Knowledge and understanding of the world is constantly growing. There are endless examples of how scientists and other intellectuals have a current paradigm of how something must work, only to be disproven in the future (usually by someone who gets castigated until held up years later). So to say 'believe in science' is actually dogma. It makes me cringe when I see it as a political banner, or along side signs like 'in this house we believe in....' It would be more accurate to say 'the scientific method works', but it really only works in the long run. At any point in time our understanding is incomplete and erroneous.
The facts are out there, whether you believe it or not, and eventually the scientific method will catch up.
Of course if you're not a trained scientist, then it's hard to appreciate how the scientific method works, and that even when we're very sure of something, true scientists will always hedge their statements. This will be misinterpreted by those who are outside this world as there being more gray than actually exists, and those with an agenda will drive a truck right through it.
While science is a method and not a dogma, a lot of dogma gets called science and treated with exactly the kind of religious fervour science is supposed to be able to cut through. The number of people who could not run an experiment or parse a research paper exhorting everyone to 'trust The Science' over the last two years truly irritated me, less so for the religious beliefs they were pushing than how enthusiastically they were diluting the meaning of science as a method.
A dogmatic belief in anything is detrimental. It takes wisdom to understand this. Many followers of science lack this. Scientific method is a great tool - for the type of questions that it is designed to deal with - and a disaster waiting to happen if used for other areas of inquiry.
well there are a lot of scientists doing dogma and calling it science, I'm sure.
it's endemic with every profession and it drives me nuts; the immensity of the arrogance required to say that you truly know something (with any complexity at all) to the fullest extent it can be known.
"Dogmatic belief in science" is an oxymoron. Science is skepticism defined. Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. In fact, the existence of belief is why science exists -- it's a tool to to overcome belief. If we were cured of belief, what we now call "science" would be called "thinking".
The issue is that many people trying to convince me about science are woefully unaware of their own assumptions and are typically ignorant of some basic philosophy.
In particular, I accept that the scientific method is a reliable path to knowledge, that is, it reliably leads to a true understanding of true things. However it does not follow that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. It also does not follow that all true knowledge, or even a fraction of it can be acquired through the scientific method.
Other unvoiced assumptions speak to one's life's purpose. The old quote from Emil Faber, 'Knowledge is good', is certainly not a scientific conclusion, or a testable hypothesis. Valuing wisdom over ignorance and indeed freedom over slavery and life over death speaks to a purpose in life which is necessarily ungrounded in any science. I certainly do value all of those things, but it is not a belief anyone achieved through falsifiable hypotheses.
Specific examples can be quibbled about, but I will first say there is still good science occurring everyday. What I am talking about more are people who have donned the mantle of science. At some point along the line, science went from more of a verb to a proper noun (figuratively). We went from doing the science, to trusting or believing the science.
Think about the statement "We believe in science in this house". What does that even really mean? As you considered joining the priesthood, you should know there is a great deal of scholarship that priests engage in. Not just religious scholarship, but the study of the natural world. Many of the minds that pushed humanity forward were priests. Priests believe in science, but the people who put those signs on their lawns tend not to agree.
That gets me to my point, science isn't a noun to me. Yet everyday I keep hearing how the science has spoken. Often, when I look at the evidence provided and I deem what was said to be correct. Just as often, I find small sample sizes, hacked p values or a logical flaw with the conclusion. If I start a dialog about my findings in the wrong places, I get told I'm anti-science by people who didn't even read the paper.
If forced to provide a good example it would the talk of Covid escaping the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This has become a more main stream opinion in the past month or so, but if you wanted to discuss the possibility of this around this time last year, you would've been called a conspiracy theorist by people who reportedly "believe in science" or even be censored by some of the major platforms in the name of science. That is the opposite of the science I grew up with.
I’m a believer in science - was a physics major in college. However, I find the hubris in science distasteful. Theories are treated like facts. Also, words like “we know” are used, and then a decade later that knowledge turns out to be wrong. Science changes, but at a point in time it often acts like it has reached the ultimate truth. A simple example: I remember in Jr High being taught that red shift and slowing of the expansion of the universe proved beyond doubt the Big Bang happened. Except, oops, turns out the universe is expanding after all. But you would be ridiculed if you didn’t believe
Yeah science is fast becoming a proverb for asserting some truth. The world just isn't that simple and the people invoking the word often aren't even qualified in the "science".
People shouldn't believe in science, they need to believe in the scientific method... That is the peopblem with schools as they teach facts and not the methodology
You don't have to "believe" in science. Believing in something means trusting something is true, in absence of evidence. That's at the base of all religions and the opposite of science.
I just trust the scientific process. Yes, the conclusions currently drawn from the evidence can be wrong. I'm not disappointed if it is. If scientists gain new insights, it just means the proces is working.
Yes, it's a belief/acceptance/trust/whatever you want to call it. I believe demonstrated science is fact, but that's still a belief about the world. My parents are in scientific fields, I received a science and engineering based education, and generally have faith in the scientific method as performed by most scientists.
But we DO have to convince people, we have to convince people by showing them how it works, and letting them decide that that makes sense, you can't just mandate belief as a science authoritarian.
And science is still performed by humans, and we're fallible, and our incentives aren't always good, and every time there's a public failure of the process, and every time a scientist goes on record to shill for a company's chosen viewpoint, it dings the general public's faith in science and scientific experts in general.
I usually take statements similar to "in this house, we believe science is real" as conveying the message that the people believe in the scientific method, rational inquiry, evidence-based arguments, etc, rather than a set of specific scientific theories.
That is sciences greatest strength, and at the same time greatest weakness. What happens when something cannot be proven with modern methods ? Then we choose not to believe in it at all.
Say what you will about it only being a system of proof, people use it like it defines their world views, and thus it is similar to religions.
It boxes people in thinking inside a world view that might have been created 100 years ago.
But thank you for this explanation, it makes me understand more why people are so keen on defending these gained proofs and thus their world views also.
Note that I am in no way saying that science does not work, but it can get in the way when dealing with things that have no way of being proven with scientific methods. I use science everyday and I am thankful for it existing, but it should not be the only source of information that is accepted mainstream.
I don't think science should work on dogmatism at all... leave dogma to the church.
I have seen more than a share of people that call themselves scientists literally laugh at an argument and dismiss it without analysis or a counter-argument.
In fact, from a quick glance in history we see science prove itself wrong over and over again, which is natural, but it's very common to contemporary scientists think they are just right.
All I'm saying is that sometimes, not all times, scientists appear more like cult-followers than researchers.
The facts are out there, whether you believe it or not, and eventually the scientific method will catch up.
Of course if you're not a trained scientist, then it's hard to appreciate how the scientific method works, and that even when we're very sure of something, true scientists will always hedge their statements. This will be misinterpreted by those who are outside this world as there being more gray than actually exists, and those with an agenda will drive a truck right through it.
reply