Science and learning: a belief system

[Fred56]

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.

 

That first sentence looks a tad shaky: do we just believe, are you saying?

Everyone has a 'science' of some description, along with some philosophy, or explanation, of their logic (however flawed or deluded or incorrect it may be). The group (mind) is what points in some direction.

 

Differences between 'knowledge' and 'belief' are philosophical concerns. The scientific method (which some appear to be saying is the sole definition of Science), is nonetheless a tool, a way to objectivise (as fully as possible). But it isn't like a Maxwellian daemon, so that Scientists must rub the magic lamp of 'method', and wait for the genie to appear. Then sit cross-legged on the lab floor while the "method-spirit" does its work. When it's found something, it goes back into the lamp, and the scientist puts it in its cupboard until next time it is needed...

It's a logical construct, or analytical approach, if it looks like a flat-bladed screwdriver, it will possibly be useful for turning slotted-screws; it's a polymorphic kind of logic, which becomes different kinds of tool, but stays the same, or is derived from the same thing.

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?

[swansont]

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

 

Science doesn't claim to deductively prove anything, so there is no circular reasoning as with the Bible claim. It's sort of an ongoing proof-by-contradiction, and one actively seeks out the contradictions

 

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.

 

But, as in math, there will always be statements that are true and unprovable. Again, this is using deductive logic, and not the inductive method of science.

[Fred56]

K, time to pull my logic to bits and see if I can glue it back together:

 

"In many ways, belief has been relegated to the realm of religion, to be discussed by priests and pseudo-priests called philosophers, who attempt to describe the meaning and nature of existence in terms devoid of a creative impulse.

[Knowing] means we have had experience, we have had whole experience with our sense and therefore we have authority. If you have manifested the ability to ride a bicycle, it can be said that you have developed authority with that skill. You are in knowing with that skill. No one can 'argue you out of that': you will just go and show them that they are incorrect and that get on the bike and ride it. Then they will know that in fact you DO know how to ride a bicycle." -Jay McCormick BELIEVING and KNOWING

 

"

* If a judgment is valid for everyone, its ground is objectively sufficient and the holding of it is entitled conviction.

* If the ground of a judgment lies in the special character of the subject, it is entitled persuasion.

o Persuasion is mere illusion.

* Truth depends on agreement with the object.

o The judgments of every understanding must be in agreement with each other.

* The touchstone whereby we decide whether holding a thing to be true is conviction or persuasion is external.

o It must be possible to communicate it and find it valid for all human reason.

o There is at least a presumption that the ground of the agreement of all judgments with each other rests upon the object, which proves the truth of the judgment.

* Persuasion cannot be subjectively distinguished from conviction.

o We have to test validity against the understanding of others.

* I cannot assert anything, that is, declare it necessarily valid for everyone, save as it gives rise to conviction.

* The holding of a thing to be true has three degrees:

o Opining: holding a judgment which is consciously insufficient both subjectively and objectively.

o Believing: holding a judgment which is sufficient subjectively but insufficient objectively.

o Knowing: holding a judgment which is sufficient both subjectively and objectively.

+ Subjective sufficiency is termed conviction (for myself).

+ Objective sufficiency is termed certainty (for everyone).

* I must never presume to opine without knowing at least something by means of which the judgment secures connection with truth.

o The law of connection must be certain.

o Opining is never permissible in judging by means of pure reason or in the principles of morality.

* It is only from the practical point of view that the theoretically insufficient holding of a thing to be true can be termed believing.

o The subjective grounds upon which we may hold something to be true are not permissible in speculative questions.

o The practical point of view is either in reference to:

+ Skill which is concerned with optional and contingent ends.

+ Morality which is concerned with absolutely necessary ends.

* Once an end is accepted, the conditions of its attainment are hypothetically necessary.

o It is sufficient if I know with certainty that no one can have any knowledge of any other conditions which lead to the proposed end.

o Contingent belief, which yet forms the ground for the actual employment of means to certain actions is entitled pragmatic belief.

o Pragmatic belief always exists in some specific degree according to the interests at stake.

* In purely theoretical judgments there is an analogon of practical judgments to which the term belief is appropriate and which we may entitle doctrinal belief.

o This is when we are dealing with an object about which nothing can be done by us and in regard to which our judgment is therefore purely theoretical. We may regard ourselves of having sufficient grounds but there is no existing means of arriving at certainty.

o The doctrine of the existence of God is a doctrinal belief.

o Doctrinal belief is unstable; we often lose hold of it, owing to the speculative difficulties which we encounter, although in the end we always return to it.

* With Moral Belief it is absolutely necessary that something must happen.

o The end is completely established.

o There is only one possible condition under which this end can connect with all other ends and thereby have practical validity, namely that there be a God and a future world." -Immanuel Kant Critique of Pure Reason

 

Hmm, looks like this Kant dude might have done a bit of thinking about this one.

So is he saying that belief comes first (i.e. we believe we are able to "know" -to determine the truth or falsity of an assertion or opinion)? How does an infant 'acquire' knowledge; does a newborn believe or know nothing, and has neither science or philosophy? Do these require a 'theory of mind' to develop first?

[Mr Skeptic]

Science doesn't claim to deductively prove anything, so there is no circular reasoning as with the Bible claim. It's sort of an ongoing proof-by-contradiction, and one actively seeks out the contradictions

 

The only reason you wouldn't have circular reasoning is if you are not trying to prove the beliefs of science.

 

But, as in math, there will always be statements that are true and unprovable.

 

What of it? Just because some things are true and unprovable, doesn't mean that the beliefs of science are the ones that are true. It could just as well be belief in god that is true and unprovable, so you are back where you started.

 

Again, this is using deductive logic, and not the inductive method of science.

 

And you see no problem using the method of science to prove the beliefs of science? That's why I gave you the example of the Bible saying the Bible is true.

 

---

Looks like revprez understands what I am talking about. Science is based on certain beliefs; hence it is a belief system. Not a religious belief system, but a belief system nonetheless. The beliefs of science are not provable, but then I don't know any beliefs that are provable save as a consequence of other unprovable beliefs.

[ydoaPs]

How can you tell that science actually works? Without using the assumptions of science, of course.

 

You were able to type that post, weren't you?

[swansont]

Science is based on certain beliefs; hence it is a belief system. Not a religious belief system, but a belief system nonetheless. The beliefs of science are not provable, but then I don't know any beliefs that are provable save as a consequence of other unprovable beliefs.

 

 

And I thought we had thrown out the equivocation to reduce the confusion. Using the religious definition of belief, science is not a belief system. Using another definition of belief, it is a belief system.

[Fred56]

There is at least a presumption that the ground of the agreement of all judgments with each other rests upon the object' date=' which proves the truth of the judgment.

[Doctrine:']

This is when we are dealing with an object about which nothing can be done by us and in regard to which our judgment is therefore purely theoretical. We may regard ourselves of having sufficient grounds but there is no existing means of arriving at certainty.

Isn't he talking about something like: "although I've never been to Paris, I believe there is a thing called the Eiffel tower there."

i.e. to confirm its existence, is it enough to be told by others who have seen it, or is it absolutely necessary to go and see it?

Is the first kind of believing (others) a 'borrowing', and different from the second, epistemological (direct sensory) apprehension? What about watching a travel show?

Religious faith (belief in something that can never be directly observed, only "approached" in some metaphysical sense), is qualitatively different, but it's still belief (even if it's wrong or a delusion).

[Mr Skeptic]

You were able to type that post, weren't you?

 

You've never had a good chat with a philosopher, have you?

[Fred56]

Ah, who is refering to which ability or past activity, here though?

[john5746]

Science is a belief system, while religion is an unbelievable system.

 

Does that make you happy?

[Fred56]

Does that make you happy?

How did it make you feel?

[john5746]

It made me feel dirty and cheap...but happy!

[Fred56]

How does using an "intelligent" Machine not require our worldview? 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 The 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?

[mooeypoo]

How does using an "intelligent" Machine not require our worldview? Robots don't know what to do unless we tell them.

 

YET.

 

Artificial Intelligence may prove to think for itself, accumulate data and spit out conclusions. We can go into a philosophical argument of whether or not this is 'humanlike' or not, or if they ever get to 'the level' of us humans, but the bottom line is that if you think about it, we ARE a sort of computers: we have inputs (eyes: visual, skin: sensory, ears: auditory, etc), we analyze it (sometimes not too well, considering the brain's tendency to fall into illusions, most famous are the visual illusions) and we output our results.

 

We kinda are computers, just very advanced.

 

And about the Original Post -->

 

I think you're confusing the different definitions of "belief". When we say "Belief System", we don't mean "I believe that I am not going to go through the wall, even though I might according to Quantum Theory"; that would make every fact, theory or observation a "belief".

 

Continuing my point about computers -- we can't really trust our own sensory systems sometimes, which means that a lot of things are "beliefs". But those are much different than the religious/theological/philosophical "Belief System" for which this term *usually* refers to, and is raising the direct connotation for.

 

The reason is mainly because Science requires beliefs that are *based upon proof* while a personal philosophical/theological "Belief System" just requires faith and belief, sometimes *despite* of evidence.

 

In science, if you say "I believe that if I drop a ball it will fall to the ground" your belief is valid not because you "said so", or because it is written somewhere, or because you hold it with conviction, or because so many other people believe it, it's valid because every time you try it - that's what happens, *AND* because you explain it with a scientific empirically-proved theory that works and is able to predict. When that theory fails (for whatever reason) you *abandon* this belief, and move on to a new one.

 

In other "Belief Systems" that we usually refer to when we *say* "Belief System", that rarely (if ever) happens, and it is NOT based on empirical proof, or scientific method, or trials and experiments.

 

So yes and no: Science is a belief just like my own existence is a belief. Science is not a "Belief System" in the way the term is commonly used.

 

~moo

[Fred56]

Science tries to keep 'knowledge' in the empirical basket, but must also necessarily, like a detective at the scene of a crime, reconstruct or borrow it from evidence. Or you could say that palaeontology is the experimental science of evolution with a really long wait for results. You have to find out how long ago the experiment failed, sort of thing.

 

We all 'believe' things we've never actually experienced (or been to). We borrow it objectively, but it isn't part of subjective belief. We do this objective borrowing (without going and seeing for ourselves) because of the "authority", the status or trust we place in other's observations. A group or individual who conveys their subjective experience to us.

 

This borrowing is what is being referred to here in this thread as believing; as Kant defines sufficiently objective but insufficiently subjective truth, or observation. The other kind, what we actually see and hear and so on, is each individual's set of known things: knowledge, based on that direct observation of the world.

[mooeypoo]

Science tries to keep 'knowledge' in the empirical basket, but must also necessarily, like a detective at the scene of a crime, reconstruct or borrow it from evidence.

Science doesn't "try" anything, scientists do. Science is the *system*.

 

here we go with definitions again, you seem to have a knack in animating inanimate terms. Science is a definition for the SYSTEM of empirical evidence, observation, and how theories are devised.

 

It's a system. Used by scientists.

 

As for the 'borrowed from evidence' --- what? Are you suggesting science is not empirical? If you are, give examples. If you're not, explain what you mean.

 

 

Or you could say that palaeontology is the experimental science of evolution with a really long wait for results.

No, no no.. no.

 

Don't make it what it's not. Paleontology is "the study of prehistoric life forms on Earth through the examination of plant and animal fossils." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology ) it's not experimental, and it's not quite evolution. The fact we find evidence *TO* evolution through paleontology does not make it a study OF evolution.

 

Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, and evolutionary theory receives a lot of support (in terms of corroborating evidence and factual data) from other scientific subjects.

 

It's not experimental science because there's not much experiments on it. You gather ancient bones; if you define that as "collecting the results" then you slightly miss the nature of "Experimental Science". The 'experiment' in experimental science is not just 'try' or 'find', it's a METHODOLOGY in devising the experiment, devising predictions, and conducting it (blind/ double-blind/ etc).

 

 

You have to find out how long ago the experiment failed, sort of thing.

We all 'believe' things we've never actually experienced (or been to). We borrow it objectively, but it isn't part of subjective belief.

 

Yah, I see what you're saying, but youre mixing your OWN definitions with the proper definitions of Science and "Experimental Science".

 

No paleontologist will tell you he "believes" the bones in front of him are 210 million years ago; he will tell you he *KNOWS* they are. The information about their age -- coming from multiple sources, multiple theories, multiple tests, and from theories that are predictable and that produce results -- is SO BIG that the doubt about its age is marginal.

 

Look. No one can tell you for SURE that there is a black hole at the middle of our galaxy, because no one was there. For all intended purposes, however, the facts that this Black Hole exists are *SO VAST*, corroborated, they work, our predictions with this Black Hole work, etc -- that no one REFERS to this as "believing".. it's refered to as CERTAIN, because the odds against it are so slim.

 

Science, however, unlike religious/theological belief system, *can* -- and ASPIRES -- to change 'its' mind. When a fact is discovered to be false, or out of date rather, scientists actually STOP believing the old one.

 

The stop.

 

Theologians *don't*. That's why "Belief System" is considered to be something we should "respect" in a person.. it's his "individual" thing... whatever.

 

You can dance around the philosophy of what we can and cannot know for sure; for that matter, our perception is inside our brain: I can't EVER be absolutely sure that your purple is my purple, or that what you perceive as "hand" is *percisely* what I perceive as "hand". And yet, for the purpose of *moving on with progress* and not getting frustrated while TALKING, we define terms, and we just use them.

 

In philosophy you can argue the deeper meaning of whatever you want, but science is not a belief we *in our regular language* define "belief".

 

~moo

[Fred56]

Science doesn't "try" anything, scientists do.

This sounds like something Yoda would say: "Do, or do not, there is no try"

Wouldn't you say Science is an endeavour?

It's not experimental science because there's not much experiments on it. You gather ancient bones;

There are no experiments in palaeontology? What's an observation?

No paleontologist will tell you he "believes" the bones in front of him are 210 million years ago; he will tell you he *KNOWS* they are. The information about their age -- coming from multiple sources, multiple theories, multiple tests, and from theories that are predictable and that produce results

How are these results produced? What are the results? Evidence, as I said.

[mooeypoo]

This sounds like something Yoda would say: "Do, or do not, there is no try"

Wouldn't you say Science is an endeavour?

 

......... Okay, you're missing the point. As I said -- you seem to have a knack in animating inanimate objects.

 

Science is an endeavor, but it's not DOING the endeavor.

 

Don't pick what you want from what I say so you have better chances of replying, Fred, that's not fair.

 

There are no experiments in palaeontology? What's an observation?

 

...

 

Okay, first off, be FAIR and bring EXAMPLES of what you're saying. Off the top of my head, no, I can't seem to *think* of any experiments in Paleontology, other than Jurassic Park, which is an experiment in BIOLOGY.

 

*But*

 

Even if there are experiments in Paleontology, that doesn't make it an *experimental science*.

 

Astronomy probably has experiments. It's *not* an "Experimental Science".

 

Biology and Chemistry aren't consisting ONLY from experiments,but they *ARE* considered "Experimental Science".

 

K?

 

How are these results produced? What are the results? Evidence, as I said.

The results are not produced they are OBSERVED, which is the reason Paleontology is not an experimental science.

 

Astronomy, as well, is the same. You don't experiment in Astronomy, you observe, and give out OBSERVATIONAL FACTUAL DATA upon which you can devise theories and explanations as to how things WORK in the universe.

 

The fact that a branch of science is not "Experimental Science" but rather "Historical Science", for instance, doesn't take off from its IMPORTANCE. It's not that one is 'superior' over the other. They're just DIFFERENT by the methodology used.

 

There are no active experiments to get the actual 'data' of Paleontology; Paleontologists 'find' their data, and then analyze it and build theories.

 

Chemists and Biologists TEST and Experiment in order to get their bottom-line results, which is why Biology and Chemistry *are* Experimental Science.

 

Here's an explanation of what a Scientific Experiment is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_science

 

We call something an "Experimental Science" when the majority of data comes FROM experiments. Paleontology is not one of these, even if it sometimes USES experiments (and I still require example for an example of one, please.)

 

 

 

If you want to make a statement, back it up, don't just assume that because you THINK it is so, it is. I've given you some resources, references and links, which you seem to either ignore or not return the favor by backing up YOUR statements, specifically when relating to things that are *terminologies*.

 

 

 

This is getting REALLY annoying.

 

~moo

[iNow]

There are no experiments in palaeontology? What's an observation?

It's just what you've stated... it's an observation. That's it. Looking at a nude woman in a magazine and observing her luscious curves does not necessitate that I am doing an experiment.

[richard]

I thought a scientist first learned the principles of the subject. They then believe there own calculation/observation. Ideas outside the box may be ignored by some. Then again some will look in an open minded and helpful manner and try to assist. Thats personal choice or pride, not a belief system.

[Fred56]

You don't experiment in Astronomy, you observe

How do you "observe" in Astronomy (think about it), is it anything to do with trying lots of different things? Things that could be labelled experiments, to see what results (observations) can be made?

Or do they just climb a mountain now and then, go into the trance of "method", and collect distant sources of light, as if by "magic"?

 

How are these results produced? What are the results? Evidence' date=' as I said.

[/quote']

The results are not produced they are OBSERVED,

How is OBSERVING not producing results? Where are these OBSERVATIONS? What are they? They are results, data, experimental outcomes. The products of scientific endeavour, of trial and error.

[mooeypoo]

How do you "observe" in Astronomy (think about it), is it anything to do with trying lots of different things? Things that could be labelled experiments, to see what results (observations) can be made?

Or do they just climb a mountain now and then, go into the trance of "method", and collect distant sources of light, as if by "magic"?

 

... What?

 

Okay, first off, you're being unfair again. You quoted my sentence cut-off, which isn't really fair. Please stop doing that. I cut off qutoes too, but not in the middle of a sentence, specifiically not when it changes the meaning of it, or 'hides' a point.

 

Second, make a LINK to the POST from which you bring this quote. We've been debating for a while, and this isn't from my LATEST post, it takes me a while to find the ACTUAL context.

 

Be fair and have some respect to the people you're debating with.

 

Now. As for an answer:

 

OBVIOUSLY, you don't know what Astronomy is. Astronomers look at the sky (THEY OBSERVE!) and their "results" are things they FOUND out there-- by LOOKING.

 

Astronomers searched for Pluto, for instance, by looking at lots and lots and lots of pictures from space and trying to spot changes.

 

It's OBSERVATIONAL.

 

They didn't run an experiment.

 

Second, you OBVIOUSLY ignored my link to what a scientific experiment IS or you wouldn't have tried to define observations as experiments.

 

It's nothing to do with MAGIC. Astronomers use equipment (that they don't build themselves, mind you!) to LOOK. Just look. It's like you take a binoculars and look up at the sky, or at birds. You don't "experiment" whether or not you SEE something, you take that binoculars *for the purpose of looking* and your "results" are *what you saw*.

 

OBSERVATIONAL DATA.

 

 

AND:

You're being unfair again. Misleading, and very frustrating.

 

If this keeps up, I'll just stop answering you; obviously you don't quite listen.

 

How is OBSERVING not producing results? Where are these OBSERVATIONS? What are they? They are results, data, experimental outcomes. The products of scientific endeavour, of trial and error.

Okay, seriously, stop twisting meanings whenever you feel like it.

 

Your context of "producing" results was under EXPERIMENTATION -- in an experiment, you CONDUCT a trial -- *active* trial, trying to figure out the result -- hence, the result is *PRODUCED* from the trial.

 

Yes, you can say that observations are "produced" when people observe, but that's a play on words.

 

Observations are observations. They're NOT experimentations. Not the way Experiments are DEFINED. Read the definition!

 

Stop twisting meanings, too. It's very frustrating.

 

Start respecting your debating partners, Fred, or I'll just end up ignoring you. I put a lot of time and effort into debates because I love the quest for knowledge and to be challenged in my personal beliefs. You, however, keep twisting my words, ignoring half my points and throwing continously Red Herrings and Non Sequitors.

 

 

~moo

[swansont]

In the context mooeypoo has presented here "observational" implies that the scientist cannot set up or manipulate the item or phenomenon being investigated. "Experimental" implies that the scientist has this control, to at least some extent.

 

I don't find anything particularly perplexing or unreasonable about those uses.

[mooeypoo]

In the context mooeypoo has presented here "observational" implies that the scientist cannot set up or manipulate the item or phenomenon being investigated. "Experimental" implies that the scientist has this control, to at least some extent.

 

I don't find anything particularly perplexing or unreasonable about those uses.

 

Yup,

 

Particularly in light of the DEFINITION of what a "scientific experiment" actually *is*, which I posted too.

 

~moo

[Fred56]

Astronomers searched for Pluto, for instance, by looking at lots and lots and lots of pictures from space and trying to spot changes.

By trying to find it, you mean?

Astronomers use equipment (that they don't build themselves, mind you!)

Who 'builds' this equipment? How do they know what to build? Where do the plans come from?

 

you can[/b'] say that observations are "produced" when people observe

I certainly do this very thing.

Observations are observations. They're NOT experimentations. Not the way Experiments are DEFINED.

Experiments are experiments. They are observations, the way observations are DEFINED.