this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
294 points (97.1% liked)
science
19891 readers
444 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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?
Like I said, I likely won't be able to change your mind because you're holding on to a belief of what that word means in regards to scientific acceptance. I don't expect you to go in search of how you're wrong because it seems like you're holding on to ways that make you feel right. Either way, I've said all I can. Good luck to you!
Here are some links:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/201810/what-actually-is-belief-and-why-is-it-so-hard-change
https://thisvsthat.io/belief-vs-science
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2254849
So you can't actually support your position, only point out I'm supporting mine. That's... Interesting.
I did support mine, and never said you're not supporting yours, just that you misunderstand.
I didn't say you said I wasn't supporting mine. Now I'm not sure you've really read carefully anything I wrote.
And you simply keep asserting your idea. Ignoring most of my arguments, examples, and questions. For instance, when I asked for the actual specific definitions you claim you and science use, you didn't provide them. Instead you ignored the most basic request for evidence possible, and suggest I'm being dogmatic in my belief, instead of you. As I said, that's interesting.
I figured that was a typo because I wasn't pointing out that you were supporting your point. I did provide the links you asked for. I didn't even derail the conversation to point out that you think philosophy is a science. It's not, in a traditional sense. But it does highlight some fundamentals of why these concepts are difficult for you. You'll want to see or believe what you want, even if it's to intentionally miss the point apparently. Like I said, good luck to you.
Ah! Admittedly I didn't look at the second two links. You gave no description of what they were. I simply looked at the first and assumed the others were in the same vein.
And I was essentially correct in thinking you included the epistemology in the definitions of Believe and Accept. You could have simply said as much. And with those definitions you are correct.
I also didn't realize Epistemology was considered an area of philosophy, not science. Thank you.
Now I see where you're coming from and I appreciate that. Thank you.
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.
Right, it's subjective and based on your own experience without concrete evidence. That's what I'm saying. Science is objective and must rely on evidence.
I'm not insisting that belief necessarily means anything faith-based. It could, but that's not what we're focusing on here. Only that it has a different meaning than accept as far as science is concerned.
That's incredibly dumb.
My observations about turning off the oven are just as objective and evidence-based as any other observations. I saw whether I did it or not very clearly with my own two eyes. If you want to get into, "Senses are inherently subjective," fine, but that includes using your eyes to read a scale during an experiment. You're trying to draw an insane distinction between reading a scale and reading a dial on an oven, it makes absolutely zero sense, and you don't understand anything about science, epistemology, or philosophy in general. You're going full Dunning-Kruger here.
Yes, senses are inherently subjective. Yes, reading a scale with your eyes can throw off the result. There is an accepted protocol on how to read a meniscus in a graduated cylinder for this reason or any scale for that matter.
When you say I believe I turned off the oven, you are subjectively recalling something. You aren't looking at the oven, you're remembering it. You aren't checking that it's off. You're saying that to the best of my memory, I turned it off. "I'm pretty sure." That is subjective.
You're also relying on your subjective memory when you look away from the scale to write down the number you read.
Oh, now this is fascinating. Tell me, does this "accepted protocol" mean that you don't have to rely on your subjective senses at all? If so, then how, exactly, does the information end up reaching your brain? I would love to know.
This is essentially just, "When someone wears a lab coat, that means it's objective." Even within "accepted protocols" there is still plenty of room for human error.
You are completely wrong about basically everything you've said, and your wrong ideas seem to be a product of the disdain you seem to have for the humanities - a common ailment of people with just enough knowledge of science to be very confidently wrong about things.
Yes, many things are subjective and that's why measures are taken (protocols exist in other words) to remove inconsistencies.
You can make ad hominem attacks, but it's just laughable since you have no basis for any of it..
OK, so returning to the original point, if you agree that our senses our subjective, then the difference between a scientist reading a scale and me remembering whether I turned the oven on is just a matter of the degree of reliability, and both are evidence-based.
No
Alright, you know, if you won't use reason, then whatever your faith tells you I guess.