Fred56 Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Science is learning. Learning is an ongoing accumulation of experience. This is not a passive activity (knowledge and learning do not come to us, as such, but require some expenditure of physical energy, especially mental energy). Science is an accumulation of fact and (undisputed) belief in the existence of the set of accumulated 'facts' about the world, and the behaviour of things in the world: ultimately of the observer's own behaviour also (why do we learn, or how do we acquire knowledge?). A scientist necessarily must divorce their thinking from disputed, or unproven ideas, and cling to knowledge (belief) that is undisputed, or accepted as true, generally because such knowledge 'works' or explains behaviour, and predicts, anticipates, or expects further (possibly not yet observed) behaviour. A scientist must try to divorce their thinking from any beliefs, but in practice, this is not possible. Otherwise there would be a lot of problems to overcome any time they wished to investigate some behaviour. How could they do this, what (apart from their eyes and hands) is available for use in the investigation? Therefore, a scientist is 'stuck' with contemporary beliefs, and must use some of these. Otherwise, they would not be able to switch anything on, or connect any "experimental apparatus" to any source of power (let's say they don't believe it will do anything). If a scientist managed to divorce themselves from all belief, they would then have to rediscover how electricity works, for example, and what happens when a switch is turned on. Even turning on some lighting in a lab would be a big problem, unless they believed that pressing a certain button would achieve this. This belief principle extends to everything else they do in any experiment, or observation of any kind. There is a set of theories and laws, that all scientists are obliged to own (believe in). (This was posted in response to a certain locked discussion, in which someone informed me that Science is not a "belief system". Perhaps that someone would like to comment on why the above is, in that case, a load of rubbish --but not complete rubbish, there is no such thing as "complete" rubbish)
swansont Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 (This was posted in response to a certain locked discussion, in which someone informed me that Science is not a "belief system". Perhaps that someone would like to comment on why the above is, in that case, a load of rubbish --but not complete rubbish, there is no such thing as "complete" rubbish) Because it is based upon equivocation ("belief" has more than one definition), which is a logical fallacy, and any argument based on any fallacious premise or logical step is invalid. Science is not a belief system, using the proper definition associated with that phrase.
Fred56 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Posted November 30, 2007 If Science isn't a "belief" system. is it a system of any kind, or isn't it meaningful to say Science is sytematic, or a system at all? (it's a method, apparently) Because it is based upon equivocation ("belief" has more than one definition) This reference to my OP appears to be saying that I am equivocating (and fallaciously). Since you 'offered' this term, what is it am I equivocating about exactly? I think you may need to qualify this because it isn't immediately apparent to me what it might be. In short, can you explain what you mean? Do you think that any experimental approach requires "faith", as in my example of believing that pushing a switch will turn on the lights, or any equipment that uses electricity (this must require a belief in electrical theory)? Or are "believing" and "faith" not the words you would personally use (and if not, why don't you)? Also I don't think I can agree with your claim about multiple meanings for the word, there really is only one kind of believing that we do, I would say, but some seem to think otherwise. I think multiple meanings for the word "belief" are logically unsupportable; are a fallacy (and therefore, your refutation is also illogical). Sorry, but I'm going to take a bit more convincing than just being told that I'm being equivocal or fallacious.
YT2095 Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 when you consider the age old "a tree falls over in a forest and there`s no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" question, then the common answer Science gives is "We believe so". there IS an element of Faith that it Does make a sound. even though it can`t be tested.
doG Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 In a word science is knowledge. Knowledge carries with it a great number of beliefs but they are not really a belief system in the context that it represents either a religion or a world view. One could say that a belief in the scientific method is based on the faith in postulates or axioms but that still would not make science, a system of knowledge, a belief system or a religion.
YT2095 Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 well you`re the 1`st person to bring Religion into this, it`s not been mentioned anywhere, hopefully you`ll be the Last too! this chat is about Science.
Fred56 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Posted November 30, 2007 Anyhoo, how many definitions of 'believe' does anyone want to have a go at writing out? I'm fairly sure I can demonstrate that any apparent differences aren't. The gauntlet is thrown...
doG Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 well you`re the 1`st person to bring Religion into this, it`s not been mentioned anywhere, hopefully you`ll be the Last too! this chat is about Science. Actually the OP did that when they asked about it being a "belief system". Just in case it is the bait it looks to be I answered in kind. If not then I apologize.
Mr Skeptic Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Actually the OP did that when they asked about it being a "belief system". Just in case it is the bait it looks to be I answered in kind. If not then I apologize. A belief system can refer to * a religion. See list of religions or * a world view Since the OP defined a religion as a belief system' date=' they were either referring to worldview or just gave a synonym instead of a definition. A worldview describes a consistent (to a varying degree) and integral sense of existence and provides a framework for generating, sustaining, and applying knowledge. Sounds kind of like science.
swansont Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Actually the OP did that when they asked about it being a "belief system". Just in case it is the bait it looks to be I answered in kind. If not then I apologize. That's exactly the point I would have brought up if I had responded earlier. The implication of saying science is a belief system is that the type of belief is religious in nature: belief despite the absence of evidence. "Belief" used in scientific inquiry is belief because of the evidence; the repeated testing that gives on confidence that a particular set of circumstances will lead to a particular result (or set of results). Switching the two definitions is indeed equivocation. Science is not a religion. If I flip a switch I believe that a light will come on, because I have an understanding of electricity. If the light does not come on, I will resort to investigating a wiring problem or burned out bulb, rather than prayer and fasting, or sacrificing a goat.
iNow Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Science is learning. Learning is an ongoing accumulation of experience. I disagree with your opening premise. Learning is learning, science is a method by which we learn... by which we acquire knowledge. An equivalent to what you said might be that "Cooking is nutrition." It's not. Cooking is a method by which we prepare food to nurish ourselves, much like science is a method by which we investigate the universe to educate ourselves (i.e. to learn). Science is an accumulation of fact and (undisputed) belief in the existence of the set of accumulated 'facts' about the world, and the behaviour of things in the world. Again, science is a METHOD by which we accumulate facts. However, it is NEVER undisputed. One who engages in the method of science would discard a theory proven false. Science is a method of modelling nature, and our models are being continually refined. We have a higher degree of confidence in some models... models which have proven accurate with every test thrown at them... but they are never considered absolute, and are always subject to new information and replacement by new models which more accurately describe the universe. A scientist necessarily must divorce their thinking from disputed, or unproven ideas, and cling to knowledge (belief) that is undisputed, or accepted as true, generally because such knowledge 'works' or explains behaviour, and predicts, anticipates, or expects further (possibly not yet observed) behaviour. No, it is not NECESSARY for scientists to cling to any knowledge or refuse to dispute that which is accepted as true. It is only necessary that scientists form testable hyptheses and reject concepts proven false. Then, if they are a good scientist, they would hopefully seek to better undrestand those hypotheses which had proven accurate, continually engaging in efforts to refine them and update them to work in ever increasing applications and situations. Scientists, as defined as a person approaching the universe with the method of science, only cling to the method itself. A scientist must try to divorce their thinking from any beliefs, but in practice, this is not possible. There are two points you have made and not supported in the statement above. Please support: 1) That scientists must divorce their thinking from any beliefs, and 2) That this is not possible. These were your statements. The onus is on you to support them. Otherwise there would be a lot of problems to overcome any time they wished to investigate some behaviour. There are ALWAYS problems to overcome. This is a non-sequitur since the existence of problems does not dictate an impossibility in overcoming them. If a scientist managed to divorce themselves from all belief, they would then have to rediscover how electricity works, for example, and what happens when a switch is turned on. Divorcing oneself from beliefs and divorcing oneself from accumulated knowledge are not one and the same. I suggest again that what is quoted above is not supported (and I might go so far is to say it's completely unsupportable, but I'll give you the chance to try). Even turning on some lighting in a lab would be a big problem, unless they believed that pressing a certain button would achieve this. Memory and behavioral conditioning have little (if anything) to do with belief. If my previous experience pressing said button resulted in the lights turning on, then that behavior was reinforced... I was conditioned to know that pressing the button, in the past, resulted in the lights coming on. It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with experience. I had a desire to make the lights go on. I learned that pressing the button made ths happen. I felt happy because my desire was sated. This is fully explainable in physiological terms, and does not require the injection of a belief concept or system to describe. (This was posted in response to a certain locked discussion, in which someone informed me that Science is not a "belief system". Perhaps that someone would like to comment on why the above is, in that case, a load of rubbish --but not complete rubbish, there is no such thing as "complete" rubbish) So, you are trying to avoid attacks on your post by pre-emptively suggesting that there is no such thing as complete rubbish? Okay... That's fine. Your post was, however, loaded with logical fallacy and unsupported statements. Some of which I pointed to, others already illuminated by members who posted previous to me. Also, no need for this "certain someone" hooey... it was me, and I said it here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=374751&postcount=108
YT2095 Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 ok ok ok, Wait a dogon minute here, Howcome all the "belief system" bit that you`ve all quoted shows up in BLUE with a link when I see Nothing like that in the OP????
iNow Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 ok ok ok, Wait a dogon minute here, Howcome all the "belief system" bit that you`ve all quoted shows up in BLUE with a link when I see Nothing like that in the OP???? From the OP: (This was posted in response to a certain locked discussion, in which someone informed me that Science is not a "belief system". Perhaps that someone would like to comment on why the above is, in that case, a load of rubbish --but not complete rubbish, there is no such thing as "complete" rubbish) ...and the Original context: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=374743&postcount=106 Just how do you figure that Science is "not a set of beliefs". http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=374751&postcount=108 Really? Shall we go down that tangent? Open another thread and I'll gladly contribute to the answer.
YT2095 Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 nope not even a Mouse click over the original phrase turns anything up here??? prolly this pootah!
Fred56 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Posted November 30, 2007 Knowledge carries with it a great number of beliefs but they are not really a belief system in the context that it represents either a religion or a world view. Isn't that nice? "Science is a belief system which has nothing to do with (religious) faith or belief"... when exactly did I mention or bring religion into this thread btw...? One could say that a belief in the scientific method is based on the faith in postulates or axioms but that still would not make science, a system of knowledge,[/b'] a belief system or a religion. What does it make it then? You appear to be going in circles trying to deny that Science is any system, especially not a system of beliefs. What does based on mean, do you think? The implication of saying science is a belief system is that the type of belief is religious in nature To you it is, you mean. you are trying to avoid attacks on your post by pre-emptively suggesting that there is no such thing as complete rubbish? Can you demonstrate or define something that is a complete "anything"? Please do try, it should be interesting...
swansont Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 nope not even a Mouse click over the original phrase turns anything up here??? prolly this pootah! The original use of the phrase was not linked to a url; doG added a link because the use of the phrase does normally imply a religious context.
iNow Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Can you demonstrate or define something that is a complete "anything"? Please do try, it should be interesting... It would be interesting, but is hardly the point of this thread. Also, is there any particular reason that you ignored the rest of my post, or have you already ceded your previous position?
Fred56 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Posted November 30, 2007 Even turning on some lighting in a lab would be a big problem, unless they believed that pressing a certain button would achieve this. Memory and behavioral conditioning have little (if anything) to do with belief. That looks a lot like a conjecture. Can you substantiate this at all? If my previous experience pressing said button resulted in the lights turning on, then that behavior was reinforced... I was conditioned to know that pressing the button, in the past[/b'], resulted in the lights coming on. So knowing something is just conditioning then? Belief is an unneeded by-product of learning? It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with experience. This looks like something you believe, I would say... I had a desire to make the lights go on. I learned that pressing the button made ths happen. I felt happy because my desire was sated. This is fully explainable in physiological terms, and does not require the injection of a belief concept or system to describe. This looks a lot like a load of, well, philosophising around... Look what happens when you do this to it: I had a desire [(because of my belief)] to make the lights go on. I learned that pressing the button made ths happen. [(I believed my actions would acheive the result)] I felt happy because my desire was sated. [(my belief was 'true', i.e. not 'disputed' by a different outcome)] This is fully explainable in physiological terms, and does not require the injection of a [philosophically solipsist] concept or system to describe. There are two points you have made and not supported in the statement above. Please support:1) That scientists must divorce their thinking from any beliefs' date=' and[/quote'] Gotcha! I was sort of hoping you would notice this (apparent) problem with my post. Actually this is what I think you are claiming, type of thing.2) That this is not possible. Kind of 'speaks' for itself...
swansont Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 when exactly did I mention or bring religion into this thread btw? ... To you it is, you mean. To me, yes, and to a lot of people. To have a discussion while privately using nonstandard definitions for words is, IMO, intellectually dishonest. Semantic games. The original context of this was a thread about religion. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. A lot of this could have been averted if the equivocation had been more explicitly pointed out when this first came up; iNow implied it but didn't actually call it as such. ———— Using the religious definition of the term, science is not a belief system. Continue, if there's still a point to be made.
Fred56 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Posted November 30, 2007 The original context of this was a thread about religion. Yes, but this thread is about belief and scientific thinking, religion can stay outside (maybe looking in the window) for now. privately using nonstandard definitions What are these things supposed to be? What equivocation? Perhaps someone might give their (private nonstandard, or whatever) definition of this? Apparently, because lots of people assume that a "belief system" is something to do with religion (something I don't personally, privately or non-standardly do myself), this is a "big problem". Continue, if there's still a point to be made. Perhaps there's no point in arguing with someone who clings to the belief that belief is unnecessary, and has nothing to do with Science or the scientific method (a strange belief if ever I came across one)... Originally Posted by iNow I had a desire to make the lights go on. I learned that pressing the button made ths happen. I felt happy because my desire was sated. This is fully explainable in physiological terms, and does not require the injection of a belief concept or system to describe. Let's try a different filter: I had a desire to make the lights go on. [This formed in my brain due to the 'Scientific method', and had nothing to do with my belief in the theory of electricity (actually I don't believe in it, because I don't have to), these things simply happen.] I learned that pressing the button made ths happen. [but this learning is not belief. Calling my knowledge of how light switches work a belief is simply incorrect, because you have to be religious to believe in anything, and Science has no room for believers.]I felt happy because my desire was sated.[This was because my learning (which is not belief or a belief system) was reinforced, not because there was no contending outcome, so my expectation was met, not disputed by the switch or the electricity it 'connected to' the lights.]... is this enough filtering yet...?
Reaper Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 What are these things supposed to be? What equivocation? Perhaps someone might give their (private nonstandard, or whatever) definition of this? Apparently, because lots of people assume that a "belief system" is something to do with religion (something I don't personally, privately or non-standardly do myself), this is a "big problem". Well, usually yes, that is the case. When we usually speak of belief, we usually mean belief in something without evidence, or inadequate evidence. Most beliefs aren't verifiable. Science is not really a set of beliefs because, well, they are all verifiable; you can verify your claims or theories by looking at the physical universe itself. Not only that, but multiple experiments are carried to see if the results can be reproduced. Perhaps there's no point in arguing with someone who clings to the belief that belief is unnecessary, and has nothing to do with Science or the scientific method (a strange belief if ever I came across one)... He's not arguing that at all. The only belief there is in science is that the next experiment will not disprove all the theories that have worked so well for us thus far. Beyond that, belief is not needed, necessary, or in some cases not even desired (since it doesn't really tell us anything about what we are investigating), in the field of science.
iNow Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 That looks a lot like a conjecture. Can you substantiate this at all? My approach here is that you must first undrerstand the ideas I presented in order for my answer to make any sense. So, please spend some time reviewing the information below and show me where belief is referenced: http://web.umr.edu/~psyworld/classical_conditioning.htm http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/pavlov.htm http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/behaviour.htm http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/behsys/operant.html http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/skinner.html http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~lynda_abbott/Behavioral2.html http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/1/neurolog.htm http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/meg/halgren/declarative_mem.html http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f03/web1/fmichaels.html Here's a great reference list to check out as well: http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/research/vet/owagner.html If you don't understand why I suggest that belief is not a factor in the above, I'll clarify where I can. So knowing something is just conditioning then? Belief is an unneeded by-product of learning? I said neither of those two things, nor was my comment intended to imply that. This looks like something you believe, I would say... It was the presentation of an informed opinion, not a statement of belief. This looks a lot like a load of, well, philosophising around... I presume that you've never studied operant conditioning or behavioral reinforcement. Do you care to comment on this presumption? How does my comment look after reviewing the educational resources I shared above? What I said is accurate, and if it's not, I'd ask you to focus on that instead of ad homming me saying it looks like "a load of, well, philosophising." Okay? Look what happens when you do this to it: Point? Gotcha! I was sort of hoping you would notice this (apparent) problem with my post. Actually this is what I think you are claiming, type of thing. So, I pointed out a fallacy in your post, and you respond basically, "I was just seeing if you were paying attention?" Kind of 'speaks' for itself... For someone who began their post asking for substantiation, you definitely closed by not leading by example. You have given every indication that this exchange with you will be a fruitless waste of time where we go around in circles and fall down your clever little semantic trap doors. Unless there's a change or evidence to the contrary in future posts, I don't plan to continue here. ... is this enough filtering yet...? If by "filter," you mean strawman, equivocation, appeal to ignorance, and appeal to shame, then yes... quite enough. Thanks.
Mr Skeptic Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 Oh, dear. I believe it was my mention that science was as much a belief system as religion in the other thread that started this mess. For the record, I am in no way affiliated with Fred56. Anyhow, here goes: Religion is based on specific beliefs (articles of faith or whatever they're called). Math is based on specific beliefs (they call them axioms). Science is based on specific beliefs (the scientific method). For example: # That the world is consistent. This is implied by the requirement of repeatability. # That the world is objective. This is implied by the requirement that experiments must be repeatable by other people. # That the world is observable. This is implied by the requirement that observations be made. # That the world is understandable/predictable. This is implied by its dedication to understanding/predicting the world. Unlike math and religion, science is not nearly as forthright with what it believes, so it is harder to say what science believes. ---- All of science, religion, and math would be a subfield of philosophy. You start with some premises, and by logical reasoning, attempt to arrive at as many interesting or useful conclusions as possible. The difference between them is the premises they start with, and the conclusions which must then logically be reached. You could say one more useful than another, or that one is more intuitive than the other, but not that one is more correct than the other. There is really no way to prove the premises either true or false.
doG Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 Isn't that nice? "Science is a belief system which has nothing to do with (religious) faith or belief"... when exactly did I mention or bring religion into this thread btw...? When you created this thread to continue a discussion from another thread about religion that had been locked....
swansont Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 Oh, dear. I believe it was my mention that science was as much a belief system as religion in the other thread that started this mess. For the record, I am in no way affiliated with Fred56. Anyhow, here goes: Religion is based on specific beliefs (articles of faith or whatever they're called). Math is based on specific beliefs (they call them axioms). Science is based on specific beliefs (the scientific method). For example: # That the world is consistent. This is implied by the requirement of repeatability. # That the world is objective. This is implied by the requirement that experiments must be repeatable by other people. # That the world is observable. This is implied by the requirement that observations be made. # That the world is understandable/predictable. This is implied by its dedication to understanding/predicting the world. Unlike math and religion, science is not nearly as forthright with what it believes, so it is harder to say what science believes. ---- All of science, religion, and math would be a subfield of philosophy. You start with some premises, and by logical reasoning, attempt to arrive at as many interesting or useful conclusions as possible. The difference between them is the premises they start with, and the conclusions which must then logically be reached. You could say one more useful than another, or that one is more intuitive than the other, but not that one is more correct than the other. There is really no way to prove the premises either true or false. Math axioms are not beliefs so much as a set of conditions under which the conclusions will be true. And, as I pointed out before, religious belief and scientific belief use two different definitions of the word; one is faith-based, and the other is evidence-based. You can't prove the premises true as in math, because science is inductive. But if you can test the implications of them, and do so in a falsifiable way, then you can gain confidence that the premises are actually true. Religious belief does not do this.
Recommended Posts