No. In the common usage of words, science is the opposite of belief. Science seeks objective information and uses critical analysis to determine out best current understanding, regardless of emotional or political preferences or traditions. Belief is often without objective support, and sometimes in contradiction, and almost always driven by emotion, politics, and tradition.
No. In the common usage of words, science is the opposite of belief. Science seeks objective information and uses critical analysis to determine out best current understanding, regardless of emotional or political preferences or traditions. Belief is often without objective support, and sometimes in contradiction, and almost always driven by emotion, politics, and tradition.
A "belief" is simply an attitude that something about the world is true. Clearly, scientists believe it is it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world. Matter of fact, that is a terse definition of science offered by Karl Popper. If you don't believe it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world, you don't believe in science. Of course most scientific observations about the physical world are couched in probabilities, and not stated to be true or false. This is why fact checkers are stupid. They don't get that, and rate things true or false that should be rated more probable, less probable, or simply "impossible to ascertain." Probably the most idiotic thing about fact checkers is rating something false simply because they have no evidence it is true. That's the argumentum ad ignorantiam, and it shows up in a deplorably large number of fact checks.
Not common usage, but the definition of тАЬbeliefтАЭ used in epistemology. Weirdly, nobody here seems to tarry over defining тАЬbelief.тАЭ Or тАЬscience,тАЭ for that matter.
No. In the common usage of words, science is the opposite of belief. Science seeks objective information and uses critical analysis to determine out best current understanding, regardless of emotional or political preferences or traditions. Belief is often without objective support, and sometimes in contradiction, and almost always driven by emotion, politics, and tradition.
A "belief" is simply an attitude that something about the world is true. Clearly, scientists believe it is it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world. Matter of fact, that is a terse definition of science offered by Karl Popper. If you don't believe it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world, you don't believe in science. Of course most scientific observations about the physical world are couched in probabilities, and not stated to be true or false. This is why fact checkers are stupid. They don't get that, and rate things true or false that should be rated more probable, less probable, or simply "impossible to ascertain." Probably the most idiotic thing about fact checkers is rating something false simply because they have no evidence it is true. That's the argumentum ad ignorantiam, and it shows up in a deplorably large number of fact checks.
If that is, indeed, the common usage of words, then the common usage understands neither science nor belief.
Not common usage, but the definition of тАЬbeliefтАЭ used in epistemology. Weirdly, nobody here seems to tarry over defining тАЬbelief.тАЭ Or тАЬscience,тАЭ for that matter.