"Believing in science" - what does that mean?

TheLightWithin

TheLightWithin

...through a glass, darkly
Veteran Member
Messages
3,098
Reaction score
1,554
Points
108
Location
Cherish religious freedom: yours, mine, everyone's
When people talk about "believing in science" I often wonder what is meant - both by the term belief, and the term science.
Would I say I "believed in" science? I believe, or, I recognize, I observe, I am convinced that, "science" is a useful and effective... uh... thing.

What do we mean by science?
I think people conflate several overlapping and related but distinct concepts when they talk about "science" or "agreeing with/believing/accepting science"
They could be talking about the scientific method (and/or any of the various research methodologies that have developed)
They could be talking about the body of knowledge that has grown from the use of the scientific method
They could be talking about results, like medicine and technology
They could be talking about the researchers - people and institutions that conduct scientific studies.

I found some articles talking about these definitions - they roughly overlap what I said above, but word things differently - more than that, they offer some definitions I didn't and leave out at least one definition I did offer

scientafic.com

The Five Definitions of Science

The word “science” is used in many different ways. As a scientist and a consumer of science, I find it helpful to try to identify which definition of the word people mean when they say “scien…
scientafic.com scientafic.com

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of SCIENCE

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method; such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
 
This short article talks about what people have in mind the most often when they talk about science - which often is technology and medicine -
the concrete results of scientific work
www.pewresearch.org

When Americans think about science, what do they have in mind?

65% of U.S. adults say science has had a mostly positive effect on society; 28% say it has had an equal mix of positive and negative effects.
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org
 
This article is a little longer, but not extremely long, it self-reports being a 3 minute read

It discusses what it means for science to be "real" and discusses God and metaphysical claims in the second half of the article

The reference to political parties in the first paragraph is brief and not a primary focus of this article.


This is on a blog by a scientist who states having a background in molecular biology and gives a contact address at a marine research facility.
 
Some brief remarks on science and academia from the same science blogger in the first post above
scientafic.com

Good Science vs. Great Science

Good science is rigorously following the scientific method. It is about minimizing assumptions, prejudices, and human fallacies. Good science is the unbiased collection and analysis of evidence to …
scientafic.com scientafic.com
scientafic.com

Is This What Academia Is Meant to Be?

Academia is built on ideals; it is not meant to be gamified.
scientafic.com scientafic.com
 
For me, appreciation of what science has achieved till now, their strict system of verification, and the belief that in the times to come, they will continue to progress as they have done till now.
 
Science is a metaphysical system, like any other - it has its own internal logic and rules of association, and requires a person to subscribe in it.

Similar applies to animist systems - cause and effect may not follow the same scientific ideals we know of now, but within that metaphysical system it is consistent and explainable.

I think far too often we're over-awed by popular perceptions of science - when you get into the academic details there are always arguments, and always massive resistance to change even in light of contrary evidence. Ultimately, science is driven by subjective bias, not objective reality - the assumption is commonly that they are equal, but that's an ideal that is rarely met. That's plain in the reading of any history of science.

I come at this as someone from a strong science background, but also as someone with an appreciation of ancient belief systems - at least, the parts we can reconstruct.
 
TheLightWithin said:
It discusses what it means for science to be "real" and discusses God and metaphysical claims in the second half of the article..
Click to expand...
I think most people would accept that science based on observation/experimentation is
"real" .. just as our experience of existing in this universe is "real".

..so the issue is more one of, "Does an alternative universe exist, that cannot be verified by
empirical observation of this one" ? 😑
 
Aupmanyav said:
For me, appreciation of what science has achieved till now, their strict system of verification, and the belief that in the times to come, they will continue to progress as they have done till now.
Click to expand...
Yes, believing in science to me is believing in the scientific method.

But alas, I am not a scientist. I need to rely on scientists to relate their findings. My "science" ends with my observable universe, what my 5 senses can experience.

Scientists use instruments to exentuate their senses (telescopes, microscopes, sensors of all kiznds) to go beyond my observable universe
 
Only had time for a brief glance ... is this supposing that by 'science' is meant the only the physical (empirical) method?

I only ask because philosophy is a science, as is theology, as is metaphysics or ontology ... but none of those disciplines necessarily depend on the ability to repeat tests in a laboratory, kind of thing?

I delight in science, but I am aware of 'scientism' – the erroneous belief that the empirical sciences have the last say on everything, whereas many scientists are keen to point out that's not the case – such as when people assert the old 'science v religion' thing, or that as God cannot be proved empirically, God does not exist.
 
St Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways' is a proof of the existence of God following 'the scientific method' and the interpretation of observable data.
(He was not, of course, arguing for the God of the Bible, but rather the case for a God as such.)

700 years old and counting, and still a live topic of philosophical debate.
 
I don't recall ever saying that I "believed in science". It's because I don't trust scientific research, especially in my own country. Why? Because it is so corrupt. It also so flawed. It is influenced by money, the media and politics among other factors. Let me give you a few examples.


We now know that sugar is one of the main, if not the main culprit behind heart disease. Scientists knew this. But the sugar industry paid scientists to claim that it was fat which caused the issue. All fat. Anyone who would have actually read the research would have noticed that the data was incomplete and lacking. If they had also followed the paper trail, they would have seen that all of this research was funded by the sugar industry. What the article does NOT tell you is that the scientific community shamed the main scientist who stood up to this corruption. They knew he was correct yet bullied him anyway. Scientists can be evil too.

www.nbcnews.com

Melting polar ice is slowing the Earth's rotation, with possible consequences for timekeeping

A new study found that ice loss caused by climate change is redistributing mass on the Earth enough to alter its spin.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

On March 27th, 2024 NBC published the above article about the earth's rotation slowing. Most of the article blames climate change.

www.cbsnews.com

Earth is spinning faster than it used to. Clocks might have to skip a second to keep up.

The planet is headed towards what one expert called a "negative leap second."
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

On March 27th, 2024 CBS published the above article about how the earth's rotation is speeding up! Published the same exact day!

When politics and the media get involved, science gets very distorted.

So I notice that most people who claim to "believe in science", they either believe whatever scientific results back their opinion. They DON'T believe any scientific finding that go against their opinion. There are some who are also just naive and somehow think that scientific research is never corrupted.
 
And if you won't take my word for anything I've said, do take the word of Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet.

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness." -Richard Horton-
 
iBrian said:
Ultimately, science is driven by subjective bias, not objective reality - the assumption is commonly that they are equal, but that's an ideal that is rarely met. That's plain in the reading of any history of science.

I come at this as someone from a strong science background, but also as someone with an appreciation of ancient belief systems - at least, the parts we can reconstruct.
Click to expand...
Yeah, till we get the right answer, researchers will proceed according to their subjective bias. When we get the answer, the bias dissolves and everyone agrees.
 
Generally, I agree with @moralorel –

If I have one caveat, it would be that Horton's critique of science applies equally to the proponents of, for example, the anti-vax debate, so we end up with polarised opinions, both offering their own 'proofs' and 'evidence' and 'argument' to support their claims.

So we end up in a situation where we can reasonably be allowed to accept none of it.

Something of an about turn on my part, although I am still pro-vax. I won't force anyone to vaccinate, nor argue if they choose not to. I will ask questions if they tell me not to.
 
moralorel said:
www.nbcnews.com

Melting polar ice is slowing the Earth's rotation, with possible consequences for timekeeping

A new study found that ice loss caused by climate change is redistributing mass on the Earth enough to alter its spin.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
On March 27th, 2024 NBC published the above article about the earth's rotation slowing. Most of the article blames climate change.

www.cbsnews.com

Earth is spinning faster than it used to. Clocks might have to skip a second to keep up.

The planet is headed towards what one expert called a "negative leap second."
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
On March 27th, 2024 CBS published the above article about how the earth's rotation is speeding up! Published the same exact day!
Click to expand...
🤣 I read them. Then noticed that the same guy – Duncan Agnew – was referenced in both! What?

Re-reading, the earth is generally speeding up as measured over decades, but recent climate change effects is slowing the process, so the long-and-short of it is we were thinking of deducting a second from the clock in 2026 to account for this acceleration, but Agnew reckons it'll take three years longer to get there now, because of the slowing of the speeding up ...
 
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"
Generally attributed to Mark Twain, who attributed it to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli ...

The trouble is, science relies a lot on statistics, and the interpretations thereof.
 
Thomas said:
Something of an about turn on my part, although I am still pro-vax. I won't force anyone to vaccinate, nor argue if they choose not to.
Click to expand...
I am clearly pro-vax and will argue in its favor. India had a good experience with vaccines. Polio, Smallpox, Covid, or vaccination in children.
Of course, I have no authority to force anyone if the person is anti-vax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top