3 ms·

> > believing in the truths of science is unavoidably an act of faith. The purpose of science isn't to establish truth, it is to find the mostly likely hypothe

> > believing in the truths of science is unavoidably an act of faith. The purpose of science isn't to establish truth, it is to find the mostly likely hypotheses to explain natural phenomena (or the hypotheses most unlikely to be false). I think that is the real difference between a religious statement and a scientific explanation: the former is a statement about truth, the latter a hypothesis that could be refined based on further evidence.

HardlyCognizant 3y ago
I feel the greatest difference is that in science, you are to assume the negative. You are to prove yourself wrong, not right. Being right is a matter of accomplishment by exclusion. It is the pursuit of facts/truth, but with the understanding that you are cutting away the incorrect or irrelevant to leave a predictive remnant, not starting with an answer.
hirako2000 3y ago
> For the majority of people. science is not generally understood as a source of constant critical inquiry, but rather a source of unquestionable belief. When asked if the Earth goes around the sun, most people would confidently reply, "Yes, it does." However, when asked if they have any doubts, they would unlikely admit to any uncertainty. It suggests to me that most people have faith in what science says. Rarely questioning or ever challenging it. The few who disagree with the scientific consensus are not necessarily more scientific, but at least remain skeptical which paradoxally may make them more scientific than those who just take it for granted. Whether the skeptic have well articulated reasons for their doubts or not, they are often met with resistance or even ridicule. In my opinion, scientific claims have become as problematic than religious beliefs. If one questions or challenges what is published in a scientific journal today, they may be seen as heretical. The recent pandemic has shown how science can be used to impose a dogma, much like religion.

HardlyCognizant 3y ago

I feel the greatest difference is that in science, you are to assume the negative. You are to prove yourself wrong, not right. Being right is a matter of accomplishment by exclusion. It is the pursuit of facts/truth, but with the understanding that you are cutting away the incorrect or irrelevant to leave a predictive remnant, not starting with an answer.

hirako2000 3y ago

> For the majority of people. science is not generally understood as a source of constant critical inquiry, but rather a source of unquestionable belief. When asked if the Earth goes around the sun, most people would confidently reply, "Yes, it does." However, when asked if they have any doubts, they would unlikely admit to any uncertainty. It suggests to me that most people have faith in what science says. Rarely questioning or ever challenging it. The few who disagree with the scientific consensus are not necessarily more scientific, but at least remain skeptical which paradoxally may make them more scientific than those who just take it for granted. Whether the skeptic have well articulated reasons for their doubts or not, they are often met with resistance or even ridicule. In my opinion, scientific claims have become as problematic than religious beliefs. If one questions or challenges what is published in a scientific journal today, they may be seen as heretical. The recent pandemic has shown how science can be used to impose a dogma, much like religion.