Why do scientists believe in science?

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

No.

As the original post entails, I pointed out belief's science opposing nature.

That belief may concern evidence, does not suddenly remove that belief lowly concerns evidence.

What language is this? Certainly not English, even though some of the words look familiar. 

[Area54]

I am thoroughly confused. I (mis)interpreted the OP to mean something I have seen various people state on various forums and other media. Namely, that good scientists accept the findings of science, rather than believe in the findings of science. That seems a very reasonable position to take, but perhaps it is not what the OP intends. PGJ, is that what you were trying to say?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

12 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I am thoroughly confused. I (mis)interpreted the OP to mean something I have seen various people state on various forums and other media. Namely, that good scientists accept the findings of science, rather than believe in the findings of science. That seems a very reasonable position to take, but perhaps it is not what the OP intends. PGJ, is that what you were trying to say?

It isn't mysterious, belief by definition/research, lowly concerns evidence.

Why bother to contact such a paradigm, given the existence of other paradigms, that highly concern evidence (i.e. 'science', or 'scientific methodology')? 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

34 minutes ago, Itoero said:

There are many beliefs in the world of science which are based on an interpretation of data. Future evidence decides which beliefs become real science and which beliefs will be pushed to the background.

When Einstein came up with relativity, it was not science the moment he wrote it down...it needed to be tested  before it became 'science'.

 

My prior quote applies:

Spoiler

Quote

It isn't mysterious, belief by definition/research, lowly concerns evidence.

Why bother to contact such a paradigm, given the existence of other paradigms, that highly concern evidence (i.e. 'science', or 'scientific methodology')? 

 

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

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Area54]

3 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

It isn't mysterious, belief by definition/research, lowly concerns evidence.

Why bother to contact such a paradigm, given the existence of other paradigms, that highly concern evidence (i.e. 'science', or 'scientific methodology')? 

Sorry mate, Neither of those sentences makes any sense. Perhaps get a hold of a native English speaker, explain your idea to him and have him suggest how best to express it.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Area54

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Just now, Area54 said:

Quote

ProgrammingGodJordan:

It isn't mysterious, belief by definition/research, lowly concerns evidence.

Why bother to contact such a paradigm, given the existence of other paradigms, that highly concern evidence (i.e. 'science', or 'scientific methodology')? 

Sorry mate, Neither of those sentences makes any sense.

To spell it out:

(1) belief: To accept as true, especially absent evidence. (Low concern for evidence)

(2) science: Branch of facts, etc. (High concern for evidence) 

Why then shall one bother to employ belief, given that science exists?

[Area54]

Just now, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

To spell it out:

(1) belief: To accept as true, especially absent evidence. (Low concern for evidence)

(2) science: Branch of facts, etc. (High concern for evidence) 

Why then shall one bother to employ belief, given that science exists?

So are you suggesting that most scientists do, or do not belief in science?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

 Is that right? Perhaps then you need to review your concepts of what science is, what a hypothesis is, what a scientific theory is and what philosophy is.

In the mean time here's a nice simplistic picture for you........http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01

"Science is both a body of knowledge and a process. In school, science may sometimes seem like a collection of isolated and static factslisted in a textbook, but that's only a small part of the story. Just as importantly, science is also a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world".

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

"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research".

http://www.philosophybasics.com/general_whatis.html

"At its simplest, philosophy (from the Greek  or phílosophía, meaning ‘the love of wisdom’) is the study of knowledge, or "thinking about thinking", although the breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions":

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

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.^[1][2]Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

Yes, although both hypotheses and beliefs, may concern truth:

(1) Science especially concerns evidence, by definition.

(2) Scientific hypotheses tend to concern evidence, however limited. This contrasts a model that especially ignores evidence. (i.e. belief)

By extension, scientific hypotheses concern testability, "a property applying to an empirical hypothesis".

 

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

So are you suggesting that most scientists do, or do not belief in science?

That scientists may believe, does not change the laws of nature.

Regardless, most belief occurs on the horizon of non-evidence. (as is evidenced)

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

That scientists may believe, does not change the laws of nature.

Regardless, most belief occurs on the horizon of non-evidence. (as is evidenced)

Fine, but would you answer my question please. Do you think that most, any, all, some scientists belief in science rather than accept it?

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

To spell it out:

(1) belief: To accept as true, especially absent evidence. (Low concern for evidence)

(2) science: Branch of facts, etc. (High concern for evidence) 

Why then shall one bother to employ belief, given that science exists?

All I see is philosophical musings over a couple of  definitions. 

"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know".

Bertrand Russell: 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Just now, beecee said:

All I see is philosophical musings over a couple of  definitions. 

"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know".

Bertrand Russell: 

What you 'see', doesn't alter facts.

Evidence shows that belief especially ignores evidence, while science is a paradigm that highly concerns evidence.

Spoiler

The *FACTS*:
(1)
Belief definition: "To accept as true, especially absent evidence".
(Note: None of the varying meanings of belief under a particular dictionary's definition of belief opposes the meaning above. Any opposing meaning would be found in antonyms instead..)
(Google belief definition source)

(2)
Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias:
(Cognitive paper on belief)

(3)
"Belief memories" are typically false: 
(Neuroscience paper on belief)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Fine, but would you answer my question please. Do you think that most, any, all, some scientists belief in science rather than accept it?

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

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

What you 'see', doesn't alter facts.

Evidence shows that belief especially ignores evidence, while science is a paradigm that highly concerns evidence.

  Reveal hidden contents

The *FACTS*:
(1)
Belief definition: "To accept as true, especially absent evidence".
(Note: None of the varying meanings of belief under a particular dictionary's definition of belief opposes the meaning above. Any opposing meaning would be found in antonyms instead..)
(Google belief definition source)

(2)
Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias:
(Cognitive paper on belief)

(3)
"Belief memories" are typically false: 
(Neuroscience paper on belief)

 

You havn't got any facts, only philosophical musings. 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

You havn't got any facts, only philosophical musings. 

No, I certainly don't own facts.

Facts (as presented in the original post) persist regardless of my existence.

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

No, I certainly don't own facts.

Facts (as presented in the original post) persist regardless of my existence.

I didn't say anything about you owning facts or anything else.

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

[Damateur]

2 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

SO, WHY DO SCIENTISTS (EXCEPT Neil Degrasse Tyson...) BELIEVE IN SCIENCE  (especially when Science is true regardless of belief)? 

Rather than go through all this stuff about "belief", why not consider the fact that scientists are people and they don't always say exactly what they mean? Try considering that they should be using the word "trust" instead of "believe" - that they trust in science. Might people be making a poor word choice rather than doing something weird like believing in facts?

Edited August 3, 2017 by Damateur

[Evgenia]

35 minutes ago, Damateur said:

Rather than go through all this stuff about "belief", why not consider the fact that scientists are people and they don't always say exactly what they mean? Try considering that they should be using the word "trust" instead of "believe" - that they trust in science. Might people be making a poor word choice rather than doing something weird like believing in facts?

As described by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others." Hence, the corollary to the Dunning–Kruger effect indicates that persons of high ability tend to underestimate their relative competence, and erroneously presume that tasks that are easy for them to perform also are easy for other people to perform.

To understand some ideas of some scientists we need to be of the same level. As i am totally not a scientist,i trust or believe the scientists i trust. 

Some young scientists do not have enough of experience so they believe masters. They need it to develop themselves as an experts.

According to Dunning-Kruger, masters in the case of lack of evidence start to hesitate too. So whom they trust at the top of science to develop science? 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Evidence shows that belief especially ignores evidence, while science is a paradigm that highly concerns evidence.

You have a hard time making yourself understood. This statement seems to support the idea that the way science asks people to believe, based on experiment and evidence, is different from belief that isn't reasoned and evidence-based. This is what most here have been saying, and all your garbage about non-beliefism, and quoting and hiding your own garbled words over and over again hasn't changed this at all. You sound like you're preaching at us, but in a different language that hampers what you're actually trying to say.

You seem to be stating obvious things mixed in with some wild guesswork you only half understand. It's really hard to discuss anything with you, and I think that's why your threads get closed, and why you have to peddle your "science" in the Lounge. Just sayin'.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I didn't say anything about you owning facts or anything else.

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

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?

Quote

beecee: "you havn't got any facts, only philosophical musings."

And why bother to ignore the evidence in the original post (as shown in the spoiler below)?

Spoiler

The *FACTS*:
(1)
Belief definition: "To accept as true, especially absent evidence".
(Note: None of the varying meanings of belief under a particular dictionary's definition of belief opposes the meaning above. Any opposing meaning would be found in antonyms instead..)
(Google belief definition source)

(2)
Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias:
(Cognitive paper on belief)

(3)
"Belief memories" are typically false: 
(Neuroscience paper on belief)

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 hour ago, Damateur said:

Rather than go through all this stuff about "belief", why not consider the fact that scientists are people and they don't always say exactly what they mean? Try considering that they should be using the word "trust" instead of "believe" - that they trust in science. Might people be making a poor word choice rather than doing something weird like believing in facts?

Considerable, but this does not remove  that scientists express that they believe...

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

28 minutes ago, Evgenia said:

As described by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others." Hence, the corollary to the Dunning–Kruger effect indicates that persons of high ability tend to underestimate their relative competence, and erroneously presume that tasks that are easy for them to perform also are easy for other people to perform.

To understand some ideas of some scientists we need to be of the same level. As i am totally not a scientist,i trust or believe the scientists i trust. 

Some young scientists do not have enough of experience so they believe masters. They need it to develop themselves as an experts.

According to Dunning-Kruger, masters in the case of lack of evidence start to hesitate too. So whom they trust at the top of science to develop science? 

I don't detect your comment's relevance.

 

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You have a hard time making yourself understood. This statement seems to support the idea that the way science asks people to believe, based on experiment and evidence, is different from belief that isn't reasoned and evidence-based. This is what most here have been saying, and all your garbage about non-beliefism, and quoting and hiding your own garbled words over and over again hasn't changed this at all. You sound like you're preaching at us, but in a different language that hampers what you're actually trying to say.

You seem to be stating obvious things mixed in with some wild guesswork you only half understand. It's really hard to discuss anything with you, and I think that's why your threads get closed, and why you have to peddle your "science" in the Lounge. Just sayin'.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Evgenia]

9 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

I don't detect your comment's relevance.

 

 

I am sorry. May be i express myself not good enough. I agree with Damateur that scientists are people and try to answer why do scientists believe in science. The more smart people are the more they hesitate. But to go further they need to believe. Not all the theories can be proved by facts, at least not immediately. So they need to believe in theirs theories.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

13 minutes ago, Evgenia said:

I am sorry. May be i express myself not good enough. I agree with Damateur that scientists are people and try to answer why do scientists believe in science. The more smart people are the more they hesitate. But to go further they need to believe. Not all the theories can be proved by facts, at least not immediately. So they need to believe in theirs theories.

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.

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan