Science and Doubt

[SigurdReginson]

Doubt is a natural aspect of Science. There are charlatans in every aspect of society, and the scientific community is no different. There are those who are cynical of the scientific process as a whole, though, instead of just individual scientists.

With that said, I'd like to know where that threshold in doubt stands for you.

Are you skeptical until a topic is published in a scientific paper? Are you skeptical until you are personally satisfied by the evidence presented by the results? Are you more or less skeptical depending on the specific topic at hand (such as with evolution, for example)? What is the standard that needs to be met before you will accept a scientific theory and incorporate it into your set of beliefs?

What about competitive topics, such as panspermia vs. abiogenesis vs. creation? How do you choose which one is correct when they could all be probable? One could say that they reserve belief in something until they have more concrete information (I certainly try to), but eventually one finds something convincing enough to believe or forever remain on the fence.

What threshold does a scientific proposition/theory need to cross to convince you, personally?

 

[PureX]

The problem with science is that what we look for, and how we look, determines to a very great extent what we find, and what we don't. And yet the vast majority of humans are completely oblivious of this, and so sadly presume that science is giving us "answers". Science has no answers. All it can tell us is what works and what doesn't in relation to the questions we ask. And it can only do that in terms of physicality. So it really isn't telling us much, and even less so in regards to "truth".

But science has become the replacement for 'the gods', for some folks. And they believe in it with religious ferocity.

 

[exchemist]

Doubt is a natural aspect of Science. There are charlatans in every aspect of society, and the scientific community is no different. There are those who are cynical of the scientific process as a whole, though, instead of just individual scientists.

With that said, I'd like to know where that threshold in doubt stands for you.

Are you skeptical until a topic is published in a scientific paper? Are you skeptical until you are personally satisfied by the evidence presented by the results? Are you more or less skeptical depending on the specific topic at hand (such as with evolution, for example)? What is the standard that needs to be met before you will accept a scientific theory and incorporate it into your set of beliefs?

What about competitive topics, such as panspermia vs. abiogenesis vs. creation? How do you choose which one is correct when they could all be probable? One could say that they reserve belief in something until they have more concrete information (I certainly try to), but eventually one finds something convincing enough to believe or forever remain on the fence.

What threshold does a scientific proposition/theory need to cross to convince you, personally?

It's not black or white.

I am certainly sceptical until it is published in a reputable journal, because that means it has been peer-reviewed and won't just be some charlatan or crank. So that's step one. Then it becomes a "maybe", as far as I am concerned.

In due time, if it survives challenges and acquires a following of people who know the subject, it becomes a "probable".

 

[AlexanderG]

The scientific consensus is the highest standard.

From Wikipedia:
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus generally implies agreement of the supermajority, though not necessarily unanimity.Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate and peer review."

The scientific consensus represents the common conclusions reached by a majority of experts in a field concerning the topics within their expertise. While it isn't guaranteed to be correct, and may change over time, it's more likely to be correct than anyone else's opinions. It is important to note that you can find a dozen scientists in any field whose views are wildly different from the consensus. Quoting their research or their conclusions as support for your pet theory does not give your theory good scientific support. I see this happen with creationists and their half-dozen biologists who think evolution is impossible, and YouTubers like Inspiring Philosophy who use about a half-dozen physicists to support his claims that the universe entails metaphysical consciousness.

Being published in a peer reviewed journal is generally good evidence for the validity of a study, but there are many examples of individual articles that sneak in even though their methods and analysis are horribly flawed, or they reach unfounded conclusions. Some "Journals" are actually set up by interest groups, think tanks, or religious apologists to give their pseudoscience apparent support when their opinions are "published."

The lowest form of scientific information, which I doubt the most, is science journalism. For whatever reason, journalists ignorantly or willfully distort scientific findings all the time. This may just be to get more clicks, but it makes their descriptions of scientific findings very unreliable.

 

[SigurdReginson]

The problem with science is that what we look for, and how we look, determines to a very great extent what we find, and what we don't. And yet the vast majority of humans are completely of this, and so sadly presume that science is giving us "answers". Science has no answers. All it can tell us is what works and what doesn't in relation to the questions we ask. And it can only do that in terms of physicality. So it really isn't telling us much, and even less so in regards to "truth".

But science has become the replacement for 'the gods', for some folks. And they believe in it with religious ferocity.

I'd agree that it's become as important as religion for some, though I'd have to think that some scientific theories very much do contribute to people's beliefs regardless of their religious views or their understanding of the role of science in the greater world.

I'm assuming you believe that we have a pretty good understanding of how gravity works on earth due to our application of the scientific method, and that it contributes to your understanding of gravity on a personal level... The scientific understanding of gravity seems to be a thing everyone is willing to accept as a pretty accurate representation of how gravity works in the reality we perceive (minus some tin foil hat types).

Where is that disconnection between a theory being worthy of belief or not in your eyes?

 

[SigurdReginson]

It's not black or white.

I am certainly sceptical until it is published in a reputable journal, because that means it has been peer-reviewed and won't just be some charlatan or crank. So that's step one. Then it becomes a "maybe", as far as I am concerned.

In due time, if it survives challenges and acquires a following of people who know the subject, it becomes a "probable".

Does anything ever go from "probable" to an accepted understanding of how reality works in your eyes? Surely you have internalized beliefs based on scientific understanding, no?

 

[sun rise]

I have no doubt about the scientific method. It's the best tool we have to understand how the universe and we work physically

The scientific method includes reproducibility so I retain reasonable skepticism until a finding or theory has been fully through the process.

The scientific method also includes learning more so I'm open to us learning more and finding earlier theories that worked to fall as we learn more.

But I'm not willing to doubt unless and until a better idea comes along applying the standard "extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof".

But I don't accept that the physical universe is the be all and end all of existence hence my belief in Divinity.

 

[AlexanderG]

The problem with science is that what we look for, and how we look, determines to a very great extent what we find, and what we don't. And yet the vast majority of humans are completely of this, and so sadly presume that science is giving us "answers". Science has no answers. All it can tell us is what works and what doesn't in relation to the questions we ask. And it can only do that in terms of physicality. So it really isn't telling us much, and even less so in regards to "truth".

But science has become the replacement for 'the gods', for some folks. And they believe in it with religious ferocity.

When I use science, I can fly in the sky at hundreds of miles per hour, or talk to someone on the other side of the world, or calculate vast equations, or reliably cure infections. Can I do any of that with religion, or with prayers? Absolutely not. Science may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than the resounding zero that religions offer instead.

You say science can only do things "in terms of physicality." Point me to something that isn't part of the physical world, and I'll be impressed with the utility of religion. Even things like consciousness and emotions are physical processes according to all the evidence, and can be affected physically by chemicals or head trauma. If you point to things like morality, meaning, hope, or purpose, those are all words that describe certain subjective opinions. Some religions appeal to some people but not others per their individual preferences. Just like ice cream flavors or music genres.

Science has absolutely not replaced gods, nor is it anything like a religion. Unless you just want to call induction a religion?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Tough question. Okay, for something like tapeworms and whether they affect the gut, I think I'd like to listen to a peer reviewed article or two. But to the best of my knowledge, some physics subjects have enough valid theories it's hard to tell what to believe and I never really get that far as it isn't my forte. As you can probably tell, my knowledge is limited. Though a search on Wikipedia will usually tell you pretty quick whether it's a 'yes' or 'no' question, or an advanced theory on how the universe works.

 

[exchemist]

Does anything ever go from "probable" to an accepted understanding of how reality works in your eyes? Surely you have internalized beliefs based on scientific understanding, no?

To a degree. From probable it goes to "a good and well-accepted model", and then, in time, depending on how fundamental the idea is, it goes to "practically certain": e.g. things like plate tectonics, which did not exist when I was a child and for which the evidence seems overwhelming.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "internalised beliefs".

 

[sun rise]

Does anything ever go from "probable" to an accepted understanding of how reality works in your eyes? Surely you have internalized beliefs based on scientific understanding, no?

You didn't ask me but I'm going to answer it anyway.

It depends on the discipline. Some examples: Chemistry is past 'probable' because we see that it works all the time. Medicine is much less known as we see from new learning happening all the time with COVID a prime example. Physics is in the middle with basic physics well understood but with areas that have been challenged such as the "standard model" and some behavior of black holes.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Tough question. Okay, for something like tapeworms and whether they affect the gut, I think I'd like to listen to a peer reviewed article or two. But to the best of my knowledge, some physics subjects have enough valid theories it's hard to tell what to believe and I never really get that far as it isn't my forte. As you can probably tell, my knowledge is limited. Though a search on Wikipedia will usually tell you pretty quick whether it's a 'yes' or 'no' question, or an advanced theory on how the universe works.

Yah, I think personal interests make a big difference in what scientific understandings you accept. I have no interest in physics at all... Honestly, I can't be assed to care about quantum physics. My time is precious, and I will spend it on things I enjoy, so I am woefully ignorant on that topic. Same with astronomy.

When it comes to biology, though? I care a little bit more... I will take extra time to educate myself on the science behind it and how it works because it's interesting to me. That in itself plays into my biases.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

On the other hand, I find science important as it helps one form a potentially more accurate worldview even if that worldview contains a religious understanding of the world. While I don't believe one should strive necessarily to be incorrect, on the contrary, I feel that a lot of the more enlightened people, in my personal opinion, realize that there is no penalty to not having every single idea correct, despite there being some life or death situations that come with getting certain crucial ideas wrong.

As for what I'm going to write next? That's the very furthest I've been getting down the rabbit hole lately.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Doubt is a natural aspect of Science. There are charlatans in every aspect of society, and the scientific community is no different. There are those who are cynical of the scientific process as a whole, though, instead of just individual scientists.

With that said, I'd like to know where that threshold in doubt stands for you.

Are you skeptical until a topic is published in a scientific paper? Are you skeptical until you are personally satisfied by the evidence presented by the results? Are you more or less skeptical depending on the specific topic at hand (such as with evolution, for example)? What is the standard that needs to be met before you will accept a scientific theory and incorporate it into your set of beliefs?

What about competitive topics, such as panspermia vs. abiogenesis vs. creation? How do you choose which one is correct when they could all be probable? One could say that they reserve belief in something until they have more concrete information (I certainly try to), but eventually one finds something convincing enough to believe or forever remain on the fence.

What threshold does a scientific proposition/theory need to cross to convince you, personally?

I'm only skeptical when politics gets involved in science.

People can be persuaded and bought. Even scientists, so I don't take in every thing a scientist says just because he or she says it. I need to see the background first, like funding and affiliations.

That includes all areas of science.

If there is concurrence and uniformity among independent peers, then I'm more likely to think the experts are being truthful and uninfluenced by the political angle of things.

 

[stvdv]

Are you skeptical until a topic is published in a scientific paper?

Usually I don't need a scientific paper to know what is correct or not. I trust my human capabilities (this year I have seen too many science errors)

Science is handy to calculate correctly whether or not the plane will drop down or manage to reach its destination

And for spiritual life science is quite useless, even an obstacle

 

[Nimos]

What threshold does a scientific proposition/theory need to cross to convince you, personally?

If something is considered a scientific theory I would accept it as being as close to 100% correct as possible, meaning that their might be minor gaps in it, or details which are not 100% clear, which overtime might fine tune it so it becomes more accurate.

If its just a scientific paper of a study showing something, I would find it interesting, but wouldn't be convinced that it is correct. As more studies are added and they are tested, it could potentially turn into a scientific theory.

But until something is considered as such, I think it's fair to be sceptical about it.

 

[George-ananda]

What threshold does a scientific proposition/theory need to cross to convince you, personally?

There probably is no hard yes/no lines. It just accumulates or slowly crumbles.

However for the stuff that really matter to me (spirituality), science can't even really address yet. I look to other wisdom traditions for that.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

The problem with science is that what we look for, and how we look, determines to a very great extent what we find, and what we don't. And yet the vast majority of humans are completely of this, and so sadly presume that science is giving us "answers". Science has no answers. All it can tell us is what works and what doesn't in relation to the questions we ask. And it can only do that in terms of physicality. So it really isn't telling us much, and even less so in regards to "truth".

But science has become the replacement for 'the gods', for some folks. And they believe in it with religious ferocity.

the purpose of science is NOT to give us truth

 

[Polymath257]

I generally start with what is in university science textbooks. These generally reflect the scientific consensus and, except in fields that are rapidly growing, are generally the best descriptions we have. But, if you read the basics of the major areas of science (physics, chemistry, geology, biology) in a textbook, preferably going beyond the first two texts in a subject (again, university level), then you probably have enough to evaluate things written elsewhere.

If a subject isn't in a textbook (and many recent results won't be), then I tend to go for the papers in journals, looking at what they say is controversial and not. Most good science papers will be up front about this type of thing. Having the basics from reading the textbook helps with this.

Newer results are always less reliable than older ones that have been tested further. Discoveries of new phenomena are generally more reliable than verification of some proposed theory.

Anything in the popular press is very tentative and needs to be backed up by a journal article or at least to have a reference to such an article.

Always be cautious of scientists that are being paid by someone that agrees with their conclusions. Independence is a big deal. Be cautious of any scientist that goes to the popular press first or writes a popular book before a scientific journal article.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The lowest form of scientific information, which I doubt the most, is science journalism. For whatever reason, journalists ignorantly or willfully distort scientific findings all the time. This may just be to get more clicks, but it makes their descriptions of scientific findings very unreliable.

I don't know that the science journalists are doing anything to willfully distort science, but I suspect that they are journalists because they really lack the solid expertise required to fully understand what any new paper may really state.

Their job, in the end, is to help an even less science-literate public understand at least something about what's going on.

Just for example, I'm one who would be considered less than science-literate, and no matter how hard I try to understand the concept of quantum entanglement, I just get lost. I look for better and better science journalists, because I'm incapable of reading the papers by the actual physicists.