belief has no place in science, thats religion bs.
Belief has nothing to do with science.
I think you mean faith. Faith has nothing to do with science.
But belief absolutely does. Science is al about convincing people (scientists) to believe or disbelieve some idea.Ah yes. I often use the two interchangeably.
You shouldn’t. They’re entirely different.
There are many paths to believing something, or accepting it as true.
The least reliable is faith. It’s just “wishing makes it true.” Another, is personal experience. But that’s easily biased, and even fooled by our limited and faulty senses. Actual repeatable evidence is the best we have so far.The evidence should convince people.
Scientists are failing to adequately communicate with the public.
There is only so much “dumbing down” you can do to scientific research about topics until you lose all contextual nuance or become too long winded for a layperson to understand without being overloaded with information.
Then there is the issue with secondary and tertiary sources using simple language that causes confusion because it lacks the contextual nuance necessary to convey the correct interpretation.
Agreed. There’s definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public.
It’s crazy to me that so much of the general public don’t understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results.
Eh, mostly not the scientists’ fault but the media sensationalizing the data in secondary and tertiary sources.
And, as you said, general ignorance of how science works internally. That is a problem with education though, again not the fault of the scientists.
One of the first things I learned in bio lab in college is that you never believe anything in science. You accept or reject based on evidence.
Accept or reject, are just different words for believe or disbelieve. The evidence guides your belief.
Maybe to you. Scientific terms often include terms that have other connotations elsewhere, for example, significant or correlation.
Nothing in science is based on belief.
Do you accept that, or believe it? What is the difference scientifically?
Webster definition 3C of Accept “to recognize as true” seems to be what I’m talking about here. Is that different than what you mean?
3C then points to Believe as a synonym. The transitive definition 1B, or intransitive 1A, seems to correlate with what Accept definition 3C means, hence the synonym nature of them. Can you clarify exactly where I’m wrong?
Beliefs are subjective. They can be held without evidence.
Scientific acceptance is the opposite.
I likely won’t be able to change your mind because you believe they mean the same thing. I assure you they don’t. You can’t come to a scientific conclusion based on conviction. You have to accept or reject the null hypothesis based on evidence which even then doesn’t necessarily verify your hypothesis. You also have to run everything through statistical analyses to be sure that the results couldn’t occur randomly. Everything can change with new evidence and stronger tests (larger sample sizes, double blinds, etc.) Webster’s won’t teach you that. It records vernacular.
Vernacular is literally what we’re talking about. The definition of words.
You seem to be wrapping a number of ideas around the word Believe. Most notably the idea that a belief is fixed. When I say believe, I literally mean only and exactly “Accept as true”, or “To hold as true”, nothing more. It’s literally the 1st definition. And more or less what all the other definitions are wrapped around.
What we hold as true can change at any time, and for a number of reasons. The study of them is called Epistemology. Yes. It’s a real branch of science.
It’s possible what you’re trying to get across, is the idea that science accepts nothing as “true”. It can only reject ideas as “false”. And the ideas that remain un-rejected as false, are accepted, not as true, but as the best explanation we have so far. In which case I can see your point. However, remember that beliefs aren’t fixed. They can also be rejected when new conflicting data is collected. That still sounds like what you mean by accept. Am I wrong?
It does when it comes to funding.
Not even then.
There’s a little bit in a hypothesis, but I take your point. It just requires good faith approaches and conclusions.
There’s a little bit in a hypothesis
Not in a properly formed hypothesis.
You shouldn’t have faith in anything in science.
Good faith isn’t the same as spiritual faith. It just means good intentions.
Really? Because half a nation of ignorant hayseeds NOT believing in science kind of got us to where we are now.
How about instead of posting pithy uselessness you actually think about things for a moment
Science doesn’t require belief.
The problem is that people believe in religion, and their religious leaders have a vested interest in keeping them dumb.
In that case, I’m switching to ghosts, ufos, government cover ups, and the zodiac.
Take that science.
