No, science is not something to believe in, it’s something to trust because they’ve given proof to their claims. Your comment really makes me think a lot of people don’t really know what science is about and just replaced God with it
I didn’t say “have faith”, I said “believe”. If you don’t kniw the difference, then you shouldn’t be lecturing anybody about anything. Ironically, though, I suspect it’s precisely this difference you’re accusing me of misunderstanding. Which means that you’re just arguing semantics.
I don’t know your background in physics. If you were to say “I feel that neutrinos make up most of what we call Black Matter”, I’d get the impression that you’re basing that statement on emotion, a gut feeling, aesthetics or something equally flimsy. If you said “I know that neutrinos…” I’d call bullshit because afaik there isn’t any conclusive evidence yet either way.
If you said “I believe that neutrinos…” I’d assume that, despite the lack of conclusive evidence, according to your current level of understanding of the currently available evidence, you have reasoned that this is the strongest current hypothesis. Now, if you said “I have faith that neutrinos…”, I’d completely dismiss you as a crazy person.
So I don’t think that we disagree about concepts here. We’re disagreeing about which words we use to represent those concepts.
So what do you suggest I say instead of “believe” or “feel”? Because I think it’s equally important to distinguish the sort of “belief” I was referring to from actually “knowing” something.
i mean, sure, but that doesn’t mean that it would be inaccurate to say i “believe” the scientific consensus on most things, in a colloquial sense, anyway. the fact that the reason i think evolution is true is because of all the evidence for it and not just because forrest valkai said so doesn’t make the sentence “i believe in evolution” untrue.
No, it does not. That’s exactly where you’re wrong.
I believe that there’s a black hole in the center of the Milky Way. I don’t know enough about astrophysics to deeply analyze and understand all the evidence for myself. I can’t check all the math, I don’t have access to all the telescopes used to collect the relevant data to personally make sure that they were properly calibrated and I don’t understand the signal processing that was done on that data well enough to veto it myself. But I do know that other people have that knowledge and access to the equipment, and I understand and trust in the scientific method and peer review processes that led to that conclusion. And I understand the simplified explanations that were given to me about gravitation and so on that support the finding, and they are compatible with the rest of what I was taught. I believe in it, with good reason. It is not a blind belief. But it is a belief.
Now, if I believed without any evidence that three thousand years ago, before people knew what schizophrenia was, some sheepherder was somehow granted knowledge of the future by a mysterious force claiming to have created the Universe, and from there believed in said claim, that would be very blind indeed. That’s faith. It’s completely different.
No, science is not something to believe in, it’s something to trust because they’ve given proof to their claims. Your comment really makes me think a lot of people don’t really know what science is about and just replaced God with it
I didn’t say “have faith”, I said “believe”. If you don’t kniw the difference, then you shouldn’t be lecturing anybody about anything. Ironically, though, I suspect it’s precisely this difference you’re accusing me of misunderstanding. Which means that you’re just arguing semantics.
deleted by creator
That still seems like semantics to me.
I don’t know your background in physics. If you were to say “I feel that neutrinos make up most of what we call Black Matter”, I’d get the impression that you’re basing that statement on emotion, a gut feeling, aesthetics or something equally flimsy. If you said “I know that neutrinos…” I’d call bullshit because afaik there isn’t any conclusive evidence yet either way.
If you said “I believe that neutrinos…” I’d assume that, despite the lack of conclusive evidence, according to your current level of understanding of the currently available evidence, you have reasoned that this is the strongest current hypothesis. Now, if you said “I have faith that neutrinos…”, I’d completely dismiss you as a crazy person.
So I don’t think that we disagree about concepts here. We’re disagreeing about which words we use to represent those concepts.
deleted by creator
So what do you suggest I say instead of “believe” or “feel”? Because I think it’s equally important to distinguish the sort of “belief” I was referring to from actually “knowing” something.
deleted by creator
i mean, sure, but that doesn’t mean that it would be inaccurate to say i “believe” the scientific consensus on most things, in a colloquial sense, anyway. the fact that the reason i think evolution is true is because of all the evidence for it and not just because forrest valkai said so doesn’t make the sentence “i believe in evolution” untrue.
deleted by creator
Believing implies doing it blindly, and that’s literally not how science works
No, it does not. That’s exactly where you’re wrong.
I believe that there’s a black hole in the center of the Milky Way. I don’t know enough about astrophysics to deeply analyze and understand all the evidence for myself. I can’t check all the math, I don’t have access to all the telescopes used to collect the relevant data to personally make sure that they were properly calibrated and I don’t understand the signal processing that was done on that data well enough to veto it myself. But I do know that other people have that knowledge and access to the equipment, and I understand and trust in the scientific method and peer review processes that led to that conclusion. And I understand the simplified explanations that were given to me about gravitation and so on that support the finding, and they are compatible with the rest of what I was taught. I believe in it, with good reason. It is not a blind belief. But it is a belief.
Now, if I believed without any evidence that three thousand years ago, before people knew what schizophrenia was, some sheepherder was somehow granted knowledge of the future by a mysterious force claiming to have created the Universe, and from there believed in said claim, that would be very blind indeed. That’s faith. It’s completely different.