When people say they “believe” in science, I think they mean they are putting their faith into the scientists performing the science. That whatever conclusion they come to after an experiment or study is the correct conclusion.
I’m sure you can find the flaw in doing so, as science is constantly being debunked. A good example that comes to mind is the alpha wolf theory.
It can be argued that while science strives to be in the realm of knowledge and fact, it doesn’t always succeed in doing so. At least not in the first rounds of study. And I think that’s what its strength is; being able to correct itself in the pursuit of knowledge and fact. All the same, science is run by humans, and humans are fallible. But despite that fallibility, some people are willing to put their faith into scientists because of their constant pursuit for the truth. Even if what they said yesterday got debunked today, it doesn’t make yesterday’s scientists any lesser. It only means we are all better for it.
I think they mean they are putting their faith into the scientists performing the science
It’s not just the scientists, it’s the whole process. You trust that the journals are selecting articles based on their scientific merit. You trust that the journalists reporting on the stories are doing their best to accurately summarize the scientific articles, and that if they get it wrong they’ll issue a correction. You trust that when science makes it into textbooks that those textbooks are accurately summarizing and maybe simplifying the science in a fair way. You trust that teachers or professors who are explaining the science to their students are doing it faithfully and accurately.
The Alpha Wolf theory shows how that sort of thing breaks down. There was a scientific study, and at the time there was no reason to suspect it wasn’t legitimate. The scientist who did the study was accurately describing what he saw. The journal that published it had no reason to doubt it was good science. The peer reviewers did their job well. It just turned out that he was studying captive wolves, and that wolves in the wild didn’t behave the same way. Unfortunately, “wolves live in family units where the parents are in charge” isn’t as interesting a story, so while scientists have been trying to correct the record for a while, there are still people who have been taught by “science” or at least “the modern media and educational system with science at its base” that think that there are “alpha wolves” who take charge of a pack based on being strong and aggressive.
When people say they “believe” in science, I think they mean they are putting their faith into the scientists performing the science. That whatever conclusion they come to after an experiment or study is the correct conclusion.
That’s literally what they mean, where “scientists” may as easily mean real scientists as charlatans.
It’s still completely antagonistic to how science is practiced (if scientists behaved like that, they would never learn anything), and something closer to religion than science.
I am not smart enough to come to my own conclusions about a lot of science, so yes I must believe what the collective scientific community asserts, because I have no other way to prove things that happen. For me, that means putting my faith in their accuracy. So yes, I believe in science.
It should also be noted that there are people out there that treat science as a religion; that it is infallible, and cannot be changed, and to suggest otherwise is blasphemy. 🤷♂️
No you don’t have to believe whatever you hear. You can be critical instead. You can also accept the results of science up to the boundaries of the results presented. Etc. There’s absolutely no need for faith.
yes I must believe what the collective scientific community asserts… It should also be noted that there are people out there that treat science as a religion
You can believe that an answer can be found scientifically. You can have faith that what you see with your eyes, and that what happens during experimentation is accurate and not a fluke or trick of some sort.
Just because religion dominates most belief, and there are strong religious groups that hold that belief and faith are binary with no wiggle room whatsoever does not mean that it’s the only way they can function. On can still test faith and belief without losing them, and changing those beliefs to what holds more truth.
Holding that that belief and faith have no part in science… is a belief in and of itself. A particularly contradictory one at that.
Knowledge is itself a justified true belief. Also, the scientific method is the best way of obtaining empirical knowledge, but the idea that empirical evidence is true is still a belief, and not even that justified. Also also, science is constantly trying to prove itself wrong. It’s unlikely that what we think now based on scientific methods will be the same we think in the future.
Small rant, but people saying they believe in science is a pet peeve of mine. Belief has no place olin science.
You can’t “believe” in science any more than you can “know” in your religion.
Belief and faith are the realm of the unknowable. Knowledge and fact are the realm of science.
When people say they “believe” in science, I think they mean they are putting their faith into the scientists performing the science. That whatever conclusion they come to after an experiment or study is the correct conclusion.
I’m sure you can find the flaw in doing so, as science is constantly being debunked. A good example that comes to mind is the alpha wolf theory.
It can be argued that while science strives to be in the realm of knowledge and fact, it doesn’t always succeed in doing so. At least not in the first rounds of study. And I think that’s what its strength is; being able to correct itself in the pursuit of knowledge and fact. All the same, science is run by humans, and humans are fallible. But despite that fallibility, some people are willing to put their faith into scientists because of their constant pursuit for the truth. Even if what they said yesterday got debunked today, it doesn’t make yesterday’s scientists any lesser. It only means we are all better for it.
It’s not just the scientists, it’s the whole process. You trust that the journals are selecting articles based on their scientific merit. You trust that the journalists reporting on the stories are doing their best to accurately summarize the scientific articles, and that if they get it wrong they’ll issue a correction. You trust that when science makes it into textbooks that those textbooks are accurately summarizing and maybe simplifying the science in a fair way. You trust that teachers or professors who are explaining the science to their students are doing it faithfully and accurately.
The Alpha Wolf theory shows how that sort of thing breaks down. There was a scientific study, and at the time there was no reason to suspect it wasn’t legitimate. The scientist who did the study was accurately describing what he saw. The journal that published it had no reason to doubt it was good science. The peer reviewers did their job well. It just turned out that he was studying captive wolves, and that wolves in the wild didn’t behave the same way. Unfortunately, “wolves live in family units where the parents are in charge” isn’t as interesting a story, so while scientists have been trying to correct the record for a while, there are still people who have been taught by “science” or at least “the modern media and educational system with science at its base” that think that there are “alpha wolves” who take charge of a pack based on being strong and aggressive.
This anti-science ideology is usually called scientism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
That’s literally what they mean, where “scientists” may as easily mean real scientists as charlatans.
It’s still completely antagonistic to how science is practiced (if scientists behaved like that, they would never learn anything), and something closer to religion than science.
You were doing good until the very end…
No this is wrong too. Evidence and probability are the realm of science.
I am not smart enough to come to my own conclusions about a lot of science, so yes I must believe what the collective scientific community asserts, because I have no other way to prove things that happen. For me, that means putting my faith in their accuracy. So yes, I believe in science.
It should also be noted that there are people out there that treat science as a religion; that it is infallible, and cannot be changed, and to suggest otherwise is blasphemy. 🤷♂️
No you don’t have to believe whatever you hear. You can be critical instead. You can also accept the results of science up to the boundaries of the results presented. Etc. There’s absolutely no need for faith.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe
“To consider to be true or honest”
I don’t know what you think believe means but you’re wrong
Literally the second definition “To hold as an opinion”
Ah, if it’s one of the definitions, it must be the only definition.
You can believe that an answer can be found scientifically. You can have faith that what you see with your eyes, and that what happens during experimentation is accurate and not a fluke or trick of some sort.
Just because religion dominates most belief, and there are strong religious groups that hold that belief and faith are binary with no wiggle room whatsoever does not mean that it’s the only way they can function. On can still test faith and belief without losing them, and changing those beliefs to what holds more truth.
Holding that that belief and faith have no part in science… is a belief in and of itself. A particularly contradictory one at that.
Sounds like someone needs to spend a day or two going down a wikipedia rabbit hole about the concept of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Knowledge is itself a justified true belief. Also, the scientific method is the best way of obtaining empirical knowledge, but the idea that empirical evidence is true is still a belief, and not even that justified. Also also, science is constantly trying to prove itself wrong. It’s unlikely that what we think now based on scientific methods will be the same we think in the future.
“believe in” religion
“understand” science
Hello, Ordo Machinum? This heretic right here!