Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What do you believe is true, even though you cannot prove it?
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 26 of 34 (494925)
01-20-2009 4:09 AM


What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?
Ah well, this might have been shortened to "What do you believe is true?" since if there were proof, then you would not need to believe it..
I think that many of the theories of science were believed before there was any evidence, and that the belief is what propelled scientists to devise experiments to find the evidence to support the theory.
What was life like before the scientific method was devised? If you could only believe in things for which there was evidence that would make life pretty dull.
I think the distinction should be not that beliefs are bad per se, but whether they are held against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 7:24 AM shalamabobbi has not replied
 Message 28 by FliesOnly, posted 01-20-2009 8:47 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 29 of 34 (495017)
01-20-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by FliesOnly
01-20-2009 8:47 AM


Re: What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?
This is a reply to the previous two posts, although I hit the reply button for the 2nd.
The Dark Ages. The Black Death. Witch Hunts. High infant mortality. The list of things improved by science is endless.
I think your extending my comment further than I intended. It is merely an observation that beliefs are held. A POV or world view exists inside the heads of most people. Trying to eliminate that or limit it to what is known by science doesn't seem to be how people including Einstien function. Even Einstien believed in an eternal universe until the evidence forced him to believe otherwise.
I think that many of the theories of science were believed before there was any evidence
By definition, this is impossible. You cannot have a scientific theory without supporting evidence, as it is this evidence upon which we base our theories. In science, a theory is a generalized, well substantiated explanation of something we see in the natural World. Notice the part about being "well substantiated". Substantiation comes via hypotheses formation and experimentation, not the other way around.
Correction then from 'any evidence' to 'some evidence' or 'deterministic evidence'. Happy now?
Else how does this explain the Michelson-Morely experiment? The ones running it believed it would prove the existence of the medium in which light traveled, so their beliefs were proved wrong.
and that the belief is what propelled scientists to devise experiments to find the evidence to support the theory.
You really have no idea how science operates, do you.
See the MM experiment above. Beliefs do enter into the process. And I have spent my entire life in an R&D environment in scientific inquiry thank you.
As to the remaining comments by FliesOnly I think you've demonstrated 'belief' about my 'belief' without 'any evidence' or 'sufficient evidence' or 'deterministic evidence'. My point is that beliefs exist within us all, not that they are necessarily justified by sufficient evidence which is a separate consideration entirely.
And all this time I thought my posts on EvC were against YEC, ID, etc..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by FliesOnly, posted 01-20-2009 8:47 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by FliesOnly, posted 01-20-2009 3:06 PM shalamabobbi has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 31 of 34 (495100)
01-20-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by FliesOnly
01-20-2009 3:06 PM


Re: What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?
yawn.. I think I need more coffee..
The point of my post is about the existence of belief being operative in most people.
Fine...but that's called a "hypothesis". And their test hypothesis was shown to be incorrect.
And what was it called before the 'test hypothesis' was put forth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by FliesOnly, posted 01-20-2009 3:06 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by FliesOnly, posted 01-21-2009 9:15 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 33 of 34 (495209)
01-21-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by FliesOnly
01-21-2009 9:15 AM


Re: What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?
Thanks FliesOnly for your response.
I am a little lax in my use of the word for a couple of reasons. One, I presumed this was a less rigorous place to post and two, it has been some time since I attended university and had to prepare for and take exams.
My apologies. Anyhow..
It could have been called any number of things...a "thought" perhaps. Or maybe an "idea". Who knows. What I do know, is that it was NOT called a theory.
The only point of my post is that belief is operative at the lowest level. If there is only data to constrain between 10 different possibilities, and no way to prioritize the choices between those possibilities, the choice will be made to address the possibility that corresponds to the experimenter's perception of which makes the most sense to him. That is the level I refer to as belief. And the fact that other words can be used in place of the word belief I think demonstrates that it has become the 'b' word as of late, which strikes me as a little silly, that's all. There is a great deal of philosophy intermixed with science and there really is no way to avoid that. Which metaphysical viewpoint one accepts is also a belief.
Don't interpret my remarks to mean I support unsubstantiated beliefs. I am merely pointing out that they have to exist at some level and that imagining that people think without belief playing a roll is not accurate.
The scientific method is the mechanism that PREVENTS ones on personal biases (i.e. "belief being operative in most people") from influencing experimental design and results.
It may be that science is now more disciplined in this regard than it was some decades ago. I only said that the choice of experiment was a biased process, whether that is no longer the case I do not know. Do experiments now have to be approved? Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by FliesOnly, posted 01-21-2009 9:15 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024