ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Why do some scientists believe in science? Why do you particularly embrace belief?
I believe in scientific stuff only. 1 25.00%
I can prove that belief does not oppose science. (I will comment with proof) 0 0%
I feel there is no distinction between belief and science. (I got no proof though) 0 0%
I think this poll is silly, because other peoples beliefs are irrelevant. (I could care less) 0 0%
Not applicable, like scientists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, I observe that regardless of belief, science is true. 3 75.00%
Voters: 4. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Old 17th July 2017, 08:10 PM   #1
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,290
Why do some scientists believe in science?

Sure, one may believe in science stuff.

However, belief is shown to typically allow the ignorance of new evidence, especially after initial evidence is obtained.

Science in contrast, is shown to highly concern evidence.


Mod WarningThis is a thread created to avoid the moderation on a currently active thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=321123. Do not start new threads just because a thread is under moderation.
Posted By:Darat


Why do some scientists believe in science?

Why do you particularly embrace belief (if applicable)?

Last edited by Darat; 17th July 2017 at 11:45 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:24 PM   #2
Hungry81
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,412
independantly repeatable results with clear metodology?

or how about because it seems to work quite well.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Hungry81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:49 PM   #3
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,579
Ya know, I just freaking recovered from last night's blackout drunk PGJ thread only to find that it was under moderation. So I said to myself, 'what would PGJ do if his thread got jammed up?' Why, he would try to continue it against the mods direction in another thread.

And here we are.

As a bonus, the new thread is started in SMMT and will of course shortly be moved to R&P where a discussion of belief would obviously belong.

*MostlyDead cracks open a fresh bottle of tequila*
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:54 PM   #4
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,643
Where is the "I can blow up stuff with it" option?
__________________
"eventually we will get something done."
- Donald J. Trump
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:15 PM   #5
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,592
Belief without evidence is both ignorant and irrational. Belief because there is unassailable evidence is science. I will take science over belief any time.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:17 PM   #6
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Ya know, I just freaking recovered from last night's blackout drunk PGJ thread only to find that it was under moderation. So I said to myself, 'what would PGJ do if his thread got jammed up?' Why, he would try to continue it against the mods direction in another thread.

And here we are.
According to the ISF, I am allowed to do a poll on the matter.


Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
As a bonus, the new thread is started in SMMT and will of course shortly be moved to R&P where a discussion of belief would obviously belong.

*MostlyDead cracks open a fresh bottle of tequila*


Belief's science opposing nature is the topic, as is evidenced by science paper (i.e. science) presented.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 17th July 2017 at 11:03 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:23 PM   #7
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by Hungry81 View Post
independantly repeatable results with clear metodology?

or how about because it seems to work quite well.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Yes, this is why whether you believe in science or not, it holds true.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:26 PM   #8
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Where is the "I can blow up stuff with it" option?
Are you referring to Guth's inflation theory?

If yes, that is included in option 5.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:35 PM   #9
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Belief without evidence is both ignorant and irrational. Belief because there is unassailable evidence is science. I will take science over belief any time.
When I first heard Neil Tyson say "science is true whether or not you believe", that was delicious food for thought.

It took me roughly 3 days to dig into that delicious thought.

Fortunately, coming from atheism, it wasn't too hard to extract myself from the attractive trap that was belief. (After seeing the Tyson quote, I was in denial for about 2 days, because I hadn't been able to observe the validity of his quote. In a neutral mood though, on the third day, I found that I could distance myself from belief.)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 17th July 2017 at 09:58 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:39 PM   #10
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,579
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
According to the ISF, I am allowed to do a poll on the matter.
But it does not change anything- surely you see that?

1. You want to continue the discussion.
2. The mods specifically say not to resume on a separate thread.
3. You circumvent by calling it a poll, while encouraging the presentation of proofs in the poll options.
4. Y'all is just continuing the previous discussion under a very thin veil.

Quote:
Belief's science opposing nature is the topic, as is evidenced by neuroscience paper (i.e. science) presented.
So you reason on every thread that you start under SMMT, which is invariably moved to R&P. It is essentially a philosophy of science question, primarily a matter for R&P. Betcha a shot of Mescal that it gets moved?
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:42 PM   #11
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Yes, this is why whether you believe in science or not, it holds true.
No. Science is not true. Science is a method for weeding out what is not true. But "true" (and "false", for that matter) isn't even a meaningful descriptor for science itself.

Newtonian mechanics, for example, is one result of the scientific process. Is newtonian mechanics true? No, actually, it isn't. It's false. But over a pretty large set of useful conditions, it's accurate. And that's usually the best that we can expect from science: not truth, but accuracy. But even that is what science produces, not science itself.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 17th July 2017 at 09:44 PM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:49 PM   #12
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
But it does not change anything- surely you see that?

1. You want to continue the discussion.
2. The mods specifically say not to resume on a separate thread.
3. You circumvent by calling it a poll, while encouraging the presentation of proofs in the poll options.
4. Y'all is just continuing the previous discussion under a very thin veil.
Observe this ISF image. It notified me that a poll was okay:

http://i.imgur.com/49GrrHZ.png


Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
So you reason on every thread that you start under SMMT, which is invariably moved to R&P. It is essentially a philosophy of science question, primarily a matter for R&P. Betcha a shot of Mescal that it gets moved?
It is no secret that the concept of belief is observed to oppose science. (Although one may believe in sensible things like science)

Believers tend to ignore evidence, be it initial or not. (as evidenced)

The above is empirically observed.




FOOTNOTE:

Yes, this thread will likely be moved, if the mods in question are believers (not necessarily religious, just fellows who believe).

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 17th July 2017 at 09:51 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:54 PM   #13
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. Science is not true. Science is a method for weeding out what is not true. But "true" (and "false", for that matter) isn't even a meaningful descriptor for science itself.

Newtonian mechanics, for example, is one result of the scientific process. Is newtonian mechanics true? No, actually, it isn't. It's false. But over a pretty large set of useful conditions, it's accurate. And that's usually the best that we can expect from science: not truth, but accuracy. But even that is what science produces, not science itself.
Science, is unavoidably true, as it strives to weed out nonsense.

Google definition of true is: "in accordance with fact or reality"

Science is in accordance with reality.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 10:06 PM   #14
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,579
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post

...(Although one may believe in sensible things like science)...
STOP THE PRESSES!!! Are you now acknowledging that one can believe in science? After hundreds of posts arguing the opposite? Do tell, what was your 'Aha!' moment?

Quote:
FOOTNOTE:

Yes, this thread will likely be moved, if the mods in question are believers (not necessarily religious, just fellows who believe).
Belief and religion need not have any relation; one can believe in the strengths of the scientific method and be a card-carrying atheist. The religious qualifier is entirely unnecessary.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 10:22 PM   #15
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,914
An xkcd that seems appropriate for this thread

https://xkcd.com/808/
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 10:55 PM   #16
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
STOP THE PRESSES!!! Are you now acknowledging that one can believe in science? After hundreds of posts arguing the opposite? Do tell, what was your 'Aha!' moment?
No aha moment.

The second line of the original post way way back then, had long underlined reality; "belief can contain non science".


Originally Posted by MostlyDead
Belief and religion need not have any relation; one can believe in the strengths of the scientific method and be a card-carrying atheist. The religious qualifier is entirely unnecessary.
Yes, that is a given. No where any where, did I express otherwise.

However, also, be it religious or non religious belief, both are observed to facilitate that its users ignore evidence.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 11:30 PM   #17
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,839
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Science, is unavoidably true, as it strives to weed out nonsense.

Are you claiming that Newton's theory of gravitation is not science?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 11:45 PM   #18
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,742
Mod WarningThis is a thread created to avoid the moderation on a currently active thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=321123. Do not start new threads just because a thread is under moderation. This thread is now closed.
Posted By:Darat
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.