Most arguments or debates today mainly arise from two opposing viewpoints namely belief and science. Many people in fact have gone so far as to try and discredit the other depending on which veiwpoint they believe in. We’ve all heard it before. Christians and their believe in god saying that evolution is an abomination. Conversely, scientists will often say “prove to me that god exists”.

For example, here’s a classic question…

A tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it, did the tree fall?

Belief says that if enough people believe it did happen then it must have happened etc, etc…

Science says: How can you prove that it did happen? Did you see it, etc, etc…

In science today we are still trying to understand many concepts and processes and though we don’t fully understand how it works, we know that it works. Much scientific work today is based on assumption and theory and yet still accepted as scientific fact. It was not so long ago that Galileo hypothesized the world was round and was branded as a heretic. He couldn’t prove it but believed it to be so.

Today we have millions upon millions of scientific literature reviews and articles, which say one thing, or another and we as readers are expected to “believe” that that is scientifically correct. Isn’t it strange that we are expected to “swallow” just because we see there are a few impressive scientific words? Are we conditioned that way since infancy to believe everything scientific we read?

I recently read a High school biology textbook and find that some of the concepts were based on conjecture, inaccurate interpretation or outright falsehood. Some of the literature was based on theory that has not been proven and sometimes implied that it was scientific fact! I am myself a scientist and can therefore distinguish between what is fact and what is assumption, but what about people who never been exposed to the subject?

Are scientists as pure as they make themselves out to be? We are always trying to disprove belief but in fact use it many times when it is convenient to do so. Does belief make something a fact? Can we say without a doubt that there is a clear and distinct line between belief and science? Where does belief end and science begin?

You being a scientist, question the end or should I say the whereabouts of belief as coming to an end and simultaneously question scientists being pure. Somehow I can't grasp where you are going with this, my interpretation could be way off or you are going in circles. To some extent you are making a valid point.

Science and belief has since been a controversial issue in the past, these questions have arisen already, but do you feel that your question could possibly invoke possible solutions?

Do you think there will ever be collaboration between the two? Or does one of them have to be eradicated?

The whole question should be the other way around. Where does science end and belief begin. Afterall that's the form it takes today, science proving whatever it's able, and the rest are taken as things mystical and godlike, until science goes there as well. While I might not agree with this, it seems to be the way things work nowadays.

Still, you can't rightly put the blame on science and scientists on why opinions are spoken of as facts and those "facts" are then used to sway people's views on things to the wanted direction. It's the same as with the net, there's so much information to be had that no organization or lone human can control it all. And as the trend today is that facts speak more than anything else, then anything claiming to be a fact must be believed. Corruption, you might call it. Anyone seeking fame, cash and/or credibility, for themselves or for the company they work for, will be forced to throw in a few white lies, some distorted truths and some flat-out bull$hit to compete with others doing the same thing.

As the one above me said, what are you looking for with this thread? Opinions and discussion, obviously. But what more can we offer here that most of Sorcerer's readers didn't already know. Things are the way they are, the only thing to blame is the human nature. There's nothing we can do about it save trying to fend off for ourselves in the middle of all that false facts and pretended beliefs.

science works in the way that we raise a hypothesis from observations seen in nature. As time passes, they will turn out to be either false or true (by definition).

The major difference is Science is seeking to revolute itself, it wants to be cracked thrown down and killed by new theories with "proof" behind it. Religion on the other hand certainly does not have this trait. Religion hates new ideas opposite science.

As to where they begin? Simple, they begin in the trait known as curiousity in the human being.

Most arguments or debates today mainly arise from two opposing viewpoints namely belief and science. I disagree. You've created a false dichotomy of sorts with belief opposed by science. Scientists have beliefs like anyone even, and perhaps espescially, when engaging in science. A scientist believes a certain hypothesis.

The implication I gather is that knowledge and belief are in some way opposed. They aren't. What is the most commonly accepted philosophical definition of knowledge incorporates belief (knowledge = true justified belief with the debate raging about whether there is a fourth condition or what exactly constitutes justification).

Comparing belief and science doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps you meant to compare faith and science?

As a scientist myself, and you being a scientist, you should know that science doesn't just accept things as fact unquestioningly. All of these theories that you point to are constantly put to the test. If they fail, they are refuted. I'm not even sure what you're asking here. To say that a scientist blindly accepts another scientists work, or once a given scientist observes something no other scientist ever tests it again is absurd.

Science: Belief in something based on convincing, verifiable evidence.

Faith: Belief in something despite a lack of evidence.

Science can be thought of as not representing knowledge per se, but rather the means of acquiring and verifying knowledge through observation, hypothesis and experiment. In this sense, much of what is taught in school science classes is not science as such, but rather knowledge derived from scientific study. The problem you refer to, that the general public accepts the verdict of scientists on "faith" is quite possibly an unavoidable consequence of the great wealth of knowledge modern science has made possible. There is simply too much information available for any one individual (particularly school children) to fully understand the reasoning behind everything. Therefore, the general public puts its trust in specialists and the peer review process, recieving simplified versions of the consensus via school education or the media (eg. about the environment or genetic modification)

Perhaps you could argue that the science education in schools should be focused less on teaching children the various pieces of knowledge, and more on an understanding of the nature of science and the methods of rational analysis. However, while being able to think scienifically is a good thing, knowledge without understanding (of which I am guilty myself) seems to have more economic value.

[I apologise if I have mis-interpreted your thread. Furthermore, I am not a real scientist. I am a student of engineering)

[ November 25, 2003, 19:44: Message edited by: Ironbeard ]

A lot of you have proved Human's point. You all seem to see that all things believed by scientists have somehow been proved beyond doubt. There are lot of things (in physics for example, my own field, believe it or not I am a studying scientist as well), that have been disproved, or that are unnacountable by he current definitions, yet are ignored, because it makes it messy. Trust me, go do the research, you will be shocked at how much has been actually proven false, or just unexplained and if true would prove the current theory false, and is simply not accepted (or blindly accepted as the case may be), most of it is only hypothesis, usually with a lot of "anomlies" or rather, direct eveidence to the contrary. Thus, I do not think most things purported to be scientific are in fact, scientific at all. Nor do I think science is limited to what most people talk of when discussing such a thing. There is Occult Science after-all.

Seperate scientific principles from "Science" and label the latter as another religion, a doctrine of faith, or a peculiar branch of philosophical thought, and you will have your solution.

As many of you said already, science is based on observation of reality, making a hypothesis to explain the observation, and then finding evidence to support it (or counter evidence to disprove it).

A lot of science is done to confirm beliefs. But beliefs are just biases that could be wrong. At worse, it could even distort scientific experiments. A textbook example comes from my anthropology class: the English anthropologists were trying to discover if humans' brains developed first, or if humans walked on two feet first.

The popular notion among them at the time was brain expansion preceeded bipedalism. So they published papers, wrote theories... even FOUND evidence of one skull whose mandible suggests 4 legged walking but had a large cranium. Their hypothesis have been proven with concrete evidence it seems. So this idea spread out, and people believed it due to the evidence.

But 10 years later, technology improved and fluorine dating was available to see if bones are similar in age. So they used it on the cranium and mandible of the skull... results showed they are thousands of years apart in age! so it couldn't have belonged to the same living organism! What happened?

The scientific community was so driven by their belief that brain expansion came first that they actually FORGED the evidence! :eek: The converse is actually true, with loads of genuine specimens for proof. They just ignored it due to their biased beliefs. (Search for the Piltdown Hoax for more)

Some food for thought. Not all too certain how related this is to the thread, but I thought I should share it.

I will have to agree with Blog. Science is affected by the beliefs that an individual will hold. The same evidence will be there everytime, but a person's beliefs will shape how that person will interpet the evidence into something scientific.

There's a bloody big difference between science and belief: science works. The aeroplane built by Boeing applying scientific principles will get you safely across the Atlantic. The aeroplane made by South Pacific cargo cultists ain't going anywhere.

Belief or faith is within the realm of the spiritual or religious. Science or knowledge is within the realm of logic. They can overlap in the way that they affect an individual so they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they obviously usually are.

There are some "gaps" in scientific knowledge which is based only partly on related evidence, therefore it would require "faith" or belief to accept it uncritically or unqualified, such as the existence of aliens. You would have to "believe" that there are aliens, since there is no "concrete" evidence that there are.

Please don't flame me on the above issue, this is my (flawed) understanding as explained by an Australian scientist who surely knows more about it than I do.

But in the end the whole point to faith is that people accept and believe in various "faith" concepts because it "feels" right in the heart, whereas people believe in various scientific facts because it "feels" right in the brain and is thus understood.

I don't mean that scientific facts can't be proved since it is obvious that they can be, yet to someone who has "faith" their personal concepts can also be "proved" since there is some sort of "evidence" for it. People don't believe things unless it feels right. (Sort of like opinions. Why is my opinion "righter" than yours?)

If I don't agree with a certain "faith" issue it is because I choose not to and that the related "evidence" does not convince me. This is also the case with a scientific fact.

Again don't flame me on the above, since I don't mean that I reject science because the evidence for 1+1=2 doesn't convince me. I don't mean that.

Besides science is not only about "pure sciences" since science means "knowledge."

My 2 cents.