Topic: The belief system of science?

[Beη]

(click to show/hide)

I don't believe this, and I still manage to do science.  To clarify, I'm not saying it's a false statement, I'm saying I don't believe it because I don't know if nature is fully understandable in human terms.  In my opinion, the truth value of this statement does not matter.  What does matter is that nature can, at least in part, be understood in human terms (which it certainly seems like it can).

Do not confuse a practitioner with fundamental nature of what he is using.

A cab driver can think that cars are powered by zebra farts. That doesn't mean that he cannot drive a car. Engines are fundamental to how cars work but a cab driver doesn't need to understand that to make a car work effectively.

Yeah, I agree with that.  Like I said, I have a very pragmatic view of science.  So sure, I am the cab driver.  I see what you are saying though: my entire post was from the perspective of someone using science to do stuff, rather than science as some sort of fundamental construct.  However, I'm having a hard time seeing a practical difference between the two.

[The Vociferous Flyfish]

The problem seems to be that this man's list is full of absurdist strawmans; he's taking a few real statements that have truth in them and stretching them in a such a way as to be ridiculous and false. Yes, we can parse the truth from his statements, but the manner he wrote them in renders them incorrect and that's what bothers me. Just the other day I walked by a couple of people talking in the science wing of my college and overheard one person talking about people worshiping science. I listened for a bit, and his complaints weren't unlike this man's laundry list o' crap. I don't believe such absurd criticisms of science are valid, as they seem to be borne in ignorance of what science is rather than in the actual structure of scientific thought and methodology. They criticize a parody of science and that is a major problem.

He may have meant well and simply poorly worded his list, but I'm more inclined to think he's mistaken. He wouldn't be the first.

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

He may have meant well and simply poorly worded his list, but I'm more inclined to think he's mistaken. He wouldn't be the first.

It sounds like conflation of science with conjecture because philosophy is totally the boss science.

[Shibboleth]

The problem seems to be that this man's list is full of absurdist strawmans; he's taking a few real statements that have truth in them and stretching them in a such a way as to be ridiculous and false. Yes, we can parse the truth from his statements, but the manner he wrote them in renders them incorrect and that's what bothers me. Just the other day I walked by a couple of people talking in the science wing of my college and overheard one person talking about people worshiping science. I listened for a bit, and his complaints weren't unlike this man's laundry list o' crap. I don't believe such absurd criticisms of science are valid, as they seem to be borne in ignorance of what science is rather than in the actual structure of scientific thought and methodology. They criticize a parody of science and that is a major problem.

He may have meant well and simply poorly worded his list, but I'm more inclined to think he's mistaken. He wouldn't be the first.

Unless I am misunderstood he wasn't posing an argument nor was he claiming that it was worship or a religion. It is basic philosophy of science.  Saying that there is a belief system with science doesn't diminish or undermine science.

Here is a link to a free audio reading of Bertrand Russell's problems of Philosophy. In it he touches on many of the issues with "observable" and what we have to accept and use what Hume calls, "common sense skepticism" over severe skepticism.

http://librivox.org/the-problems-of-philosophy-by-bertrand-russell/

[The Vociferous Flyfish]

The problem seems to be that this man's list is full of absurdist strawmans; he's taking a few real statements that have truth in them and stretching them in a such a way as to be ridiculous and false. Yes, we can parse the truth from his statements, but the manner he wrote them in renders them incorrect and that's what bothers me. Just the other day I walked by a couple of people talking in the science wing of my college and overheard one person talking about people worshiping science. I listened for a bit, and his complaints weren't unlike this man's laundry list o' crap. I don't believe such absurd criticisms of science are valid, as they seem to be borne in ignorance of what science is rather than in the actual structure of scientific thought and methodology. They criticize a parody of science and that is a major problem.

He may have meant well and simply poorly worded his list, but I'm more inclined to think he's mistaken. He wouldn't be the first.

Unless I am misunderstood he wasn't posing an argument nor was he claiming that it was worship or a religion. It is basic philosophy of science.  Saying that there is a belief system with science doesn't diminish or undermine science.

I didn't mean to suggesting he was claiming that science is a religion, but that some of his points don't really touch on what science actually is and from those points are misconceptions of science that some may take and twist to launch a faulty assault on scientific thinking, such as the man I mentioned who did accuse people of worshiping science by essentially arguing that scientists believe their methods are infallible.

I am aware that there are core assumptions in science, but I just don't think this guy accurately described them. Perhaps a problem may be on my end, as I am a practitioner of science, so my point of view may be skewed. I may have been too hasty seeing as how me and many of my peers have already considered some of these statements, but these statements without thought are misused by critics of science. I'll certainly listen to Russell; I've read his anthology in Why I am Not a Christian and I enjoyed his writings.

[MessyAndy]

Are these "core beliefs" the same ones that Sheldrake lists in his book?

These beliefs are far more thought provoking and interesting than the one Sheldrake came up with.  Sheldrakes states ten core beliefs that scientist take for granted:

1 Nature is essential mechanical
2 All matter is unconscious.  It has no life or subjective point of view
3 The total amount of energy in the universe is the same
4 The laws of nature are fixed
5 Nature is purposeless, evolution has no goal or direction
6 All biological inheritance is material
7 Minds are inside your head and are nothing but the activities of brains
8 memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death
9 Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory (Sheldrake wrote the book on dogs knowing when their owners are on the way home)
10 Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works

I think he later refer to these beliefs as essential dogmas of science.

[MessyAndy]

Science without a belief system is possible, but practically speaking, everyone carries some baggage.  For instance, the "scientific method" is a belief system unto itself, the way most people apply it.

I think the notion of keeping an open mind is separate from the science- important for scientists, but not part and parcel.  I think the real key to avoiding a "belief system" is to be willing to challenge anything- including whether you are willing to challenge anything, and to require evidence before regarding something as even qualifying as "information" much less "fact".

I think you're correct that scientist will have some baggage and beliefs, but I think science and the scientific method shouldn't have any belief Science seeks to know what is true, or failing that, be the least wrong thing we know.  I think it's very important omit beliefs from science and test nature as we find it.

[TalkingBook]

Science without a belief system is possible, but practically speaking, everyone carries some baggage.  For instance, the "scientific method" is a belief system unto itself, the way most people apply it.

I think the notion of keeping an open mind is separate from the science- important for scientists, but not part and parcel.  I think the real key to avoiding a "belief system" is to be willing to challenge anything- including whether you are willing to challenge anything, and to require evidence before regarding something as even qualifying as "information" much less "fact".

I think you're correct that scientist will have some baggage and beliefs, but I think science and the scientific method shouldn't have any belief Science seeks to know what is true, or failing that, be the least wrong thing we know.  I think it's very important omit beliefs from science and test nature as we find it.

Science is absolutely based on beliefs. There's no way of getting around this. They may be mostly such fundamental beliefs that it makes little to no sense to seriously doubt them, but they're still beliefs. Or call them assumptions if that makes you feel better about it. As Shibboleth says, the admission of assumptions does not tarnish the reputation of science. Rather, it's the refusal to admit this that riles many people up.

When people refuse to admit the assumptive foundations of science, or suppose that a purely pragmatic view is sufficient, they are essentially denying the need for an explicit philosophy of science. This view couldn't be any more wrong. As Dr. Novella put it quite succinctly on Neurologica: "There is no science without the philosophy of science, even if it is implied and not implicitly understood by scientists." When working scientists are completely unaware of the philosophical baggage associated with what they are doing or deny its existence outright, while simultaneously extolling the unquestionable awesomeness of the endeavor, it's not too hard to understand why some academics (especially those in the humanities) walk around mumbling phrases like "science worship".

None of this means that science is somehow a flawed method that needs philosophy to show it where it's going all wrong; all it means is that explicit reflection on one's own assumptions and methods is not only healthy, but essential for any endeavor which purports to uncover truth.

[Lancezh]

Science is absolutely based on beliefs. There's no way of getting around this. They may be mostly such fundamental beliefs that it makes little to no sense to seriously doubt them, but they're still beliefs. Or call them assumptions if that makes you feel better about it. As Shibboleth says, the admission of assumptions does not tarnish the reputation of science. Rather, it's the refusal to admit this that riles many people up.

When people refuse to admit the assumptive foundations of science, or suppose that a purely pragmatic view is sufficient, they are essentially denying the need for an explicit philosophy of science. This view couldn't be any more wrong. As Dr. Novella put it quite succinctly on Neurologica: "There is no science without the philosophy of science, even if it is implied and not implicitly understood by scientists." When working scientists are completely unaware of the philosophical baggage associated with what they are doing or deny its existence outright, while simultaneously extolling the unquestionable awesomeness of the endeavor, it's not too hard to understand why some academics (especially those in the humanities) walk around mumbling phrases like "science worship".

None of this means that science is somehow a flawed method that needs philosophy to show it where it's going all wrong; all it means is that explicit reflection on one's own assumptions and methods is not only healthy, but essential for any endeavor which purports to uncover truth.

I'm not quite sure i understand you correct but to apply science you have to believe at least into the (dt. Wahrheitstheorie) [i'm not sure what it is in english really], no ? Which is a philosophical concept in the first place, since otherwise you can only fail like Bertrand Russel did with his Principia Mathematica. So in that sense i can accept that Science is kind of a belief system but the extent to what is needed to actually "do science" is profoundly different than to what is needed to be a christian for instance.
It plays in the league of beliefsystems but its also worth noting that is the system that requires the least belief of them all, thats what defines science in my understanding.

On another note i suspect that you guys are throwing words around that dont mean the same, axioms, beliefs, prejudices... and labeling them all as beliefs

[KClayton]

Science without a belief system is possible, but practically speaking, everyone carries some baggage.  For instance, the "scientific method" is a belief system unto itself, the way most people apply it.

I think the notion of keeping an open mind is separate from the science- important for scientists, but not part and parcel.  I think the real key to avoiding a "belief system" is to be willing to challenge anything- including whether you are willing to challenge anything, and to require evidence before regarding something as even qualifying as "information" much less "fact".

I think you're correct that scientist will have some baggage and beliefs, but I think science and the scientific method shouldn't have any belief Science seeks to know what is true, or failing that, be the least wrong thing we know.  I think it's very important omit beliefs from science and test nature as we find it.

I didn't want to go into too much detail, since I don't want to derail anything, but part of what I was getting at is that at some point you have to believe that the scientific method is valid, and important.  You also have to believe that avoiding preconceived notions of truth is important.  There's a loop here; you have a preconceived notion that avoiding preconceived notions is important.  Part of this is semantics, you can get wrapped in "never say never" easily.  But I think making science the opposite end of a spectrum from belief is a bad idea.  Instead, I might say that I _believe_ that science is a way of examining beliefs, including the belief that science is a way of examining beliefs.  That way I can get out of that semantic loop.

[MessyAndy]

I think Lancezh is correct, for me this is a use of language problem. I don't like referring to the philosophy of science or science as a belief system, since, for me, this implies something that is not questioned and has little scope for change, which is the opposite of science.  (Also Lancezh as an aside my crude translator states that Wahrheitstheorie is truth theory.)

I think you made an excellent point TalkingBook, but now I want to know; what are the core beliefs or assumptions of science that we can take from the philosophy of science?  As I don't think the ones at the start of this thread are correct.

[Citizen Skeptic]

I think it's easy to confuse what scientists believe and what they know. Every time they want to use the word believe, the sentence should start with "we don't know, but we believe." The implication instead is "we're pretty sure we know and therefore we believe."

[Fulcrum]

It looks like he/she is trying to fight science with philosophy. It's strikes me as being similar to when religious people try to do battle with science or when scientists take on theological matters - they aren't speaking the same language. Science doesn't inform philosophy and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, in order to truly honor the principles of science, you have to admit that you may be, and probably are, wrong. This is a rhetorically weak position, but science isn't rhetoric and rhetoric isn't science.

[MessyAndy]

I take belief to mean "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:" But science is rigorous proof, or at least the best proof or evidence available.  So I still don't understand how science can be belief, and if it does have belief what are these beliefs?

I agree with Fulcrum

  you have to admit that you may be, and probably are, wrong.

but I'd add that science is the least wrong thing that we know.

[ting-bu-dong]

If you define belief that way, it becomes circular. It's more useful to define belief as the acceptance of any claim as true, so in that sense I believe in electromagnetism, evolution, quantum mechanics, and so on.

The problem with calling science a belief system is that it implies that people who accept the findings of science arbitrarily adhere to them in a dogmatic way, which is why the quote in the OP called the beliefs underpinning scientific inquiry presuppositions and not assumptions. The difference is that presuppositions are arbitrary and not subject to verification and revision, while assumptions are.