"Is science a belief?" is the sort of question that philosophers ask. It might provide an interesting discussion, which is fair enough. But by the time all the philosophers have agreed on what the the answer is, science and engineering have split the atom, landed on the moon, invented the internet and cured half the forms of cancer. I don't think the answer really matters.
For what its worth, I see science as a process. You can believe in it or not but if you follow the process its science.
The style as we like is the humdrum.
The most you can say is that in full spectrum light in air an object has a certain colour that humans agree to call "Red", "white" or whatever.
I think my assumption is that an object's colour refers to its ability to reflect light of certain colours, even in the absence of any light. You see some funny colours for cars under orange street lights and the way my brain works is that is goes, "oh, your car looks a yucky brown green at the moment but it is really red."
An object is also reflecting light in wavelengths outside the visible spectrum - if you could see them the object would appear a differrent colour - colours our eyes and brains are not wired up to perceive, that we probably cant even imagine.
Outside of that range the term colour isn't really used. I know that sometimes infra red and ultra violet are referred to as colours but this is still close to the visible spectrum. If something blocks or reflects micro waves we don't describe it in terms of colours. Our notion of colour is both limited and defined by our organs of perception.
As opposed to what? Our misperception? Is it that ginger cats are ginger only when the sun is high, and then change colour at dusk to grey and at midnight to black? But we had somehow failed to spot this until our attention was drawn to the point ?as colour is merely our perception
Or are you using the notion of a thing's colour in an unusual way?
The style as we like is the humdrum.
i think not. science is something that people believe in because it's proven. while belief is something that we don't physically believe in, but we know that it exists.
Not much use as it turns out (unlike Schick and Vaughn's excellent primer on thinking "How To Think About Weird Things").
The only thing I remember from it now is that he thinks acupuncture is real and has been accepted by mainstream medical practice. (Some muddy water there, but the book came out only two years ago, so if he had really looked into it he wouldn't have written this chapter, instead of getting carried away with his scheme to introduce the concept of "scientism" as an over-riding "belief in science" (which shows he doesn't know what science is, to my mind... you wouldn't say that you "believe too strongly" in driving a car so that it stays on the road, after all!)
He has invented the concept of Knowledge Machines to describe the social institutions that "control" the currently accepted status quo in a particular area, such as medicine, and the criminal justice system etc. It's the old paradigm shift business from a slightly different perspective, really.
Anyway, he devotes a whole chapter to his conceit that "Scientism" prevented "science" from acknowledging acupuncture, and that a grassroots movement eventually caused science to accept the validity of acupuncture!
His ignorance is astonishing, and apparently he thinks that if some medical institutions (or possibly commercial health care provisioners etc) have been swayed by popular opinion into pandering to wishful thinking, it somehow exposes science as having been in the wrong! The complete mish mash of his thinking and research here exposes him as a bit of a fraud, to my mind, more interested in his clever construction than in the reality.
It's a shame really, because his chapter on the "recovered memory syndrome" fiascos of the 80s and 90s was quite good... but after reading this scientism drivel, I don't trust the rest of the book any more, so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
I wrote him an email to a university address in Oregon that I found online, but I've had no reply. From what it says on the back of the book, I suspect he's no longer there... either that or he doesn't want to consider that he may have been wrong.
All quite ironic, considering the book's subtitle!