"Believing in science" - what does that mean?

iBrian said:
Exactly, you put your faith in researchers the way ordinary believers do in priests. You dont understand, you simply have faith. :)
Click to expand...
Well, even people in the general public understand scientific studies in varying degrees.
And people who practice in some kind of science field, such as medical field, may understand studies well even if they do not conduct them.
But understanding the scientific process and its reliance on evidence and testing and getting results builds trust that results are reliable.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I think most people would accept that science based on observation/experimentation is
"real" .. just as our experience of existing in this universe is "real".

..so the issue is more one of, "Does an alternative universe exist, that cannot be verified by
empirical observation of this one" ? 😑
Click to expand...
Good question!
I would like to extend that question to 'How many Universes'?

We now know that:-
1. There are planets orbiting around many stars.
2. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy.
3. There are hundreds of billions of Galaxies in this universe.
4. Every atom, star and galaxy pulses and/or revolves.

....... so it's reasonable to wonder if:-
1. This universe might be pulsing or revolving.
2. There might be hundreds of billions of universes.

Now just keep building.

I am a Deist and I reckon that God is big.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Well, even people in the general public understand scientific studies in varying degrees.
And people who practice in some kind of science field, such as medical field, may understand studies well even if they do not conduct them.
Click to expand...
That's what I mean - if no one is actually conducting any researching themselves, or attempting to copy it, then everything is taken on faith. :)

TheLightWithin said:
But understanding the scientific process and its reliance on evidence and testing and getting results builds trust that results are reliable.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and the process should give us an objective view. Unfortunately, even the best science is clouded by subjective biases, and the worst is manipulated to support corporate profits.

The point I wanted to underline, though, is that ordinary people need to have faith in science - they aren;t testing it themselves, so rely on researchers as intercessionaries on their behalf. It's what I said recently about science being a metaphysical system, as it's a worldview that provides an understanding of the world around us, but requires faith that the understanding is true.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Well, even people in the general public understand scientific studies in varying degrees.
Click to expand...
I think they believe what they're told, rather than understand.

Without getting into details, take the whole Vax debate. I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying two opposing camps cite science as validating their positions.

(In the UK, we had a paper published that said the MMR vaccine could cause autism. The sensational finding was picked up and touted widely in the popular press, then thoroughly debunked by peer review and withdrawn, but the damage was done, and vaccination rates fell dramatically.)

Hence the term 'pseudo-science'.
 
iBrian said:
That's what I mean - if no one is actually conducting any researching themselves, or attempting to copy it, then everything is taken on faith. :)
Click to expand...
Well, not precisely on faith - if they know how to read a research study, did research in grad school, know where to look for errors and shortcoming and understand the scientific reasoning process - they can read the research articles quite critically rather than take the conclusion on faith.
 
iBrian said:
Exactly, you put your faith in researchers the way ordinary believers do in priests. You dont understand, you simply have faith. :)
Click to expand...
Like what TheLightWithin said, the faith is in the process, not in people or theories.
'Satyameva Jayate, nanritam" (Truth alone wins, not untruth).
iBrian said:
That's what I mean - if no one is actually conducting any researching themselves, or attempting to copy it, then everything is taken on faith. :)

Absolutely, and the process should give us an objective view. Unfortunately, even the best science is clouded by subjective biases, and the worst is manipulated to support corporate profits.
Click to expand...
Even if I am doing the research, scrutiny by others is essential. I might be missing on something and getting wrong results. The process is important. Kabir said:
"Nindak neare rakhiye, angan kuti chhavaya; bin pani bin sabune, nirmal kare subhaya"
(Keep the critics close, make a hut for them in the courtyard; they will make your behaviour humble, without water or soap."
Thanks to such sages, we have excellent guidelines.
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
.. take the whole Vax debate.
(In the UK, we had a paper published that said the MMR vaccine could cause autism).
Click to expand...
Someone might be allergic to even to a vitamin. It happens, Vax is no exception. I had no inkling that there is something like glutamine allergy or allergy to milk, but it exists. A scientific disposition helps to keep away such thoughts.
India has erdicated polio by using vax, it still exists in Pakistan.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Well, not precisely on faith - if they know how to read a research study, did research in grad school, know where to look for errors and shortcoming and understand the scientific reasoning process - they can read the research articles quite critically rather than take the conclusion on faith.
Click to expand...
Most people won't even read a research study, and such studies have a tradition of being hidden behind paywalls only university students and major research organizations have access to. At least there's been a growing movement to open sources publishing. But even then, science is taken on faith. :)

I don't say that to dismiss it, simply to point out that any metaphysical system appears perfectly logical and supported within it. :)
 

"Believing in science" - what does that mean?​


What indeed!

It's best to remove the word 'science' from the sentence and instead to actually write what has been done, or the subject matter that's under discussion. Equally it's best to remove the word 'scientist' and replace it with the job that a person does.

The word 'science' is a bit like the word 'farming' if you must. Both words can be removed for the actual cultivation or breeding in mind.

Why? Because it removes so many chances that the deceiver has to bamboozle the audience! I believe in vaccinations, and had COVID booster, flu and shingles vaccinations in recent weeks. Some of our friends will not vaccinate themselves or their children but we don't argue about our choices. The people who want to force vaccination upon all because they believe that only then can serious illnesses be stamped out...to them I would suggest that evolution will decide who is right.

Modern developments in so many areas of our lives are truly wonderful. Religion (where I live) is adjusting to attract support. Both are fine until one of t'other start to try and direct the course of our lives.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Interesting... can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Click to expand...
No, to keep such a statement simple is best.
Again:-
The people who want to force vaccination upon all because they believe that only then can serious illnesses be stamped out...to them I would suggest that evolution will decide who is right.

My wife and I both take vaccinations, but I would not want anti-vaxers to be forced, not at all.
 
badger said:
My wife and I both take vaccinations, but I would not want anti-vaxers to be forced, not at all.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it is necessary for welfare of all. Take the example of small-pox and polio in India.
If vaccination against these were not meandatory, we would have had the diseases even now.
 
TheLightWithin said:
I guess I'm asking if you can elaborate a little on this one little point
(due to the no politics rule it only makes sense not to elaborate on the other points)
Click to expand...
Example: A Baptist Priest in America taught lots of far right politics to his congregation and on his radio channel. He had some very fundamental views which if he had ever reached power would have caused most LGBT folks to flee for their lives, and women would have lost much of their freedom.
And he was severely anti-vax.
The COVID virus took him.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Sometimes it is necessary for welfare of all. Take the example of small-pox and polio in India.
If vaccination against these were not meandatory, we would have had the diseases even now.
Click to expand...
If the whole population is forced by law to submit to a vaccination, maybe the government should support bereaved relatives of any resulting sicknesses or deaths very very heavily.
To force medication upon the unwilling is not good, but if it is necessary for the welfare of the whole land then all those who were against it should be handsomely recompensed for any resulting problems.
 
badger said:
If the whole population is forced by law to submit to a vaccination, maybe the government should support bereaved relatives of any resulting sicknesses or deaths very very heavily.
To force medication upon the unwilling is not good, but if it is necessary for the welfare of the whole land then all those who were against it should be handsomely recompensed for any resulting problems.
Click to expand...
Government of India provides free medical aid to all 1.47 billion people in India.
If it is established that a person died because of vaccination, our Supreme Court will ensure that the family gets compensation.
Some medical and other people died because of Covid in performance of their duties. State Governments generally paid USD 11,348 (not a small amount in India, 1 Crore Rupees, 10 million) in addition to their other entitlements.
My family got vaccinated three times, every six months. We are all hail and hearty.
India did not use Pfizer or other foreign vacs, we used the Indian manufactured vacs.
 
badger said:
..those who were against it should be handsomely recompensed for any resulting problems.
Click to expand...
..fat chance of that !
The state is effectively governed by the financial/insurance institutions in the West.
i.e. the likes of JP Morgan and Rothschild
 
muhammad_isa said:
The state is effectively governed by the financial/insurance institutions in the West.
i.e. the likes of JP Morgan and Rothschild
Click to expand...
Such a compensation is awarded by Courts, and Indian Courts are not governed by JP Morgans or Rothschilds.
The Central Government said there is no such policy. But Supreme Court can decide otherwise.
www.deccanherald.com

Covid-19 vaccine side effect: SC asks Centre to respond on policy over adverse impact of immunisation

The bench said that Covid-19 deaths and vaccine-related deaths should not be viewed in isolation.
www.deccanherald.com www.deccanherald.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top