4 ms·

A good scientist should be agnostic. In some ways, believing something accepted to be false in the scientific community is preferable to actually believing what

A good scientist should be agnostic. In some ways, believing something accepted to be false in the scientific community is preferable to actually believing what is accepted to be true in the scientific community. If everyone starts with the same assumptions then the same assumptions are propagated through the literature without critical analysis. And sometimes, it may even be worthwhile to look at Mars with the eye of someone who believes it to be a giant purple mongoose. So long as in your work you recognize and promote the most likely possibilities, what you believe to be true regardless of evidence is, at worst, a tool that can aid one in thinking outside the box. Personally I believe the universe and the Earth are many times over older than 10000 years. The evidence is so overwhelming it's hard to understand anyone who thinks otherwise. But I feel like the person who believes the Earth is 10000 years old is a better scientist than the person who knows it to be an incontrovertible fact that the Earth is much older than 10000 years.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- geebee 16y ago
  Though I'm an atheist, I'd disagree that a good scientist should be agnostic. The reason is segmentation, along with a widespread belief that religious beliefs are beyond measurement in the physical world. That said, I disagree with your assertion that the burden is on science to prove the non-existence of the god(s). In fact, there's a distinction often drawn between "strict" and "soft" (or empirical) atheism. A lot of people confuse empirical atheism with agnosticism, since it does not contain a positive belief in the absence of a god, but israther a default position against the existence of got in the absence of compelling evidence. This second type seems to be what the OP is getting at. For instance, when medical researchers say "there is no evidence that silicon implants cause autoimmune disease", this often sounds to the public like equivocating. However, scientists will say things like this after tracking 8,000 women, half of whom have had implants, and discovering that they develop autoimmune disease at rates that are, statistically speaking, indistinguishable. "We found no evidence..." Prior to a study, I suppose a scientist might say "I don't know" if there is absolutely no literature on the subject and a very compelling hypothesis has been advanced. They might even say "I'm inclined to think this is true, research is underway." But obviously, scientists don't accept the hypothesis by default until someone disproves it, even when the hypothesis is very compelling. Religion can be different, I recognize this, in that to some people, the hypothesis (god exists) is extremely compelling (they feel this is true deep in their core, they've had a revelatory or mystical experience, or they believe that the universe simply couldn't exist without) and impossible to measure. So maybe they see this as a 50-50 proposition, with an equal burden of proof on both sides?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
lutorm 16y ago
So you think assuming a less likely position makes people better scientists? I'd like to see a calculation that a system of optimization that proceeds with that assumption actually does converge... Of course one should be open to other possibilities. However, ones openness to a possibility should be related to the likelihood of that possibility. If that's not the case, you are disconnected from reality.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  >So you think assuming a less likely position makes people better scientists? You're twisting my words. I think believing that certain assumptions which are required to support your work are false makes you a better scientist. The specific person Dawkins maligns hasn't taken any positions in their work that align with his personal beliefs. But I believe that his work is better for it. Really though, this is more a question of diversity of opinion than of one belief system being intrinsically superior to another for the doing of science. We are all disconnected from reality in one way or another. If all of our scientists are disconnected from reality in a similar manner, it's going to drastically stunt their thinking. And this is equally true if all scientists have the same sort of atheist-agnostic belief that science is mostly right in its models or if all scientists are young-Earth creationists. (At least in a hypothetical world where all scientists are YEC and simultaneously produce rigorous work that makes YEC appear almost certainly false.) So long as their work is rigorous and aligns with data, their personal beliefs merely serve to give them novel ideas Dawkins could never think of.
ugh 16y ago
I don’t think many scientists believe that it is possible for us to know whether something is an inconvertible truth. Dawkins certainly doesn’t. But evidence, both past and present, matters. We may not be able to be absolutely certain but we can be pretty certain, extremely certain even. The evidence for the universe being much older than 10,000 years is truly overwhelming and you don’t get to just discount that evidence. You have to find a theory that fits the existing evidence perfectly and you have to find new evidence that confirms your theory. Considering how extremely certain we are about the universe being much older than 10,000 years, you have to be thorough and your evidence has to be truly overwhelming [0], a daunting task, no doubt. Some study with little evidence and an incomplete theory just won’t cut it if the topic of discussion is the age of the universe and its goal is to make the universe six orders of magnitude younger. Not all evidence and every theory is worth the same. [0] Astrophysicists everywhere should jump out of windows and Nobel prizes should be thrown at you.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

geebee 16y ago
Though I'm an atheist, I'd disagree that a good scientist should be agnostic. The reason is segmentation, along with a widespread belief that religious beliefs are beyond measurement in the physical world. That said, I disagree with your assertion that the burden is on science to prove the non-existence of the god(s). In fact, there's a distinction often drawn between "strict" and "soft" (or empirical) atheism. A lot of people confuse empirical atheism with agnosticism, since it does not contain a positive belief in the absence of a god, but israther a default position against the existence of got in the absence of compelling evidence. This second type seems to be what the OP is getting at. For instance, when medical researchers say "there is no evidence that silicon implants cause autoimmune disease", this often sounds to the public like equivocating. However, scientists will say things like this after tracking 8,000 women, half of whom have had implants, and discovering that they develop autoimmune disease at rates that are, statistically speaking, indistinguishable. "We found no evidence..." Prior to a study, I suppose a scientist might say "I don't know" if there is absolutely no literature on the subject and a very compelling hypothesis has been advanced. They might even say "I'm inclined to think this is true, research is underway." But obviously, scientists don't accept the hypothesis by default until someone disproves it, even when the hypothesis is very compelling. Religion can be different, I recognize this, in that to some people, the hypothesis (god exists) is extremely compelling (they feel this is true deep in their core, they've had a revelatory or mystical experience, or they believe that the universe simply couldn't exist without) and impossible to measure. So maybe they see this as a 50-50 proposition, with an equal burden of proof on both sides?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

lutorm 16y ago

So you think assuming a less likely position makes people better scientists? I'd like to see a calculation that a system of optimization that proceeds with that assumption actually does converge... Of course one should be open to other possibilities. However, ones openness to a possibility should be related to the likelihood of that possibility. If that's not the case, you are disconnected from reality.

lukeschlather 16y ago
>So you think assuming a less likely position makes people better scientists? You're twisting my words. I think believing that certain assumptions which are required to support your work are false makes you a better scientist. The specific person Dawkins maligns hasn't taken any positions in their work that align with his personal beliefs. But I believe that his work is better for it. Really though, this is more a question of diversity of opinion than of one belief system being intrinsically superior to another for the doing of science. We are all disconnected from reality in one way or another. If all of our scientists are disconnected from reality in a similar manner, it's going to drastically stunt their thinking. And this is equally true if all scientists have the same sort of atheist-agnostic belief that science is mostly right in its models or if all scientists are young-Earth creationists. (At least in a hypothetical world where all scientists are YEC and simultaneously produce rigorous work that makes YEC appear almost certainly false.) So long as their work is rigorous and aligns with data, their personal beliefs merely serve to give them novel ideas Dawkins could never think of.

ugh 16y ago

I don’t think many scientists believe that it is possible for us to know whether something is an inconvertible truth. Dawkins certainly doesn’t. But evidence, both past and present, matters. We may not be able to be absolutely certain but we can be pretty certain, extremely certain even. The evidence for the universe being much older than 10,000 years is truly overwhelming and you don’t get to just discount that evidence. You have to find a theory that fits the existing evidence perfectly and you have to find new evidence that confirms your theory. Considering how extremely certain we are about the universe being much older than 10,000 years, you have to be thorough and your evidence has to be truly overwhelming [0], a daunting task, no doubt. Some study with little evidence and an incomplete theory just won’t cut it if the topic of discussion is the age of the universe and its goal is to make the universe six orders of magnitude younger. Not all evidence and every theory is worth the same. [0] Astrophysicists everywhere should jump out of windows and Nobel prizes should be thrown at you.