Why do scientists believe in science?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I am the guy who invented 'non-beliefism' (url removed)

Ever wonder why scientists believe in science?

The *FACTS*:
(1)
Belief definition: "To accept as true, especially absent evidence".
(Note: None of the varying meanings of belief under a particular dictionary's definition of belief opposes the meaning above. Any opposing meaning would be found in antonyms instead..)
(Google belief definition source)

(2)
Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias:
(Cognitive paper on belief)

(3)
"Belief memories" are typically false: 
(Neuroscience paper on belief)

Belief is observed to oppose science by definition/research. (i.e. belief lowly concerns evidence, while science highly concerns evidence) 

SO, WHY DO SCIENTISTS (EXCEPT Neil Degrasse Tyson...) BELIEVE IN SCIENCE  (especially when Science is true regardless of belief)?  

 

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

 

SO, WHY DO SCIENTISTS (EXCEPT Neil Degrasse Tyson...) BELIEVE IN SCIENCE? 

 

Perhaps you can start things off by telling us why you believe scientists believe in science? Come on, you know you want to tell us.

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Belief definition: "To accept as true, especially absent evidence".
(Note: None of the varying meanings of belief under a particular dictionary's definition of belief opposes the meaning above. Any opposing meaning would be found in antonyms instead..)
(Google belief definition source)

This isn't the definition of belief a scientist would use, so the rest is pointless. This sounds like the definition of faith. 

Perhaps you should think of the way a scientist believes as "trust". Look for evidence, don't accept anyone's word, test it yourself, make sure you're describing the way reality behaves. Trust.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps you can start things off by telling us why you believe scientists believe in science? Come on, you know you want to tell us.

All types of scientists demonstrate that they believe in matters of science:

Edward Witten 'believes....': 

 

 

Michio Kaku 'believes....':

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Lord Antares]

No one believes in science. No one informed, anyway. 

Science is a collection of data which is proven to work or be useful in some form or another. The laws in science have been verified to work every time they have been tested. Thus, there is 0 belief in science. In fact, it is opposite to belief, since the definition of belief is being conviced of something without having evidence and being able to know whether it is right or not.

What some scientists believes has absolutely nothing to do with science. It is their personal belief, and not that of science itself. It is like if I said that because Roger Federer believes in incarnation, tennis itself advocates reincarnation. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

I am the guy who invented 'non-beliefism'

When you have to torture the accepted definitions of words to make your ideas work, you aren't doing science. I'm sorry, but I don't think you have the understanding to reinvent anything about science. Get some arrows and the bow will work better.

[bimbo36]

This looks like the chicken or the egg question

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This isn't the definition of belief a scientist would use, so the rest is pointless. This sounds like the definition of faith. 

Perhaps you should think of the way a scientist believes as "trust". Look for evidence, don't accept anyone's word, test it yourself, make sure you're describing the way reality behaves. Trust.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This isn't the definition of belief a scientist would use, so the rest is pointless. This sounds like the definition of faith. 

Perhaps you should think of the way a scientist believes as "trust". Look for evidence, don't accept anyone's word, test it yourself, make sure you're describing the way reality behaves. Trust.

It doesn't matter what meaning of belief they select. (I already answered this in the original post)

Definition 0: Belief is especially absent evidence.
Definition 1: Believe in something based on evidence.
Definition 2: etc etc etc.

Looking at how a dictionary works, no definition under belief will oppose definition 0. (those are found in antonyms)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

37 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

No one believes in science. No one informed, anyway. 

Are you saying Michio Kaku, and Edward Witten are "not informed"? 

 

Quote

Science is a collection of data which is proven to work or be useful in some form or another. The laws in science have been verified to work every time they have been tested. Thus, there is 0 belief in science. In fact, it is opposite to belief, since the definition of belief is being convinced of something without having evidence and being able to know whether it is right or not.

What some scientists believes has absolutely nothing to do with science. It is their personal belief, and not that of science itself. It is like if I said that because Roger Federer believes in incarnation, tennis itself advocates reincarnation. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The above is valid.
Edit: Your quote is valid, with the exception of the '0 belief in science' nonsense above...

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Phi for All]

The graphics aren't evidence that the way people believe in something that has been rigorously tested is the same as the way people believe in god(s), or ghosts, or that vaccines cause autism. Believing in something testable and predictable is more reasoned and rational than believing in something wishful, or supernatural. Can't you see that?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Earlier reply of Phi:

When you have to torture the accepted definitions of words to make your ideas work, you aren't doing science. I'm sorry, but I don't think you have the understanding to reinvent anything about science. Get some arrows and the bow will work better.

Later  reply of Phi:
The graphics aren't evidence that the way people believe in something that has been rigorously tested is the same as the way people believe in god(s), or ghosts, or that vaccines cause autism. Believing in something testable and predictable is more reasoned and rational than believing in something wishful, or supernatural. Can't you see that?

I had long pointed out (See original post) that belief may concern science.

However, that some beings believe in non-nonsense/scientific data, does not suddenly remove that most belief occurs on the horizon of non-evidence.

Belief by definition/research, permits beings to lowly concern evidence. 

There was no need to 'torture' or distort anything. Did you miss the evidence?:

Quote

The *FACTS*:
(1)
Belief definition: "To accept as true, especially absent evidence".
(Note: None of the varying meanings of belief under a particular dictionary's definition of belief opposes the meaning above. Any opposing meaning would be found in antonyms instead..)
(Google belief definition source)

(2)
Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias:
(Cognitive paper on belief)

(3)
"Belief memories" are typically false: 
(Neuroscience paper on belief)

Belief is observed to oppose science by definition/research. (i.e. belief lowly concerns evidence, while science highly concerns evidence) 

SO, WHY DO SCIENTISTS (EXCEPT Neil Degrasse Tyson...) BELIEVE IN SCIENCE? 

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you're saying that because most people don't believe the way scientists do, nobody believes that way. Is that what you mean?

[Lord Antares]

6 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Are you saying Michio Kaku, and Edward Witten are "not informed"? 

Can you please stop making strawman and bad arguments?

No, I'm not saying that. They know science but may or may not believe in something outside of science. Consciousness, dimensions or whatever they may be talking about is not science (at least not yet). Calculus is and you can't believe or not believe in it. You either know it or you don't. Same goes for all tested sciences.

8 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

The above is valid.

Yes, it is. But still, you claimed the opposite.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

15 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

Can you please stop making strawman and bad arguments?

No, I'm not saying that. They know science but may or may not believe in something outside of science. Consciousness, dimensions or whatever they may be talking about is not science (at least not yet). Calculus is and you can't believe or not believe in it. You either know it or you don't. Same goes for all tested sciences.

Yes, it is. But still, you claimed the opposite.

Where did I supposedly claim the opposite, wrt to the statement below?

The entire original post strictly expresses that science is true, whether or not one believes in it. (You should see the first url, 'nonbeliefism.com'.

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Lord Antares]

No it doesn't stictly express that. In fact, it doesn't express anything. Your posts are very lackluster and incoherent. What you did strictly claim, twice, is that scientists believe in science, which is a fallacy. Science can't be believed in. It can be learned, though.

Then you went on to link videos where famous scientists believe in something that has nothing to do with science, claiming that somehow belief is linked with science. And no, I don't want to click on your link. You've been advertising it for the longest time and it's pure drivel.

All in all, please start making some sense or you will get banned again. It's not a threat by me, it's just a very likely outcome.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

29 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

 

Then you went on to link videos where famous scientists believe in something that has nothing to do with science, claiming that somehow belief is linked with science. And no, I don't want to click on your link. You've been advertising it for the longest time and it's pure drivel.

All in all, please start making some sense or you will get banned again. It's not a threat by me, it's just a very likely outcome.

Yes, your quote a few posts ago was valid, with the exception of the '0 belief in science portion'.

Scientists are unavoidably shown to believe in matters of science.

Consciousness is not 'outside of science':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_Studies/The_Neuroscience_Of_Consciousness 

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Lord Antares]

What is your point with these links? I assume it is to show that there are branches of science which aren't proven, therefore, it is belief? You are wrong. Firstly, all presumptions by science ever made are made for concrete reasons as a result of concrete observations and patterns. Then they are tested and either accepted or discarded. Darwin made a hypothesis which he had confidence in even though it wasn't proven, because he made legitimate observations and pieces of evidence. Belief is none of that. Belief is just belief.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Quote

No it doesn't strictly express that. In fact, it doesn't express anything. Your posts are very lackluster and incoherent. What you did strictly claim, twice, is that scientists believe in science, which is a fallacy. Science can't be believed in. It can be learned, though.

Actually, it does strictly express of belief's science opposing nature (in the premise section):

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

17 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

What is your point with these links? I assume it is to show that there are branches of science which aren't proven, therefore, it is belief? You are wrong. Firstly, all presumptions by science ever made are made for concrete reasons as a result of concrete observations and patterns. Then they are tested and either accepted or discarded. Darwin made a hypothesis which he had confidence in even though it wasn't proven, because he made legitimate observations and pieces of evidence. Belief is none of that. Belief is just belief.

Wrong.

What type of nonsense are you expressing?

I expressed just the opposite of the underlined section; the links support what I had expressed earlier; that scientists unavoidably believe in science. 

....

What I said prior: Scientists believe in matters of science, such as the science of consciousness.

You: No, consciousness is outside of science:

Did you forget your earlier quote?

Quote

No, I'm not saying that. They know science but may or may not believe in something outside of science. Consciousness, dimensions or whatever they may be talking about is not science

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Lord Antares]

Alright, I give up. It's clear to me that you won't start making sense. Have fun before the thread is inevitably locked.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Spoiler

 

Quote

Lord Antares: All in all, please start making some sense or you will get banned again. It's not a threat by me, it's just a very likely outcome.

Why did you mention that consciousness was not science (contrary to evidence?)

Why do you feel your blunder above warrants my banning?

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you're saying that because most people don't believe the way scientists do, nobody believes that way. Is that what you mean?

No.

As the original post entails, I pointed out belief's science opposing nature.

That belief may concern evidence, does not suddenly remove that belief lowly concerns evidence.

There are already opposing phrases that entail things that highly concern evidence, such as 'science', or 'scientific methodology'.

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Itoero]

There are many beliefs in the world of science which are based on an interpretation of data. Future evidence decides which beliefs become real science and which beliefs will be pushed to the background.

When Einstein came up with relativity, it was not science the moment he wrote it down...it needed to be tested  before it became 'science'.

 

[beecee]

22 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Of what relevance is your comment amidst this thread?

Why would an atheist such as myself 'push for a need for a deity'?

 Is that right? Perhaps then you need to review your concepts of what science is, what a hypothesis is, what a scientific theory is and what philosophy is.

In the mean time here's a nice simplistic picture for you........http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01

"Science is both a body of knowledge and a process. In school, science may sometimes seem like a collection of isolated and static factslisted in a textbook, but that's only a small part of the story. Just as importantly, science is also a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research".

http://www.philosophybasics.com/general_whatis.html

"At its simplest, philosophy (from the Greek  or phílosophía, meaning ‘the love of wisdom’) is the study of knowledge, or "thinking about thinking", although the breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.^[1][2]Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

Edited August 3, 2017 by beecee

[Lord Antares]

30 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Why did you mention that consciousness was not science (contrary to evidence?)

Consciousness is a ''thing'' but there is not enough info on it for there to be any real science behind it. Therefore, there can be belief about consciousness, but that belief is outside of established science. On the other hand, gravity is a proven concept and to say there can be belief or disbelief about existence of gravity is senseless. I explained it clearly. The onus is on you to reply sensibly. You are going in loops and making empty statements.

Quote

Why do you feel your blunder above warrants my banning?

Threads are required to make sense. Your does not make sense. Therefore, it is logical to conclude your thread will be locked. Repeat offensees will lead to a ban. Seeing how you already got banned once for making nonsensical threads and arguments, it is not entirely reasonable for me to assume you will be banned again. I guess you could say I hypothesise you will get banned, as opposed to believing you will get banned. See what I did there?

Edited August 3, 2017 by Lord Antares