Science and learning: a belief system

[Fred56]

When we usually speak of belief, we usually mean belief in something without evidence, or inadequate evidence.

When I use the word "belief", I'm referring to the way we all believe (things). "belief in something without evidence", sounds like belief in something like the sun rising sometime tomorrow (hopefully at dawn, or damn near it). You can't define belief out of science because both are human institutions, and humans believe things (like the sun will 'most probably' come up tomorrow, and this will happen when it's 'meant to'), and are also scientists of some kind (we all have an individual science).

...Science is not really a set of beliefs because, well, the ['principles'] ..are all verifiable

(I'm assuming this is what you meant by 'they'). What does verifiable actually mean, though. How is this different from turning on the lights, or starting a car, or powering up some bench equipment? Answer: it isn't. Science is a set, or a system, of things that are 'beliefs' (verifiable principles, and various other terminology), therefore it must be a 'belief system', a system of verifiable principles.

I pointed out a fallacy in your post

No you didn't, you pointed out that you are thinking that I'm equivocating, and being fallacious, let's have another look:

A scientist must try to divorce their thinking from any beliefs, but in practice, this is not possible.

I'm saying that despite the scientific method, a human mind requires a belief system to be able to function (especially nowadays). I don't mean that you can't use something if you don't know how it works, what I mean is everyone has a set of beliefs (a belief system, and I insist that any religious or fanatical attachments that anyone makes to this term is very much their own choice; for 'scientists', this attachment would be a belief that is not much use to them, I would have thought), and scientists actually require a belief system to investigate the world using anything (including their eyesight). The method, or mental technique employed, is to attempt an objective viewpoint, by only acquiring, or considering, information that is relevant. This is only possible because of what the user of this method believes (or chooses to ignore).

I can't see why there is such a big issue with saying this either, and I have yet to see any definitive refutation of it. (Hint: I would say there isn't one, but let's see how much fun we can have trying to find it)

 

Nothing anyone has said so far in THIS thread (please at least try to leave the religious theme behind) has convinced me that Science is not a system of beliefs (a collection of theories and learning, or established knowledge). That is what it is, I'm sorry to inform you all. Accusing this of being equivocal, fallacious, and so on looks like posturing, so that's what I'll call it (what the hey?). But you might want to try a different pos.. er, stance, maybe.

 

This sort of thing won't cut much of anything either:

doG added a link because the use of the phrase does normally imply a religious context.

How thoughtful...

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 hardly any point then, in asking this in the first place? viz:

you are trying to avoid attacks on your post by pre-emptively suggesting that there is no such thing as complete rubbish?

[Sayonara]

In the case of science being a belief system, this is clearly untrue. Science is a methodological system of evalution which may produce information in which one is free to believe. Labelling science a belief system on this basis is a blatant equivocation, whether you see why or not.

 

I am not sure what the "buttons/lights" points were supposed to demonstrate. Buttons turning on lights is a matter of circuitry and power, not the beliefs of an observer. The evidence of the actions of a button can be observed and interpreted without resort to either belief or faith.

 

Science is a set, or a system, of things that are 'beliefs' (verifiable principles, and various other terminology), therefore it must be a 'belief system', a system of verifiable principles.

This is the root of your problem. Your "therefore" is unjustified because you supply a definition of science which suits your argument but which does not in fact accurately describe science. In other words, you are either begging the question or arguing a strawman.

 

Please use the scientific definition for terms included in arguments on this site. On SFN, when we say 'science' we are - by and large - using it for brevity to refer to either (a) the application of the scientific method, or (b) the scientific community. The context usually indicates which.

 

If you are not going to use conventional, universally-accepted scientific definitions, the onus is on you to make this clear from the first inclusion of any such term.

[YT2095]

the case of the Switch/Button and Light bulb with power not turning on is also explainable by science under Sods Law.

which details the maximum cussedness of matter.

 

and I`m only Part joking!

[Mr Skeptic]

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.

 

I don't see how science can get any more evidence for their beliefs than can religion. Can the science beliefs (eg the ones I mentioned in my post 23) be proven without using circular reasoning? Compare "Evidence is stuff we can see, look, I found evidence!" vs "Evidence is stuff written in the Bible, look, I found evidence!" Both are equally valid reasoning (though if your objective is to find out about stuff you can see you would use science, and if your objective is to find out stuff about the Bible you would use religion). But again, I see no way to prove the beliefs of either science or religion without using circular reasoning.

 

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.

 

Math doesn't generally prove its premises true, just their conclusions. Did you mean hypothesis?

 

In religion as in science, you can also make statements and test the implications of them in a falsifiable way. The difference would be your premises, particularly the premises dealing with what is evidence.

[Fred56]

Science is a methodological system of evalu[a]tion which may produce information in which one is free to believe.

So believing in the outcome of any investigation isn't constructing any sort of system, and nor is accumulating tested (precise) theories? Or if it is, calling it a system of beliefs is equivocating? No, I don't see why this is the case.

 

And despite what science defines as what it believes, as opposed to what religion believes (faith in an unseeable, unknowable thing), are you saying that the belief process is different? I don't believe this conclusion can be drawn at all (both are beliefs; people --including people who study science-- believe all kinds of illogical and demonstrably false things).

 

Also, science being a "system of evaluation" implies that something is needed for an evaluation to be made, what might this be, or do scientists simply evaluate, without any conclusions being seen as necessary? I don't think so, they believe in their conclusions to the extent that it is logical to do so, don't they (I mean, I'm pretty sure that's what I do)? What about unprovable math theories, or NP-complete problems (the halting problem)? Aren't there things we know we can never prove are true (or false)?

 

On SFN, when we say 'science' we are - by and large - using it for brevity to refer to either (a) the application of the scientific method, or (b) the scientific community

OK, but in the rest of the world "science" doesn't mean just those first two things.

What about some tribesman in the Amazon jungle who has no idea what a book or a library is, has never been in a lab? Does he know what science is (as compared to what you seem to be talking about: Western Science and its Philosophy)? Does this tribesman have theories and hypotheses that he and others investigate? What does his belief system have to do with his science --nothing?

 

And I don't think I've said (but there's a sense, I feel, that I am implying) that science is only a system of beliefs. The collected wisdom isn't anything that anyone must believe either (plenty of people have no idea of many of the principles underlying the gadgets and machinery they use every day), but if you want to learn it, then you do need to believe some of it.

 

The methodical aspects are closely related to (even emerge from, maybe) a set of constructed and learned things (I call these beliefs), otherwise known as Scientific Laws and Theories, although they are obviously things that people believe. What's wrong with calling it a system that includes a belief system (or saying it is a belief system therefore)? I have yet to see, as I have said, what this might be. Appeals to the correct, or usual, interpretation of these words doesn't make a lot of sense, because I don't see that I'm using an unusual or incorrect one in any case.

 

Maybe this is the kind of thing that happens when liberal encounters conservative (semantics). (that looks like a thing that belongs in the set of "one of those": "liberal semanticist", wonder if it's valid?)

[swansont]

In religion as in science, you can also make statements and test the implications of them in a falsifiable way. The difference would be your premises, particularly the premises dealing with what is evidence.

 

Examples?

[Mr Skeptic]

Examples?

 

I suppose something along the lines of Martin Luther's 95 Thesis would be the kind of statements I was thinking of.

 

Of course there would be some untestable statements that could be made as well. An example of an untestable statement would be that stars last forever.

Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.

[iNow]

I suppose something along the lines of Martin Luther's 95 Thesis would be the kind of statements I was thinking of.

Here's a link for those who don't know:

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther95.txt

[Reaper]

Well, if the bible does indeed produce predictions that are falsifiable, then, well, the bible has been overwhelmingly discredited and proven to be wrong on most accounts.

 

That's why the bible has been considered mostly an allegorical or a metaphorical book nowadays.

[Fred56]

from Latin

'equivocate'

aequare - to make equal, and vocare - to name or call.

...so aequivocare - to call or name the same. i.e ambiguity.

 

'science' (bit of a handful here)

 

scienta: knowledge, learning, skill

scire: know, be skilled in

sciscere: inquire, learn, decree, approve

 

'believe'

 

putare: think, believe, settle

reri: regard, suppose, believe

credere: trust, believe, commit

confido: trust in, believe in

accredere: entrust, have faith in, believe

arbitrari: witness, testify, decide, believe

 

'verify'

 

authenticare: verify, authenticate

comperire: compare, learn, discover, verify

 

Maybe there's a bit too much semantic breadth in some words (for some of us)...

[iNow]

None of the above serves as evidence that "science is a system of beliefs." Frankly, it's not our problem if you are not content with the structure of language and semantics. You have made an unsupportable claim, and your only argument seems to be that you "believe science is a system of beliefs." That is not sufficient, yet after 35 posts, you've still done no better.

[Sayonara]

I would like to point out that despite the quote labels, Fred's post #30 was a reply to me and not to swansont.

 

So believing in the outcome of any investigation isn't constructing any sort of system, and nor is accumulating tested (precise) theories? Or if it is, calling it a system of beliefs is equivocating? No, I don't see why this is the case.

It's an equivocation because you are synonymising the temporary agreement of one or more scientists to an observed relationship with some arbitrary functionality of what you are labelling "science".

 

Like I said, science is just a method. Although it may have information as an output, which we can believe in according to any definition you please, this does not mean that science itself is a belief system. It does not require belief in order to function.

 

And despite what science defines as what it believes, as opposed to what religion believes (faith in an unseeable, unknowable thing), are you saying that the belief process is different?

No, I am saying that 'belief within science' is a function of scientists, not a function of science.

 

I don't believe this conclusion can be drawn at all (both are beliefs; people --including people who study science-- believe all kinds of illogical and demonstrably false things).

Yes, but the scientific method is not "people".

 

Also, science being a "system of evaluation" implies that something is needed for an evaluation to be made, what might this be, or do scientists simply evaluate, without any conclusions being seen as necessary?

Depends if you want to take the long view that any given theory can be discarded on the basis of evidence.

 

I don't think so, they believe in their conclusions to the extent that it is logical to do so, don't they (I mean, I'm pretty sure that's what I do)?

So what? I believe in the matching blueness of the socks that I took out of my dresser this morning. That does not make my organisation of the top drawer a belief system. Well, maybe in your house it would.

 

What about unprovable math theories, or NP-complete problems (the halting problem)? Aren't there things we know we can never prove are true (or false)?

Is this supposed to be an implication of faith in science? Because most formulations in such cases start by declaring assumptions.

 

OK, but in the rest of the world "science" doesn't mean just those first two things.

Doesn't mean a thing. Science uses scientific definitions. If you are discussing science, and use the wrong definitions, then you will clearly be innaccurate at best.

 

What about some tribesman in the Amazon jungle who has no idea what a book or a library is, has never been in a lab? Does he know what science is (as compared to what you seem to be talking about: Western Science and its Philosophy)? Does this tribesman have theories and hypotheses that he and others investigate? What does his belief system have to do with his science --nothing?

This borrows from but does not extend the reasoning I have already argued against.

 

And I don't think I've said (but there's a sense, I feel, that I am implying) that science is only a system of beliefs.

I did not feel that you were implying this. But "system of beliefs", as others have mentioned, does imply certain attributes which science simply does not have.

 

The collected wisdom isn't anything that anyone must believe either (plenty of people have no idea of many of the principles underlying the gadgets and machinery they use every day), but if you want to learn it, then you do need to believe some of it.

I think this is the strongest point you can possibly make, but it only stands where one takes some massive inert library of knowledge to be a feature of "science", and you're the only one in this discussion who appears to do so.

 

The methodical aspects are closely related to (even emerge from, maybe) a set of constructed and learned things (I call these beliefs), otherwise known as Scientific Laws and Theories, although they are obviously things that people believe. What's wrong with calling it a system that includes a belief system (or saying it is a belief system therefore)? I have yet to see, as I have said, what this might be. Appeals to the correct, or usual, interpretation of these words doesn't make a lot of sense, because I don't see that I'm using an unusual or incorrect one in any case.

There is a problem because you are trying to make all of science a system of belief, whereas when it comes to arguing the case the only bit that you can make a reasonable approach with is that "people believe in things we learned from the application of science".

 

It is true that within society people believe in some or all of a body of information which resulted from scientific enquiry. But this does not make science a belief system.

 

Maybe this is the kind of thing that happens when liberal encounters conservative (semantics). (that looks like a thing that belongs in the set of "one of those": "liberal semanticist", wonder if it's valid?)

I am not sure if you can really say that it is down to the people involved, rather than convention. We can be as liberal as we like with our definitions but if we don't tighten them up when talking about scientific matters then obviously we will end up being either wrong or misunderstood. I cite this thread's existence as evidence!

[Fred56]

Frankly, it's not our problem if you are not content with the structure of language and semantics.

However, you seem to think it's important to keep telling everyone that there is one...

cience is just a method. Although it may have information as an output, which we can believe in according to any definition you please, this does not mean that science itself is a belief system. It does not require[/b'] belief in order to function...

 

What sort of worldview does any person (including yourself) have then? Is this worldview (belief system) divorced completely from the purpose of Science; and doesn't associate with scientific method either?

 

I am saying that 'belief within science' is a function of scientists, not a function of science. ...Science uses scientific definitions. ..you are trying to make all of science a system of belief

That last conclusion is not supported in the least by anything I have 'said', sorry. What I have said is that Science is necessarily a collection of ideas (beliefs) which form a system (of reference). Terminology and its differing semantics appears to be an issue here.

...We can be as liberal as we like with our definitions but if we don't tighten them up when talking about scientific matters then obviously we will end up being either wrong or misunderstood. I cite this thread's existence as evidence!

Wrap more chains of logic around them, by all means. And to define something must involve belief (in meaning and its definition, possibly).

And the existence of this thread might be totally meaningless, or it might change or commute with someone's ideas about what knowledge actually is (or not). Some seem to think we should tread more carefully, but I'm just getting into my stride here, I feel.

[swansont]

I suppose something along the lines of Martin Luther's 95 Thesis would be the kind of statements I was thinking of.

 

Of course there would be some untestable statements that could be made as well. An example of an untestable statement would be that stars last forever.

 

I didn't see much in the list (to which iNow linked) that would be testable. How would you test if the penalty of sin remains until you get to heaven, for example?

[Fred56]

Comment on NP_completeness, etc:

do we 'know' that there are theories or postulates that we will never 'prove' (know if they have a solution)? If, so, does this mean we believe that we know there are unknowable things in our experience (i.e. the world)? Or is there the usual scientific/semantic problem with using the verb 'believe'? We expect instead, or we test the assumption --which we don't call a belief of any kind (or even say it's a belief that we are able to make the assumption, or test it)?

 

Comment on science and scientific method (as defined by Sayonara³):

'belief within science' is a function of scientists, not a function of science... [T]he scientific method is not "people".

Translation: "Science is not scientists, scientific method is not scientists.

 

Scientists (people) are only coincidental to science. Because people believe things, and science isn't belief, people (especially scientists) must not invoke the notion of belief if they wish to investigate anything. However, because they do (darn it), it is necessary to point out that the method is in fact the science, not the results it delivers.

 

The results are coincidental. The beliefs and theories that "accumulate" can be collated, collected, studied, amended, improved, disproved, etc but they aren't a part of science, because we have to define it narrowly, or exactly, or precisely, so it can only be said to be a method. Selecting a pair of apparently identical blue socks illustrates this method, but opening a drawer where I expect to find such items is not part of any belief, it's the testing of a method, or an expectation. But I can't believe this either, scientists beliefs simply don't come in to it. This is why I constantly forget where my socks are.

Calling the accumulation of knowledge, observation, or any result 'belief' or a part of some 'belief system' is equivocation."

 

Uh huh...

[Mr Skeptic]

I didn't see much in the list (to which iNow linked) that would be testable. How would you test if the penalty of sin remains until you get to heaven, for example?

 

Well, under the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God, you could make predictions as to what you should or shouldn't find in the Bible if that statement were true. If your observations support the statement, then you would say it is (probably) true. Just like in science, but with different starting assumptions

 

Edit: Let me add, that there is a reason that Martin Luther's 95 Thesis became so widely accepted even though it went against the Pope

[Sayonara]

Wrap more chains of logic around them, by all means. And to define something must involve belief (in meaning and its definition, possibly).

And the existence of this thread might be totally meaningless, or it might change or commute with someone's ideas about what knowledge actually is (or not). Some seem to think we should tread more carefully, but I'm just getting into my stride here, I feel.

 

Well, let me put it another way.

 

Suppose we decide that on the whole, humans are too busy for any kind of work, including scientific enquiry. So we formalise the scientific method within the framework of a programming language and palm all the actual work off onto robots, which believe nothing. The process goes on, but no worldview is necessary for that to occur.

[swansont]

Well, under the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God, you could make predictions as to what you should or shouldn't find in the Bible if that statement were true. If your observations support the statement, then you would say it is (probably) true. Just like in science, but with different starting assumptions

 

Edit: Let me add, that there is a reason that Martin Luther's 95 Thesis became so widely accepted even though it went against the Pope

 

I disagree. If the Bible is the word of God, how do you know what he would put in there? Why isn't evolution mentioned? If you can justify any omission, it's not falsifiable.

[Mr Skeptic]

I disagree. If the Bible is the word of God, how do you know what he would put in there? Why isn't evolution mentioned? If you can justify any omission, it's not falsifiable.

 

Under the assumption that the Bible is true, evolution would be false. It would conflict with the chronology, the order different things were created in, with the requirement that critters reproduce "after their kind", that humans were formed by God directly from dirt, the time from Adam to now calculated from the genealogies, etc.

 

BTW, you have not yet given any justification to the beliefs of science that I mentioned in post 23.

[Fred56]

So we formalise the scientific method within the framework of a programming language and palm all the actual work off onto robots, which believe nothing. The process goes on, but no worldview is necessary for that to occur.

So we formalise our science as some algebra (a computer program), with its own alphabet (that we need to understand to achieve the 'encoding' of our 'method'), and hand it to machines of some kind (robots). How does this not require our worldview? The robots don't know what to do unless we tell them. Once they've "got the idea", where does our worldview disconnect, at which point of this process? Do we leave them to it and show no further interest, even if one of them knocks on the door and wants to tell us something?

How is this different from using a thermometer (installed inside a furnace, say)? Or using any machine (that we have expended energy and effort to build and 'program')? Unfortunately, it is not possible to disconnect from our individual and group 'worldviews', philosophies, beliefs about what we are doing (when we program a computer, for example), even when we employ objective reasoning, deduction, or any logic whatsoever. We can't suspend belief for very long, because we need to believe (certain things) just to function 'normally'.

 

Despite what you seem to be claiming, I would say that you or any other scientist or experimenter, simply cannot do much without belief (call it learning or knowledge or experience, it's still believing something). Belief is here to stay, it isn't going to disappear from our experience (if it did, we would probably behave much like someone with severe amnesia, who has forgotten not just who they are, or where they were born, but that they were even alive, or what being alive means, etc, i.e. a 'tabula rasa' condition -no state of mind or even theory of mind, just like a newborn infant, I would say).

 

If its an annoying word, or something, or if you seriously believe that it's the 'wrong' word to use, I'm not sure what I can say to that. I believe that belief is an ongoing part of experience and learning, or it is learning. Do you believe that you can remember things, or that you know how to 'apply' the scientific method?

 

I know how to play a piano, I believe I can do this, and my method is most methodical and objective, at least while I'm learning some piece, and I know a few keyboard exercises (I believe these are good for my subjective ability at playing, or mapping my finger-movements to the different keys -remembering). What do you do when you want to learn how to use some equipment you haven't before, or are you confident (have some belief in your own ability) at using instrumentation, and so on?

[YT2095]

looking at it Objectively, the idea of machines and programs doing what Scientists as far as method is concerned ISN`T all that far fetched, I think they may stumble at the Imagination hurdle, but that doesn`t require a Belief system to overcome.

in fact Scientific method is very Much like running a "program".

[Fred56]

Scientific method is very Much like running a "program".

Yes, but who is "running" it? When do we give up and let some machine do it all? Do we write a program, run it, and go somewhere and forget all about it? Do we build things like measuring instruments, install them somewhere and forget all about them?

 

I'd say no. they are just extensions, and they 'need' us as much as we 'need' to use them. I don't leave my Roland sitting in the corner with the power on 24/7. It can play demo tracks, but I have to interact with it (it doesn't do any decision-making). And if we design some robot or AI that can make decisions, much like a human, do we leave it all to itself, go home and watch movies for evermore, because this 'intelligent' machine is 'doing' some job for us? What happens if it develops some kind of fault? We don't do this (leave machines to themselves).

 

Say in some future this is possible -autonomous AI. So will we not interact with them or want to know what they have 'discovered'? Will we leave them to themselves? To what purpose?

[swansont]

Under the assumption that the Bible is true, evolution would be false. It would conflict with the chronology, the order different things were created in, with the requirement that critters reproduce "after their kind", that humans were formed by God directly from dirt, the time from Adam to now calculated from the genealogies, etc.

 

Plenty of folks beieve the Bibe is the word of God but not to be interpreted literally, and have no problem with evolution. It's only the literalists that see a conflict. So this is not a valid test.

 

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.

 

And the fact that science actually works is a test of these assumptions, and confirms that they are reasonable ones to make.

[Sayonara]

So we formalise our science as some algebra (a computer program), with its own alphabet (that we need to understand to achieve the 'encoding' of our 'method'), and hand it to machines of some kind (robots). How does this not require our worldview? The robots don't know what to do unless we tell them. Once they've "got the idea", where does our worldview disconnect, at which point of this process? Do we leave them to it and show no further interest, even if one of them knocks on the door and wants to tell us something?

You are just basically repeating the question I already answered with the "sock drawer organisation" thing. I had thought you were going in another direction, hence the robots, but apparently not.

 

You have to believe things to do science! And when you have done the science, we believe in the things we find out! Well, some of them! So science is a belief system! That's the jist of it, right?

 

Belief does not require adequate support of its main contention. But scientific proof does, and therefore so too does experimental design based on prior work. A key issue here is the difference between knowledge and belief, which is perhaps the central problem in epistemology.

[Mr Skeptic]

Plenty of folks beieve the Bibe is the word of God but not to be interpreted literally, and have no problem with evolution. It's only the literalists that see a conflict. So this is not a valid test.

 

True. It would only be a valid test for the literalists, but not for the metaphorists.

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.

And the fact that science actually works is a test of these assumptions, and confirms that they are reasonable ones to make.

 

How can you tell that science actually works? Without using the assumptions of science, of course. Otherwise it would be a circular argument. I'd also like to point out that the Bible says that the Bible is true

 

Oh, and for good measure, I think that you also have another unsubstantiated belief, the belief that there are no contradictions. That one seems to have been demonstrated to be unprovable BTW.