Belief/evidence

I generally don't use the word believe for science, I use the word assume or infer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe the mountain is there, SAM, the mountain in the sky.

What do you believe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

question is, do you use the word fact in science, and do you see anything as a fact in science?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whew. Wipes sweat from brow. I can now admit that I would have thought you were crazy.

I will come back after getting the sense of the flow of the thread since I have a next step - as I am sure was suspected.

 

See Fraggles post for that answer. Since I do not associate belief with science, I also do not associate fact with science. Science is, to me, a tool, observations and tests to disprove a hypothesis. There is no belief or fact involved. It is all a cycle of assumption, testing, observation and inference.

 

To the former, of course I might. Further I would not treat it as knowledge.

As far as the latter, you remind me of an interesting case: Rogue waves.
For years reports by sailors of extremely high lone wolf waves were dismissed as the irrational overestimates of emotional people. Oceanography, fluid science and a variety of experts pointed out that physics made such waves impossible. Later, after technology changed - first the installation of video cameras on the bridges of ships, later satellite technology - confirmed the existence of the rogue waves.

IOW a phenomena correctly interpreted and thus rationally believed in was contradicted by knowledge (and experience) of the experts of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave_(oceanography)

 

So by actual you meant more direct experience of rather than 'real'.

But you have had other experiences with more mundane interpretations where you believe you experienced _________ and yet could not prove this to others? Or do you only believe things that you can prove to others?

To put it another way do you only believe things that should constitute knowledge for others.

 

It's a good point. But we are often in the position, such as here, where we do not have that history.

We do tend to trust the first person accounts of those we trust and know. Together with one's own experiences this can be rather powerful. Obviously some are mislead by such a methodology. Obviously other arrive at very effective interpretations of events and things the same way.

 

You always have to interpret evidence. At least in most cases.

 

I assume you meant 'unlikely'.
And this is a fine formulation, but is slides past the kinds of answers I am seeking.

I would assume, however, that given the formulation you came up with you do believe certain things that you could not provide sufficient evidence of to others so that you would think they should also believe. Using your own standards of sufficient and evidence.

IOW the set of things you believe in is larger than the set of things that you could provide sufficient evidence to others such that they, if they shared epistemological rigor with you, should also believe.

I agree. Good scientists (at least evaulating their 'goodness' in that instance) would carefully avoid this. I do wish sometimes good scientists would point this out to other rationalists who seem to forget this. It gets tiring for me to point this out here, since it is often dismissed because the of the team I am seen to be on. If, however, a scientist pointed it out, I could relax on the sidelines and recharge.

 

It tends to slide off their backs, I've repeated it ad nauseum

 

Don't tell me you believe in deities but real throws you for a loop.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Knoweldge must be sufficiently objective that it achives confirmation when give reasonable consideration by another.

 

That's why it is not surity.

 

Context, context. To say you believe in real things that _________ is kinda redundant. So I found it odd.

That's a definition of knowledge but not quite an answer to the question.

 

Many non-surities are very useful.

Also there is a presumption that one always knows all the data one is using to draw conclusions.

The people who distrust the idea of using intuition tend to assume that all decisions must be made via a conscious sifting of all data. IOW every bit of evidence is recognized, noted and weighed by the conscious mind.

I think that is 1) in fact not generally done by anyone and 2) a poor lifestyle choice. At least for me.

 

Simon,

"As far as the latter, you remind me of an interesting case: Rogue waves.
For years reports by sailors of extremely high lone wolf waves were dismissed as the irrational overestimates of emotional people. Oceanography, fluid science and a variety of experts pointed out that physics made such waves impossible. Later, after technology changed - first the installation of video cameras on the bridges of ships, later satellite technology - confirmed the existence of the rogue waves."

Yes an excellent example, however it is not that far a leap. The ocean has waves, sometimes they get large. It is different than something that would be outside of what is known. It is a great example though of what is thought to be impossible being possible.

We know there are large swells and large waves in the oceans, we didn't know just how large they could be because they didn't have the ability at the time to capture the evidence needed to prove to the rest of us. It isn't that much of a leap for waves to go from 40-50 ft to 80, we just had to understand how.

Now if an alien craft could span the vastness of space and land here that would bring up all sorts of questions about the laws of physics, unless they told us it took them many, many years to get here. Things of that nature that go beyond our laws would require extrodinary proof. Again, the greater the claim the greater the evidence needed to substantiate the claim.

 

This must all be taken in baby steps.

You would be surprised how many people confuse current knowledge with the set of correct assertions. They generally do not state this, but you can see it is implicit in their arguments.

I do realize that my task is not somehow finished, but you would be surprised (perhaps not) how much here I must explain to those whose flag says 'Reason' the flaws in their reasoning. And to no avail, often.

Yes, but note....
the greater the evidence needed to make it rational for OTHERS to decide such things have happened.

The point of the story is that rational beliefs can be held in the absence of the ability to provide evidence to others. Even in cases where the reigning experts state with certainty: impossible. And go one step further: make a claim about the reasons why the believers were irrational. Please read that carefully. This was a story not simply about a resistance to believe without further evidence. This was a story where the experiencers were told 1) you are incorrect, that is impossible. 2) the reasons you are coming to this false conclusion are _____________(psychological hyposthesis stated as fact).

Another confusion I encounter: if one cannot provide sufficient evidence to others, then one is irrational to hold a belief. (rather than, for example, irrational to believe that others should accept one's belief without evidence. This latter is irrational.)

 

Simon,

"Another confusion I encounter is that if one cannot provide sufficient evidence to others, then one is irrational to hold a belief."

I agree, that and I stated such earlier, one can have an experience where one has no proof, no evidence to prove what happened, but for them not to believe just because they can't prove it to others would be irrational.

"(rather than, for example, irrational to belief that others should accept one's belief without evidence. This latter is irrational.)"

I agree here as well. I should not expect you to believe I was abducted by aliens (I was not as far as I know by the way) without some amazing and extrodinary proof. It would be irrational for me to expect you to believe without the evidence.

Experts are only as good as the information at the time. Some experts are more expert than others. Experts are people too, prone to human error and just by being called an expert may influence their inability to say I DON'T KNOW.

 

WRONG

WRONG

WRONG


A belief is anything a person concludes to be true. Nothing more and nothing less. That is all a belief is. Anything using scientific method or dreaming about it or whatever form of verification you want to use, it doesn't matter. Belief = conlcusion of truth. Whether you feel beliefs are voluntary or you feel you have no choice about what you believe. Either way, anyhting you have concluded to be true is your belief.

There are always only 2 types of belief. A belief (conclusion of truth) is either knowledge or misconception. If your conclusion of truth correpsonds to actual truth, it is knowledge. If your conclusion of truth does not correspond to actual truth, it is a misconcpetion.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2095587&postcount=44

 

Belief has got nothing to do with truth.