7 ms·

watch out for dogmatic belief in science and unbiased analysis. Check out the mechanics of belief

thescribe 10y ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Barring that I will send you an immortality potion that keeps the grim reaper away.
smohare 10y ago
You can always spot someone who has near zero comprehension of science as soon as they speak about "belief in science".
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Can you, personally, demonstrate that the atomic theory of matter is accurate? Maybe you can, I dunno, but most of us can't. We've had it explained in a way that makes at least superficial sense, but we don't grasp it on a deep level. Yet we accept it as true. We trust that the people who really did the research knew what they were doing. We believe it. What would you call that?
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    The difference is that if you really wanted, you could.
- sideshowb 10y ago
  Careful. For sure, Science, unlike dogma, prides itself on changing belief in the face of conflicting evidence. In theory, anyway. In practice, I have a PhD in Computer Science and Geography. Do I understand climate models? No, they're not my field. Do I have the time to verify them? Certainly not. How do I know then that the field of climate science is getting it right? I have to trust the institutional process, which as Kuhn points out is far from perfect. If they're getting it wrong, it's not likely to be me that figures it out, so for the time being the rational course of action is to accept the consensus of experts. tldr; belief in science. Though cynically speaking you're right, people who trot out that phrase usually don't understand the above.
- mikelyons 10y ago
  You can always spot someone who has near zero comprehension of the mechanics of belief when they don't think it applies to science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg
lutusp 10y ago
> watch out for dogmatic belief in science "Dogmatic belief in science" is an oxymoron. Science is skepticism defined. Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. In fact, the existence of belief is why science exists -- it's a tool to to overcome belief. If we were cured of belief, what we now call "science" would be called "thinking".
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true, and you need not understand or question it. That's dogmatic belief in science.
  - lutusp 10y ago
    > The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. Yes, and that's why science exists. If there were no "biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings," there would be no need for science -- we would be able to think rationally, we would have no need for the unnatural discipline imposed by science. > It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true ... That's not science, that's religion. Science is based on skepticism and the rejection of all authority. The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in existence, is nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it." The Society explains their motto this way: "It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." > That's dogmatic belief in science. A dogmatic belief in science is something that fresh religious converts experience, and they've entirely missed the boat. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    - pmoriarty 10y ago
ramblerman 10y ago
I think Occams razor applies. We may not fully understand insanity, and morally the act of segmenting these people from society can be debated. That doesn't mean we have to jump on the first outlandish theory of them channeling the dead because it 'sounds cool'
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  No, but thinking about strange outlandish theorys - who apparently work for them - can help improve our model.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Barring that I will send you an immortality potion that keeps the grim reaper away.

smohare 10y ago

You can always spot someone who has near zero comprehension of science as soon as they speak about "belief in science".

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Can you, personally, demonstrate that the atomic theory of matter is accurate? Maybe you can, I dunno, but most of us can't. We've had it explained in a way that makes at least superficial sense, but we don't grasp it on a deep level. Yet we accept it as true. We trust that the people who really did the research knew what they were doing. We believe it. What would you call that?
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  The difference is that if you really wanted, you could.
sideshowb 10y ago
Careful. For sure, Science, unlike dogma, prides itself on changing belief in the face of conflicting evidence. In theory, anyway. In practice, I have a PhD in Computer Science and Geography. Do I understand climate models? No, they're not my field. Do I have the time to verify them? Certainly not. How do I know then that the field of climate science is getting it right? I have to trust the institutional process, which as Kuhn points out is far from perfect. If they're getting it wrong, it's not likely to be me that figures it out, so for the time being the rational course of action is to accept the consensus of experts. tldr; belief in science. Though cynically speaking you're right, people who trot out that phrase usually don't understand the above.
mikelyons 10y ago
You can always spot someone who has near zero comprehension of the mechanics of belief when they don't think it applies to science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg

lutusp 10y ago

> watch out for dogmatic belief in science "Dogmatic belief in science" is an oxymoron. Science is skepticism defined. Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. In fact, the existence of belief is why science exists -- it's a tool to to overcome belief. If we were cured of belief, what we now call "science" would be called "thinking".

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true, and you need not understand or question it. That's dogmatic belief in science.
- lutusp 10y ago
  > The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. Yes, and that's why science exists. If there were no "biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings," there would be no need for science -- we would be able to think rationally, we would have no need for the unnatural discipline imposed by science. > It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true ... That's not science, that's religion. Science is based on skepticism and the rejection of all authority. The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in existence, is nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it." The Society explains their motto this way: "It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." > That's dogmatic belief in science. A dogmatic belief in science is something that fresh religious converts experience, and they've entirely missed the boat. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago

ramblerman 10y ago

I think Occams razor applies. We may not fully understand insanity, and morally the act of segmenting these people from society can be debated. That doesn't mean we have to jump on the first outlandish theory of them channeling the dead because it 'sounds cool'

hutzlibu 10y ago
No, but thinking about strange outlandish theorys - who apparently work for them - can help improve our model.