I think you mean faith. Faith has nothing to do with science.
But belief absolutely does. Science is all about convincing people (scientists) to believe or disbelieve some idea.
You shouldn’t. They’re entirely different.
There are many paths to believing something, or accepting it as true.
The least reliable is faith. It’s just “wishing makes it true.” Another, is personal experience. But that’s easily biased, and even fooled by our limited and faulty senses. Actual repeatable evidence is the best we have so far.
There is only so much “dumbing down” you can do to scientific research about topics until you lose all contextual nuance or become too long winded for a layperson to understand without being overloaded with information.
Then there is the issue with secondary and tertiary sources using simple language that causes confusion because it lacks the contextual nuance necessary to convey the correct interpretation.
Agreed. There’s definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public.
It’s crazy to me that so much of the general public don’t understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results.
You still have to believe the author and the peer reviewers did the correct thing through the process. You have to believe the results presented are real and accurate. Etc, etc.
For example, one of the many scandals of recent times is Franchesca Gino at Harvard publishing false research papers that present false data. People believed it was all real and genuine until a group of people started to do a deep dive into her research.
Do you accept that, or believe it? What is the difference scientifically?
Webster definition 3C of Accept “to recognize as true” seems to be what I’m talking about here. Is that different than what you mean?
3C then points to Believe as a synonym. The transitive definition 1B, or intransitive 1A, seems to correlate with what Accept definition 3C means, hence the synonym nature of them. Can you clarify exactly where I’m wrong?
Beliefs are subjective. They can be held without evidence.
Scientific acceptance is the opposite.
I likely won’t be able to change your mind because you believe they mean the same thing. I assure you they don’t. You can’t come to a scientific conclusion based on conviction. You have to accept or reject the null hypothesis based on evidence which even then doesn’t necessarily verify your hypothesis. You also have to run everything through statistical analyses to be sure that the results couldn’t occur randomly. Everything can change with new evidence and stronger tests (larger sample sizes, double blinds, etc.) Webster’s won’t teach you that. It records vernacular.
And vernacular is how people understand each other. When you say, “Science has nothing to do with belief,” then most people are going to interpret that according to the common-use meaning. If I say, “I believe I turned off the oven,” I’m not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I’m saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.
If you want to communicate in a way that people will understand, then I don’t think you should going around using the word “belief” to mean this nonstandard, technical definition without qualifications or explanation. And I definitely don’t think that you should assume that anyone who disagrees with statements made with that nonstandard definition is simply committed to rejecting reason and evidence, as opposed to the much more obvious and reasonable interpretation that they’re simply interpreting the word in the standard, common use way.
Vernacular is literally what we’re talking about. The definition of words.
You seem to be wrapping a number of ideas around the word Believe. Most notably the idea that a belief is fixed. When I say believe, I literally mean only and exactly “Accept as true”, or “To hold as true”, nothing more. It’s literally the 1st definition. And more or less what all the other definitions are wrapped around.
What we hold as true can change at any time, and for a number of reasons. The study of them is called Epistemology. Yes. It’s a real branch of science.
It’s possible what you’re trying to get across, is the idea that science accepts nothing as “true”. It can only reject ideas as “false”. And the ideas that remain un-rejected as false, are accepted, not as true, but as the best explanation we have so far. In which case I can see your point. However, remember that beliefs aren’t fixed. They can also be rejected when new conflicting data is collected. That still sounds like what you mean by accept. Am I wrong?
I think you’ve missed some of what I’m saying. Vernacular changes through common (popular) use of a word. I’m referring to strict definitions that are found in science.
I never indicated that beliefs are fixed, only that they are subjective and not based on evidence. That is by definition not scientific.
You’re starting to get it in the third paragraph, but you’re holding on to this idea that beliefs and acceptance are the same. Again, nothing in science is based on beliefs.
Good scientists look for ways they are wrong; people holding onto beliefs look for ways to back up why they’re right.
Edit: I should also add that Webster’s adds words every year based on popular usage. That’s vernacular, common usage. That’s why it also lists the word literally as also meaning its antonym, because people commonly use it incorrectly.
I’m referring to strict definitions that are found in science.
Where exactly are the strict scientific definitions you’re using for Believe and Accept? Do you have a link?
I showed you the strict definitions I was using.
Good scientists look for ways they are wrong; people holding onto beliefs look for ways to back up why they’re right.
Both of those are epistemologies. One good, and one bad. But epistemologies are only ways to reach a belief. They aren’t part of the belief itself. Much like the road isn’t the destination. You’re including in the definition of Belief, a pattern of behavior, a specific epistemology. But it doesn’t have one. Not even in common vernacular. In some specific religious contexts it might, as you say. But Belief is used in vastly more contexts than religion. Someone who believes it won’t rain, isn’t obligated to hold that belief when they see dark storm clouds approaching. Or are you saying they they’ll have to make excuses for why it won’t rain? Else they didn’t actualy Believe, and just Accepted that it wouldn’t rain?
I think you mean faith. Faith has nothing to do with science.
But belief absolutely does. Science is all about convincing people (scientists) to believe or disbelieve some idea.
Ah yes. I often use the two interchangeably.
You shouldn’t. They’re entirely different.
There are many paths to believing something, or accepting it as true.
The least reliable is faith. It’s just “wishing makes it true.” Another, is personal experience. But that’s easily biased, and even fooled by our limited and faulty senses. Actual repeatable evidence is the best we have so far.
The evidence should convince people.
Scientists are failing to adequately communicate with the public.
There is only so much “dumbing down” you can do to scientific research about topics until you lose all contextual nuance or become too long winded for a layperson to understand without being overloaded with information.
Then there is the issue with secondary and tertiary sources using simple language that causes confusion because it lacks the contextual nuance necessary to convey the correct interpretation.
Clickbait popsci sites don’t help either.
That’s the point of the second half of my comment.
Clickbait popsci sites are called “secondary sources”.
Agreed. There’s definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public.
It’s crazy to me that so much of the general public don’t understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results.
Eh, mostly not the scientists’ fault but the media sensationalizing the data in secondary and tertiary sources.
And, as you said, general ignorance of how science works internally. That is a problem with education though, again not the fault of the scientists.
One of the first things I learned in bio lab in college is that you never believe anything in science. You accept or reject based on evidence.
Accept or reject, are just different words for believe or disbelieve. The evidence guides your belief.
Maybe to you. Scientific terms often include terms that have other connotations elsewhere, for example, significant or correlation.
Nothing in science is based on belief.
You still have to believe the author and the peer reviewers did the correct thing through the process. You have to believe the results presented are real and accurate. Etc, etc.
For example, one of the many scandals of recent times is Franchesca Gino at Harvard publishing false research papers that present false data. People believed it was all real and genuine until a group of people started to do a deep dive into her research.
Do you accept that, or believe it? What is the difference scientifically?
Webster definition 3C of Accept “to recognize as true” seems to be what I’m talking about here. Is that different than what you mean?
3C then points to Believe as a synonym. The transitive definition 1B, or intransitive 1A, seems to correlate with what Accept definition 3C means, hence the synonym nature of them. Can you clarify exactly where I’m wrong?
Beliefs are subjective. They can be held without evidence.
Scientific acceptance is the opposite.
I likely won’t be able to change your mind because you believe they mean the same thing. I assure you they don’t. You can’t come to a scientific conclusion based on conviction. You have to accept or reject the null hypothesis based on evidence which even then doesn’t necessarily verify your hypothesis. You also have to run everything through statistical analyses to be sure that the results couldn’t occur randomly. Everything can change with new evidence and stronger tests (larger sample sizes, double blinds, etc.) Webster’s won’t teach you that. It records vernacular.
And vernacular is how people understand each other. When you say, “Science has nothing to do with belief,” then most people are going to interpret that according to the common-use meaning. If I say, “I believe I turned off the oven,” I’m not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I’m saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.
If you want to communicate in a way that people will understand, then I don’t think you should going around using the word “belief” to mean this nonstandard, technical definition without qualifications or explanation. And I definitely don’t think that you should assume that anyone who disagrees with statements made with that nonstandard definition is simply committed to rejecting reason and evidence, as opposed to the much more obvious and reasonable interpretation that they’re simply interpreting the word in the standard, common use way.
Vernacular is literally what we’re talking about. The definition of words.
You seem to be wrapping a number of ideas around the word Believe. Most notably the idea that a belief is fixed. When I say believe, I literally mean only and exactly “Accept as true”, or “To hold as true”, nothing more. It’s literally the 1st definition. And more or less what all the other definitions are wrapped around.
What we hold as true can change at any time, and for a number of reasons. The study of them is called Epistemology. Yes. It’s a real branch of science.
It’s possible what you’re trying to get across, is the idea that science accepts nothing as “true”. It can only reject ideas as “false”. And the ideas that remain un-rejected as false, are accepted, not as true, but as the best explanation we have so far. In which case I can see your point. However, remember that beliefs aren’t fixed. They can also be rejected when new conflicting data is collected. That still sounds like what you mean by accept. Am I wrong?
I think you’ve missed some of what I’m saying. Vernacular changes through common (popular) use of a word. I’m referring to strict definitions that are found in science.
I never indicated that beliefs are fixed, only that they are subjective and not based on evidence. That is by definition not scientific.
You’re starting to get it in the third paragraph, but you’re holding on to this idea that beliefs and acceptance are the same. Again, nothing in science is based on beliefs.
Good scientists look for ways they are wrong; people holding onto beliefs look for ways to back up why they’re right.
Edit: I should also add that Webster’s adds words every year based on popular usage. That’s vernacular, common usage. That’s why it also lists the word literally as also meaning its antonym, because people commonly use it incorrectly.
Where exactly are the strict scientific definitions you’re using for Believe and Accept? Do you have a link?
I showed you the strict definitions I was using.
Both of those are epistemologies. One good, and one bad. But epistemologies are only ways to reach a belief. They aren’t part of the belief itself. Much like the road isn’t the destination. You’re including in the definition of Belief, a pattern of behavior, a specific epistemology. But it doesn’t have one. Not even in common vernacular. In some specific religious contexts it might, as you say. But Belief is used in vastly more contexts than religion. Someone who believes it won’t rain, isn’t obligated to hold that belief when they see dark storm clouds approaching. Or are you saying they they’ll have to make excuses for why it won’t rain? Else they didn’t actualy Believe, and just Accepted that it wouldn’t rain?