Why do scientists believe in science?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

!

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.

 

I am of course, not disregarding science.

As I had long underlined, science is true whether or not one believes in it.

Also, as mentioned prior, scientists tend to highly concern evidence (hence why science has advanced quite a lot) but scientists are also subject to belief, and particularly, the type of belief that ignores evidence. (Eg: Newton's belief in absolute time is evidenced)

Other example of live scientists who believe:

Edward Witten expressing belief in YouTube video interview:

Michio expressing belief in YouTube video interview:

(Also, there are many scientists that believe in God, regardless of contrasting evidence. The origin of the universe is a matter of science)

 

 

FOOTNOTE:

Not one sequence of data amidst the original post is "speculation", all is empirical evidence, regardless of your feelings.

Please provide one example of speculation, be it in the original post, or on any response made by myself in this thread.

 

If you are unable to do so, kindly restore my thread to it's initial place.

Edited August 5, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Moderator see my quote made before yours, on page 3:

 

Quote

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

Once more, scientists tend to highly concern evidence, but are unavoidably subject to belief, be it in matters of science (as I show above with witten  and kaku) or otherwise.

 

No where had I stated scientists especially disregarded evidence, I stated just the opposite as seen in my quote above, made several hours before your post on page 3.

Edited August 5, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

13 hours ago, Eise said:

 

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. 

Part A

Note that I am not disregarding scientists or science.

As I expressed on page 3, hours before the moderator's comment, scientists tend to highly concern evidence, but they too are subject to particularly, the flavour of belief that disregards evidence, be it in matters of science or otherwise.

(For example, there are many scientists that believe in God, regardless of contrasting evidence. The origin of the universe is a matter of science)

Regardless of the above, science is true whether or not one believes in it, and science has unavoidably advanced quite a lot. However, it is also unavoidable that belief may block scientific endeavour, and we should do away with belief altogether.

 

 

 

Part B

It doesn't matter what meaning of belief they select. (I already answered this in the original post)

Definition 0: Belief is especially absent evidence.
Definition 1: Believe in something based on evidence.
Definition 2: etc etc etc.

Looking at how a dictionary works, no definition under belief will oppose definition 0. (those are found in antonyms)

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I find the argument that scientist follow the evidence except they don't to be lacking in any rigor at all. Anecdotes featuring scientists discussing topics outside their area of expertise, about what might lie ahead, does not support your assertion. Scientists can have religious-like belief, as long as they don't apply it to their work. We're humans.

The trolling ends here. Don't bring this topic up again.

 

[beecee]

You keep repeating yourself and still imo not making any sense.

I believe in science because it has been shown that the scientific methodology is paramount and supported by observational and experimental evidence. That is logical and reasonable belief.

You are telling this forum, that you are the founder of this  "non beliefism"  cult, but you don't believe in it. Do you not see how contradictory that is? Do you believe the continent of Antarctica exists? I asked you earlier but like my question re english probably not being your first language, you seem to have missed it. Do you believe you are a living organsim?

My observation is that you have taken some philosophical nonsense to the nth degree, and that no one understands what you are promoting including yourself.