Is science a belief?

[Trinoc]

Not only was it a liquid, but a potent one.

Often, it was packaged as drops soaked into paper in a [possibly patterned] grid, which was then dried and cut into small pieces, so people were actually taking one drop per piece.

At least in the UK, the existing term 'Acid Drops' might have provided at least some small amount of resonance, but I'm not sure if that had any meaning in the USA?

I've heard of acid-impregnated paper - handy for smuggling it into jail - but the phrase I remember was always "Drop a tab of acid". I don't think it's anything more complicated than dropping a tablet into your mouth, like maybe dropping an aspirin for a headache.


Is the term used by today's yoof for tabs of E etc? I think I have heard it said.

[tolman]

The word 'tab' applies at least as well to a small square of paper as to a tablet.

[Trinoc]

The word 'tab' applies at least as well to a small square of paper as to a tablet.

Perhaps, but I didn't get the impression this was what they were talking about.

I think I'd be more likely to suck a piece of paper rather than try to swallow it, which hardly suggests dropping.

The suggestion that it refers to the act of dripping the acid onto the paper in the first place seems like a linguistic long shot.

[lazerustheduck]

Yes acid does usually come in soaked paper form, I don't know where drop comes from but one of the fast methods of taking it was as eye drops so perhaps that's the source.

[Trinoc]

Yes acid does usually come in soaked paper form, I don't know where drop comes from but one of the fast methods of taking it was as eye drops so perhaps that's the source.

OK. Clearly my ignorance of this enhances my status as a failed hippie.

[lazerustheduck]

OK. Clearly my ignorance of this enhances my status as a failed hippie.

Apparently it's actually placed under the tongue to be absorbed.

[Chaz]

Put simply science is as close to the truth as we can possibly be at any given time. It is reasonable to accept scientific findings acquired through theory, trial, error and peer review making it a belief. Belief does carry with it a negative connotation for skeptics, however such belief is unarguably more sound than any faith based beliefs. Opponents tend to always point to the supposed "brazen fallibility of modern science". Associating with certain philosophers I encounter this a lot. But no matter how pretentious and post-modernist one wishes to be no one can call belief in evidence unreasonable or unfounded. Denial of the fallibility of modern science is however an outwardly unreasonable stance. It pains me to admit that fairies could potentially exist but nonetheless I must because to say that they absolutely do not would be unreasonable. It's the same with science. We can take it on face value but due to the limitations we have we have to allow for certain outrageous factors to be moderately considered. Irrespective, you have my answer.

[Pebble]

Put simply science is as close to the truth as we can possibly be at any given time. It is reasonable to accept scientific findings acquired through theory, trial, error and peer review making it a belief. Belief does carry with it a negative connotation for skeptics, however such belief is unarguably more sound than any faith based beliefs. .

The question is not whether hypotheses and theories are beliefs (evidence based beliefs - accepted), but scientific methodology or empiricism of itself!

[Chaz]

This makes no difference. One's theories and hypotheses are decided a posteriori(ie empirically). Refer to my previous post for the counter to this.

[Pebble]

This makes no difference. One's theories and hypotheses are decided a posteriori(ie empirically). Refer to my previous post for the counter to this.

No. Hypothesis generation is done on the basis of some available evidence and a lot of guesswork. Then one empirically tests, the hypothesis forming the basis of the apriori assumptions, which if validated leads to a theory. With the exception of genetics, where one simply uses statistical trawling to identify associations, and then develops hypotheses to form the basis of the next study - again only reaching the standard of a theory when evidence produced.

That is not however the point I was trying to get at. The question is whether scientific method is truly objective, or based on certain unprovable assumptions and therefore a belief?

[tolman]

That is not however the point I was trying to get at. The question is whether scientific method is truly objective, or based on certain unprovable assumptions and therefore a belief?

If one assumes the basic assumptions of science (universe exists, exhibits substantial regularity, is amenable to some kind of understanding) are wrong, then you're not left with anything to be remotely objective about.

If 'belief' as a term is extended to cover "everything except the unattainable truly objective", then it ceases to be a term of any descriptive value, and its use becomes meaningless, except possibly to people with one or other axe to grind, who wish to pretend two things are the same because one word can be stretched to describe both of them.

If the people who burn with desire to define science as a belief would actually be honest upfront about what their real intentions were, it would make life rather simpler all round.

[She_Liger]

Is science a belief?


No!
Science is the Reason.

[Mongrel]

If one assumes the basic assumptions of science (universe exists, exhibits substantial regularity, is amenable to some kind of understanding) are wrong, then you're not left with anything to be remotely objective about.

And every new tool we develop gets measured against the Universe, we plot out and postulate what the new tools should be able to do and then try and break the pre-existing assumptions of the what we know. We nearly always lose* and for the most part are happy about it.

Then you have to ask yourself; if a discovery came along which shattered the world view as we currently know it, which mindset would be most amenable to discovering it?

* We often find a few things which means we're able to refine the existing laws fractionally.

[zenthinker]

Science is indeed belief. It is the belief that logic is infallible and that everything can be deduced via that which comes to us through our senses. Having read many of the replies to my previous posts it is clear that very few of you understand the implications about what I was saying about the sense perceptions.

Human beings are only capable of proposing similarities to what they already know, and what they already know comes to them through the senses. It is impossible for a human being to conceive of anything that they have not experienced or for such a thing to be explained to them. You can not describe the colour blue because it is pure experience and neither could anybody who had not seen the colour blue understand what it was without seeing it.

It is no coincidence that the earliest theory of what constituted matter was that of the atom. This is just the most straightforward human extrapolation of a human experience. ie. matter is made up of smaller bits of matter called atoms. ie. it is conceivable. As the theory of matter progressed it became more complex and we now have the wave/particle duality model. But note that the wave idea is also something that is conceivable to human beings because we have experienced the wave concept through looking at the sea for instance. So there is nothing proposed here that is outside of human experience. ie. it is conceivable.

But consider the following - what if the real nature of matter is neither particle or wave. We now have a huge problem. The human being cannot conceive of anything except in terms of something familiar. Therefore if the real nature of matter is outside of that which we are capable of conceiving then human beings can never understand it. In other words our perceptions limit our ability to conceive. You can only perceive and suggest similarities to that which you already know and therefore your abilities are limited. You are within a kind of prison or cage of perception.

This is why science has no claim to truth, and is really a reflection of human perception which is severely limited in nature. Bertrand Russells statement that science is nothing but the manipulation of matter is entirely correct. Not only is it just the manipulation of matter, it can never go beyond that which is conceivable by human beings.

This is why certain philosophers say that ultimately the universe is unknowable. This doesn't mean that science isn't useful, it is. But it has no claim on truth in any shape or form whatsoever. It is I'm afraid a kind of belief albeit a "logical" belief.



On a side note, that arch materialist Richard Dawkins has now admitted that a strong case can be made for a deistic god. He is now being regularly out argued and seems to be shifting his ground. The article is here :

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...evolving.thtml

[tolman]

But consider the following - what if the real nature of matter is neither particle or wave. We now have a huge problem

For a start, the particle/wave idea shows that some models of reality are more useful than others in certain circumstances.
Which one (if any) is 'real' doesn't actually matter, as long as we know what works, and when it works.
If the real nature of matter is different again, that's no problem at all, in the areas where the existing models work, and it's interesting, in the areas where they don't.

This is why certain philosophers say that ultimately the universe is unknowable.

But practically speaking, it is knowable.

This doesn't mean that science isn't useful, it is. But it has no claim on truth in any shape or form whatsoever. It is I'm afraid a kind of belief albeit a "logical" belief.

So, you're happy to define 'belief' as a term which covers anything that people think, (which makes it basically a useless word) and you also define 'truth' in an absolutist way that means it's not really applicable to anything at all human.

Personally, I'd prefer to use words in a way which actually gets some use out of them, where they can help distinguish between one thing and another, and to take the view that human thought isn't subservient to an absolutist interpretation of language.

As far as I can see, the people desperate to equate science with belief are generally (let me know if I've missed any):

a) People who want to believe something that science would contradict, or at least fail to support.

b) People who have a chip on their shoulder about not being much good at science themselves.

c) People who assume being able to attach the label of belief' to 'science' somehow makes science equivalent to any other belief, when it obviously does no such thing.

d) People who have read more philosophy than their critical faculties can reasonably cope with, and who think that pointing out that science isn't about Ultimate, Absolute Truth somehow gives them justification to feel superior, despite only being an N'th rate armchair philosopher.

Or some combination of the above.