4 ms·

It follows from your reasoning that it would be unwise to follow a scientist who believes in science, then.

by c0achmcguirk 11y ago

jeena 11y ago
How does one "believe" in science?
- c0achmcguirk 11y ago
  By believing in the Inductive Principle and the future will be like the past. How do you prove that? By relying on the Inductive Principle... circularity is unavoidable and this is where faith comes in.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    It's interesting how the word "faith" has many meanings in common usage. I don't think scientists would use the word "faith" to describe their tendency to extrapolate from prior evidence. Here are a couple of articles from one particularly vocal scientist about the distinction between religious faith and scientific confidence: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scientists-have-faith-in-science/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scien... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... --- I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction. Sure, scientists will expect the future to be similar to the past (because the present is like the past, and the past was like the more distant past, etc.), but they will also test that expectation with continued experiments.
    - c0achmcguirk 10y ago
      > I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction I don't disagree, but how does that change my point? Empiricism and Induction both need the uniformity of nature to work. How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform?
      - nitrogen 10y ago
        How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform? You watch nature for a while, and if it behaves uniformly, then you can safely act as if it is uniform. Science doesn't operate with "proof" in the same sense as logic or mathematics. There is no "proving" that the universe didn't spontaneously come into being twenty nanoseconds ago, precisely primed for us to believe we were having this conversation. But the evidence available to us very strongly suggests a wholly materialistic universe, to the point where there is basically no practical scientific value to consider otherwise. Do you have evidence suggesting that nature is not uniform, that physics and chemistry behaved somehow differently somewhere or somewhen else?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
bduerst 11y ago
Science isn't a faith, and even then to combat bias it's testable knowledge is subject to peer review.
- c0achmcguirk 11y ago
  Does the scientific method rely on the Inductive Principle? How would you prove the IP without relying on the IP? If you believe something that can't be proven, what do you call it?
  - bduerst 11y ago
    No, it doesn't. The scientific method seeks to refute existing knowledge by testing falsifiable theories and predictions. Faith is an opinion on a belief that is not falsifiable.
    - c0achmcguirk 10y ago
      Science doesn't depend on the Inductive Principle? The idea that nature is uniform doesn't inform Science? How would you test falsifiable theories and predictions if nature weren't uniform?
      - bduerst 10y ago
        That's what I just said, followed with what it's focus is which you ignored. Since you have a lot of questions and I don't really have the time to give a history lesson in science philosophy, you should read Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper if you are genuinely earnest with your inquiries to learn more.
        c0achmcguirk 10y ago
        I always thought Popper's LSD was considered his best book to read on this. I haven't read it yet, but it's been on my To-Read list for a while. Popper's view essentially boils down to: "Science can't prove anything, theories can only be corroborated." So we just have a list of theories, where some are firmer than others, correct? My complaint with Popper is that true knowledge is impossible with this set of axioms. One can't know anything with certainty--and yet everyone actually lives as if they can know something. I find people that subscribe to Popper's (and Hume and Russell before him) to be hypocrites as they interact with the natural world. Operating with a set of theories that could never be 100% certain, yet acting as if they were. How sure are you that you're correct and I'm wrong? 40% or 60%?
gnaritas 10y ago
No it doesn't follow because science isn't a belief, science is a method for examining beliefs. Scientists don't "believe" in science, they understand how to apply the scientific method in order to examine and discard false beliefs. Unlike beliefs, science requires no faith at all.
- c0achmcguirk 10y ago
  > Scientists don't "believe" in science, they understand how to apply the scientific method in order to examine and discard false beliefs. Scientists need nature to be uniform for the scientific method to work, correct? Has a scientist been able to prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the uniformity of nature? If so, whom? And how? If not--would you say a scientist is exercising "faith" that nature is uniform?
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    You've confused science for math; lose the word proof, it doesn't exist in science. Evidence shows that nature is uniform so it is logical to operate as if it is so. Science is not a belief system, it's a formal method of invalidating bad ideas period and fuck no, that isn't exercising faith. Faith means to believe something without evidence and we have vast amounts of evidence that nature is uniform so that is not a belief, that is knowledge. Knowledge can be wrong, but it's not faith because it's based on evidence. Science and faith do not go well together, and nothing scientists do requires faith.

It follows from your reasoning that it would be unwise to follow a scientist who believes in science, then.

jeena 11y ago

How does one "believe" in science?

c0achmcguirk 11y ago
By believing in the Inductive Principle and the future will be like the past. How do you prove that? By relying on the Inductive Principle... circularity is unavoidable and this is where faith comes in.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  It's interesting how the word "faith" has many meanings in common usage. I don't think scientists would use the word "faith" to describe their tendency to extrapolate from prior evidence. Here are a couple of articles from one particularly vocal scientist about the distinction between religious faith and scientific confidence: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scientists-have-faith-in-science/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scien... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... --- I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction. Sure, scientists will expect the future to be similar to the past (because the present is like the past, and the past was like the more distant past, etc.), but they will also test that expectation with continued experiments.
  - c0achmcguirk 10y ago
    > I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction I don't disagree, but how does that change my point? Empiricism and Induction both need the uniformity of nature to work. How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform?
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform? You watch nature for a while, and if it behaves uniformly, then you can safely act as if it is uniform. Science doesn't operate with "proof" in the same sense as logic or mathematics. There is no "proving" that the universe didn't spontaneously come into being twenty nanoseconds ago, precisely primed for us to believe we were having this conversation. But the evidence available to us very strongly suggests a wholly materialistic universe, to the point where there is basically no practical scientific value to consider otherwise. Do you have evidence suggesting that nature is not uniform, that physics and chemistry behaved somehow differently somewhere or somewhen else?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

bduerst 11y ago

Science isn't a faith, and even then to combat bias it's testable knowledge is subject to peer review.

c0achmcguirk 11y ago
Does the scientific method rely on the Inductive Principle? How would you prove the IP without relying on the IP? If you believe something that can't be proven, what do you call it?
- bduerst 11y ago
  No, it doesn't. The scientific method seeks to refute existing knowledge by testing falsifiable theories and predictions. Faith is an opinion on a belief that is not falsifiable.
  - c0achmcguirk 10y ago
    Science doesn't depend on the Inductive Principle? The idea that nature is uniform doesn't inform Science? How would you test falsifiable theories and predictions if nature weren't uniform?
    - bduerst 10y ago
      That's what I just said, followed with what it's focus is which you ignored. Since you have a lot of questions and I don't really have the time to give a history lesson in science philosophy, you should read Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper if you are genuinely earnest with your inquiries to learn more.
      - c0achmcguirk 10y ago
        I always thought Popper's LSD was considered his best book to read on this. I haven't read it yet, but it's been on my To-Read list for a while. Popper's view essentially boils down to: "Science can't prove anything, theories can only be corroborated." So we just have a list of theories, where some are firmer than others, correct? My complaint with Popper is that true knowledge is impossible with this set of axioms. One can't know anything with certainty--and yet everyone actually lives as if they can know something. I find people that subscribe to Popper's (and Hume and Russell before him) to be hypocrites as they interact with the natural world. Operating with a set of theories that could never be 100% certain, yet acting as if they were. How sure are you that you're correct and I'm wrong? 40% or 60%?

gnaritas 10y ago

No it doesn't follow because science isn't a belief, science is a method for examining beliefs. Scientists don't "believe" in science, they understand how to apply the scientific method in order to examine and discard false beliefs. Unlike beliefs, science requires no faith at all.

c0achmcguirk 10y ago
> Scientists don't "believe" in science, they understand how to apply the scientific method in order to examine and discard false beliefs. Scientists need nature to be uniform for the scientific method to work, correct? Has a scientist been able to prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the uniformity of nature? If so, whom? And how? If not--would you say a scientist is exercising "faith" that nature is uniform?
- gnaritas 10y ago
  You've confused science for math; lose the word proof, it doesn't exist in science. Evidence shows that nature is uniform so it is logical to operate as if it is so. Science is not a belief system, it's a formal method of invalidating bad ideas period and fuck no, that isn't exercising faith. Faith means to believe something without evidence and we have vast amounts of evidence that nature is uniform so that is not a belief, that is knowledge. Knowledge can be wrong, but it's not faith because it's based on evidence. Science and faith do not go well together, and nothing scientists do requires faith.