is totally illogical and evidenced by the obvious cultish behaviour you have seen fit to employ to get your invalid message across.

Regardless of your feelings, evidence shows that belief is a paradigm that does not strive to concern evidence.

 

Edited August 4, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[beecee]

12 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Rather than disregard science, I underline science's urgent relevant amidst mankind's evolution. (As you probably quickly observe in the contents of the advertising removed url)

Sorry, I havn't been to your url, nor do I intend on going there. Your agenda is painfully obvious.

12 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Neither am I disregarding Newton's work.

That Newton blundered somewhere, does not suddenly warrant that all of his research is nonsense.

On the contrary, I express that he too, despite his genius, is subject to belief's neglectful design. (His beliefs are not odd, for most beings were theists in Newton's time)

Everyone is subject to some belief or other, even you and your belief in your "non belief cult" and whatever else you chose to employ to be noticed. 

Like I said, Newton's gravitation theory is still extensively used: Not bad for someone from the 18th century.

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Regardless of your feelings, evidence shows that belief is a paradigm that does not strive to concern evidence.

What evidence? Again belief in itself is desirable as long as the bulk of scientific evidence supports that belief.eg: I believe the Antarctic continent exists just south of  Australia, although I have never been there. To somehow try and employ some philosophical hogwash to imagine that no one should have any belief is illogical as Spock would say.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sorry, I havn't been to your url, nor do I intend on going there. Your agenda is painfully obvious.

Everyone is subject to some belief or other, even you and your belief in your "non belief cult" and whatever else you chose to employ to be noticed. 

Like I said, Newton's gravitation theory is still extensively used: Not bad for someone from the 18th century.

Once more I am not disregarding Newton's work.

Like Newton, humans are subject to belief's science opposing nature, but one can select to employ mannerisms (i.e scientific methodology, critical thinking) that highly concern evidence, instead of ones that barely concern evidence (i.e. belief)

[beecee]

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Once more I am not disregarding Newton's work.

I didn't say you were. 

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Like Newton, humans are subject to belief's science opposing nature, but one can select to employ mannerisms (i.e scientific methodology, critical thinking) that highly concern evidence, instead of ones that barely concern evidence (i.e. belief)

Again, and the point you are avoiding, everyone has beliefs of some sort or other. And again, your post seems to lack some cohesion. What scientific belief opposes nature? And what are these supposed beliefs hypotheticals scientists believe in with little or no evidence?

 Let me again also ask the question you avoided. Do you believe in your "non beliefism" cult/church?

A simple yes or no will suffice. 

 

Science is what we know/accept/believe, according to the bulk of available observational and experimental evidence: Philosophy is what we do not know/accept/hypothesise, and that in all likelyhood we may never be able to know/accept/hypothesise 

Edited August 4, 2017 by beecee

[Area54]

6 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Whether or not beings accept science, science is mankind's best tool, as is empirically observed.

Fine, but for the third time of asking, would you answer my question please. Do you think that some, any, most, all scientists believe in science?

Edited August 4, 2017 by Area54
Hit post key before I had completed the post.

[Manticore]

I think you should cut down on the ganja for a while.

[Evgenia]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

The DE concept certainly does have empirical evidence: Not knowing its true nature, does not invalidate it. 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/09/-dark-energy-is-real-theres-now-clear-evidence-says-an-international-team-of-astronomers-.html

extracts:

Over a decade ago, astronomers observing the brightness of distant supernovae realised that the expansion of the Universe appeared to be accelerating. The acceleration is attributed to the repulsive force associated with dark energy now thought to make up 73 per cent of the content of the cosmos. The researchers who made this discovery received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011

Clear evidence for dark energy comes from the Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect named after Rainer Sachs and Arthur Wolfe. The Cosmic Microwave Background, the radiation of the residual heat of the Big Bang, is seen all over the sky. In 1967 Sachs and Wolfe proposed that light from this radiation would become slightly bluer as it passed through the gravitational fields of lumps of matter, an effect known as gravitational redshift.

Since the first Integrated Sachs Wolfe papers, several astronomers have questioned the original detections of the effect and thus called some of the strongest evidence yet for dark energy into question. In the new paper, the product of nearly two years of work, the team have re-examined all the arguments against the Integrated Sachs Wolfe detection as well as improving the maps used in the original work. In their painstaking analysis, they conclude that there is a 99.996 per cent chance that dark energy is responsible for the hotter parts of the cosmic microwave background maps (or the same level of significance as the recent discovery of the Higgs boson).

Thank you. Yes, indeed. It's one of the well known proofs of DE.

Though, not all the scienists accept it.

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-03-expansion-universe-dark-energy.html

I've read about supercritical fluid as an explanation of some effects also.

May DE is a not 100% proper example i should choose as it has some evidence.

Just i wanted to name the theory i need to believe more rather then to be sure because of lack of facts.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

I didn't say you were. 

Again, and the point you are avoiding, everyone has beliefs of some sort or other. And again, your post seems to lack some cohesion. What scientific belief opposes nature? And what are these supposed beliefs hypotheticals scientists believe in with little or no evidence?

No where did I mention that scientists typically ignore evidence.

However, that scientists act in a manner that typically concerns evidence, does not remove that belief is a paradigm that largely permits non-evidence.

Quote

 Let me again also ask the question you avoided. Do you believe in your "non beliefism" cult/church?

A simple yes or no will suffice. 

No.

 

(1)

I have answered this question several times, before; I lack belief in all things, and not surprisingly, I lack belief in 'non-beliefism', as non-beliefism is yet another thing. (No need to believe in empirically observed sequences anyway, as they persist regardless of belief)

 

(2)

I also lack belief in myself, as I am yet another empirically observed sequence.

 

Quote

Science is what we know/accept/believe, according to the bulk of available observational and experimental evidence: Philosophy is what we do not know/accept/hypothesise, and that in all likelyhood we may never be able to know/accept/hypothesise 

I don't detect the relevance of the portion above.

Edited August 4, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Eise]

Wow, what a confusing discussion. especially because PGJ does not use words as they are normally used, and has a terribly bad writing style.

So just let me introduce to the way philosophers define some of the concepts used, and give also some philosophical context.

 

If somebody acts, he does so on basis of what he wants, and on what he believes. A belief therefore is a state of affairs somebody takes to be true. Somebody of course might err, but it would be really funny if somebody would act based on beliefs he thinks are not true.

Now some of these beliefs might be in the religious domain. There you really sometimes are supposed to believe things based just on faith, even things that are scientifically or logically absurd. But I think this category of 'belief' is philosophically not very interesting. (It might be psychologically interesting...)

A true belief is a belief from which we know the grounds to believe it, and can explicitly present these grounds to others and myself. So the difference with just 'belief' is that I also can share the grounds for believing, possibly can demonstrate the grounds. If others agree, then I may call this a justified true belief. And that is the philosophical definition of knowledge. But knowledge is not yet science.

'Science' can refer to the body of knowledge of science, which can be expressed as structured knowledge. It is not just facts, but it is general knowledge, and the relations (i.e. theories) between these facts. 'Science' may also refer to the activity of gathering this general, structural knowledge, i.e. searching for knowledge according to the scientific method.

PGJ concentrates on this one meaning of 'belief' in the religious domain, which is pretty absurd given the meaning of 'belief' as it is normally used in philosophical discourse. 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Eise
typo

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, Eise said:

Wow, what a confusing discussion. especially because PGJ does not use words as they are normally used, and has a terribly bad writing style.

You can say that again!

 

30 minutes ago, Eise said:

If somebody acts, he does so on basis of what he wants, and on what he believes. A belief therefore is a state of affairs somebody takes to be true. Somebody of course might err, but it would be really funny if somebody would act based on beliefs he thinks are not true.

Now some of these beliefs might be in the religious domain. There you really sometimes are supposed to believe things based just on faith, even things that are scientifically or logically absurd. But I think this category of 'belief' is philosophically not very interesting. (It might be psychologically interesting...)

A true belief is a belief from which we know the grounds to belief it, and can explicitly present these grounds to others and myself. So the difference with just 'belief' is that I also can share the grounds for believing, possibly can demonstrate the grounds. If others agree, then I may call this a justified true belief. And that is the philosophical definition of knowledge. But knowledge is not yet science.

'Science' can refer to the body of knowledge of science, which can be expressed as structured knowledge. It is not just facts, but it is general knowledge, and the relations (i.e. theories) between these facts. 'Science' may also refer to the activity of gathering this general, structural knowledge, i.e. searching for knowledge according to the scientific method.

PGJ concentrates on this one meaning of 'belief' in the religious domain, which is pretty absurd given the meaning of 'belief' as it is normally used in philosophical discourse. 

Bingo! You have said it far better than I have, and certainly cleared up some of his illogical and confusing style. I have asked him twice if english was his first language but was ignored both times.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

I lack belief in all things, and not surprisingly, I lack belief in 'non-beliefism', as non-beliefism is yet another thing. (No need to believe in empirically observed sequences anyway, as they persist regardless of belief)

I also lack belief in myself, as I am yet another empirically observed sequence.

 

Wow!!!! 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

1. Some off-topic posts have been removed

2. This will be moved to speculations.

3. ProgrammingGodJordan, you have been abusing the fallacy of equivocation, and this must stop. You have presented two very different definitions of belief, and yet your thesis is that scientists' "belief" in science uses the definition of belief that does not care about evidence, rather then (IMO) obvious conclusion that it is the other definition that applies. 

If you want this thread to remain open, you must support this assertion: that scientists "believe" in science despite there being little evidence for it. This is non-negotiable (i.e. any attempt to respond to or negotiate this in the thread will also lead to closure) IOW, no waffling and no tangents, and certainly no further equivocation. All those paths lead to a padlock.

 

[Itoero]

15 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

My prior quote applies:

  Hide contents

 

Einstein's formulations were generated on strong prior evidence, rather than lack of evidence.

Yes and evidence concerns an interpretation of data. This interpretation is an understanding, formed by logic and math.