4 ms·

A scientist believes what the evidence shows. They have no choice what to believe.

by gowld 5y ago

6510 5y ago
You limit them to wild hypothesis.
jhgb 5y ago
This would only make sense if one and only one belief was supported by any set of evidence.
chomp 5y ago
How do you think hypotheses are created? An educated guess is a belief that something is the case, which you then test and adjust your world view.
Supermancho 5y ago
Science itself is a belief (or religion, depending on your epistemology), that the scientific method and associated tools, like the gold-standard double-blind study*, is the most effective way to form a model for reality. On top of that, experimental results can only inform a subjective model for each individual. For example, children are informed about our solar system in a simple 2d plane, because that's useful enough. We can prove that the solar system has planetary deviation from the generally flat plane (up to 7 degrees) but that more advanced model is something that is generally learned later, out of pragmatism. You can spend a lifetime learning details and data, but you'll still die ignorant because gathering all of human knowledge is impractical at this point. Therefore, relying on science alone, is not enough to inform your personal ideas about reality, even if you believe that it's the most reliable way to do so. eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ <-- no double blind for parachutes, where's the evidence?
- flyingchipmann 5y ago
  I agree with most of what you described but I don't think scientific method should be put together with religion. I think they are orthogonal. For example, the scientists' religion don't really alter the research if they strictly follow the scientific method. In other words what they think won't alter the reality. And imo the most important part is the process of proving itself, rather than the result. Therefore it's perfectly fine to arrive at various conclusions and sometimes 'I don't know' is the best conclusion u can have so far. You don't really have to believe in anything with scientific framework, instead you do best to approximate and emphasize on the process rather than the result. Otherwise it's just magical thinking.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > I don't think scientific method should be put together with religion. I think they are orthogonal. This is a common belief people hold to protect themselves from altering an existing worldview (or previous statements). I'm not sure how you construct a view that the belief in the scientific method and various derived conclusions (eg atheism or agnosticism) as the "correct" way to explain everything in reality, is not a defacto religion. > For example, the scientists' religion don't really alter the research if they strictly follow the scientific method. In other words what they think won't alter the reality. Reality is not altered by any religion. Not sure what this has to do with the belief in the scientific methodology.
    - flyingchipmann 5y ago
      > This is a common belief people hold to protect themselves from altering an existing worldview (or previous statements). I'm not sure how you construct a view that the belief in the scientific method and various derived conclusions (eg atheism or agnosticism) as the "correct" way to explain everything in reality, is not a defacto religion. I didn't say it's correct, I used the word 'approximation'. Because it's never about the result, it's about the process of 'proving' and 'provability'. And in this sense religion and scientific method/framework is orthogonal. Because it doesn't matter what the person's religion is, they carry out the same scientific process, and the answer to their religion/belief is always 'i don't know. not provable' > Reality is not altered by any religion. Not sure what this has to do with the belief in the scientific methodology. But that's the fundamental differences. How do you get to know the reality through religions? How do you decide which religion is the truth? If someone forms a religion by Harry Potter just like the Scientology, how do you pick and choose? Suppose religions is a big set, and new religions getting formed, how do you pick? But in the framework of science this kind of result doesn't matter. Because in the scientific methodology you go through the process, and that's the important part. You can choose to believe whatever religion shaped this reality you like and that doesn't affect the scientific method itself. Scientific method is a tool you can use, it doesn't give you answers to all questions(provable), and it doesn't need to.
      - 5y ago

A scientist believes what the evidence shows. They have no choice what to believe.

by gowld 5y ago

A scientist believes what the evidence shows. They have no choice what to believe.

6510 5y ago

You limit them to wild hypothesis.

jhgb 5y ago

This would only make sense if one and only one belief was supported by any set of evidence.

chomp 5y ago

How do you think hypotheses are created? An educated guess is a belief that something is the case, which you then test and adjust your world view.

Supermancho 5y ago

Science itself is a belief (or religion, depending on your epistemology), that the scientific method and associated tools, like the gold-standard double-blind study*, is the most effective way to form a model for reality. On top of that, experimental results can only inform a subjective model for each individual. For example, children are informed about our solar system in a simple 2d plane, because that's useful enough. We can prove that the solar system has planetary deviation from the generally flat plane (up to 7 degrees) but that more advanced model is something that is generally learned later, out of pragmatism. You can spend a lifetime learning details and data, but you'll still die ignorant because gathering all of human knowledge is impractical at this point. Therefore, relying on science alone, is not enough to inform your personal ideas about reality, even if you believe that it's the most reliable way to do so. eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ <-- no double blind for parachutes, where's the evidence?

flyingchipmann 5y ago
I agree with most of what you described but I don't think scientific method should be put together with religion. I think they are orthogonal. For example, the scientists' religion don't really alter the research if they strictly follow the scientific method. In other words what they think won't alter the reality. And imo the most important part is the process of proving itself, rather than the result. Therefore it's perfectly fine to arrive at various conclusions and sometimes 'I don't know' is the best conclusion u can have so far. You don't really have to believe in anything with scientific framework, instead you do best to approximate and emphasize on the process rather than the result. Otherwise it's just magical thinking.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > I don't think scientific method should be put together with religion. I think they are orthogonal. This is a common belief people hold to protect themselves from altering an existing worldview (or previous statements). I'm not sure how you construct a view that the belief in the scientific method and various derived conclusions (eg atheism or agnosticism) as the "correct" way to explain everything in reality, is not a defacto religion. > For example, the scientists' religion don't really alter the research if they strictly follow the scientific method. In other words what they think won't alter the reality. Reality is not altered by any religion. Not sure what this has to do with the belief in the scientific methodology.
  - flyingchipmann 5y ago
    > This is a common belief people hold to protect themselves from altering an existing worldview (or previous statements). I'm not sure how you construct a view that the belief in the scientific method and various derived conclusions (eg atheism or agnosticism) as the "correct" way to explain everything in reality, is not a defacto religion. I didn't say it's correct, I used the word 'approximation'. Because it's never about the result, it's about the process of 'proving' and 'provability'. And in this sense religion and scientific method/framework is orthogonal. Because it doesn't matter what the person's religion is, they carry out the same scientific process, and the answer to their religion/belief is always 'i don't know. not provable' > Reality is not altered by any religion. Not sure what this has to do with the belief in the scientific methodology. But that's the fundamental differences. How do you get to know the reality through religions? How do you decide which religion is the truth? If someone forms a religion by Harry Potter just like the Scientology, how do you pick and choose? Suppose religions is a big set, and new religions getting formed, how do you pick? But in the framework of science this kind of result doesn't matter. Because in the scientific methodology you go through the process, and that's the important part. You can choose to believe whatever religion shaped this reality you like and that doesn't affect the scientific method itself. Scientific method is a tool you can use, it doesn't give you answers to all questions(provable), and it doesn't need to.
    - 5y ago