Comments on: Belief in the Scientific Method

By: za

za — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:13:38 +0000

I wonder if it’s true that experimentation won out over authority mainly because science allows one to predict future events. Because we understood motion according to Newtons laws, we could then demonstrate to church-going folks that our theories worked. We could predict what that ball would do when it hit the other ball. we could say that a boulder and a pea would fall at the same rate, because we tested our hypotheses with experiments, and then codified behavior with mathematics.

Authority’s power ended here. They could not predict future material events. Of course they feared this loss of power over their followers, and so called scientists “magicians” “witches” or “devils.” Anything to discredit them in the eyes of their followers.

Science has always won out for reality-based humans. Those who choose to deny what their senses witness will not bow to that truth if it contradicts what they believe to be true, which was told to them by the authorities. Because that would be heresy or blasphemy, and they could be excommunicated, which means sent to Hell for eternity, basically.

By: lichen

lichen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:41:14 +0000

Yes, the scientific method as an adaptive process should be adopted, and the ideology/dogma, academic, conventional, institutionalized view of ‘science’ as something that encapsulates rather a certain point of view–a right wing one that nuclear energy, massive pollution, GM foods, and new weapons are generally accepted as good, and any new ideas, anything left wing or that otherwise doesn’t come from the mainstream media, political class, or academically tenured is “not science.” We must not, further, allow such scientismists to claim that they are the only ones qualified to speak about human reality–that social sciences and philosophy are somehow overturned by the conservative academic sphere and their backwards talk of genes, etc.

By: Christophe

Christophe — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:06:29 +0000

Most of what the “average” person takes as scientific fact is not based on one’s own empirical undertaking. Rather, as with other articles of faith, much of what is seen as hard scientific fact is itself accepted as true by the those who postulate and theorize. Most people believe in the laws of gravity, even if all the theoretics are lost on most. In short, much of the “collective” scientific facts are taken as such because of the faith and regard held for science and its practitioners, and not by personal discovery. Faith in science also leads so many times to the embracing of pseudo-science, since science is-ideally speaking- morally neutral and as such, makes no distinctions between the empirical and the contrived and fallacious.

By: bozh

bozh — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:15:21 +0000

The words we use to think with may alter our feelings for better or worse.
So, to use the word “belief”, as pious people do, to label how scientists evaluate their work and findings or how they find any of their findings is a distort of reality.

I self use the word “belief” as guess. And guessing by anyone i welcome as long as the guesser is fully aware that s/he’s believing, assuming, or conjecturing.
The prevailing attitude just ab everywhere appears that most people stifle free speech; including, conjecturing.

For most pious people- when it comes to piousness- vitally important guessing cannot exist; thus, lack an important tool of thinking.
It can be likened onto a person cutting an arm off because such person may think one arm is enough.

I do not think that most scienists use the word belief as supplant for words theorising, assuming, thinking, feeling, hunching, postulating, et al and which church had prohibited from use.

“Belief” must at one time had its proper symbolic value: I don’t know, but i guess or believe that the deer is still around the pond or ‘gods’ somewhenwhere in first, second….. or ninth ‘heaven’ or nowhere. tnx