Why do a large number of people seem to think that 'science is 100% fact' and infallible?

[sew.excited73]

It’s challenging to assign exact percentages to how much each type of science relies on assumptions versus facts, as this can vary widely depending on the specific field, research context, and methodology. However, we can provide a general idea of how assumptions and facts interplay in each type:

1. Experimental Science:
   • Assumptions: ~20-30%
   • Facts: ~70-80%
   • Experimental science relies heavily on empirical data and observable facts, but assumptions are made in the design of experiments and interpretation of results.
2. Theoretical Science:
   • Assumptions: ~50-70%
   • Facts: ~30-50%
   • Theoretical science often starts with assumptions to build models and theories, which are then tested against empirical data.
3. Applied Science:
   • Assumptions: ~30-40%
   • Facts: ~60-70%
   • Applied science uses established facts to develop practical solutions, but assumptions are necessary when applying these facts to new contexts or technologies.
4. Natural Science:
   • Assumptions: ~20-30%
   • Facts: ~70-80%
   • Natural sciences are grounded in observable phenomena and empirical data, though assumptions are made in forming hypotheses and models.
5. Social Science:
   • Assumptions: ~40-60%
   • Facts: ~40-60%
   • Social sciences often rely on assumptions about human behavior and societal structures, balanced with empirical research and data.
6. Formal Science:
   • Assumptions: ~10-20%
   • Facts: ~80-90%
   • Formal sciences like mathematics and logic are based on established axioms and logical reasoning, with fewer assumptions compared to empirical sciences.
7. Interdisciplinary Science:
   • Assumptions: ~30-50%
   • Facts: ~50-70%
   • Interdisciplinary sciences integrate methods and knowledge from multiple fields, requiring assumptions to bridge gaps between disciplines.

These percentages are rough estimates and can vary significantly. However, none of them say: Assumptions: 0%, Fact: 100%... so why do so many people still think that anything determined by science is now and will forever be 'a fact'?

Is such a belief in 'scientific infallibility' akin to religious beliefs with scientist being their 'elders'/'priests' etc.?

 

[Audie]

Are you just making things up?

As to your first and last line, any such reference is
to stupid uneducated people.

Of what interest are they to you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@sew.excited73 asks:

Why do a large number of people seem to think ... ?​

and then proceeds to fabricate a list of "Assumptions" and "Facts". It's juvenile nonsense ...

 

[Jimmy]

Could be
1. It’s what they were taught.
2. Peer pressure.
3. They never spiritually seeked answers.
4. Fear of the unknown qualities of spirituality.
5. They saw bad things related to religion and were unable to cope and learn how to make religion their own and work for them.
6. They love science.
7. They’re unable to see the hidden meanings and messages in religion and see it as fictional hogwash.
8. Scientifically knowing things makes them feel safe.
9. Fear of how others will look at them if they were religious.
10. They become frustrated with religion and aren’t getting the answers they’re seeking.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, we can provide ...

And notice the royal "we" ...

So let's begin at the beginning:

Can you-all offer any basis whatsoever for the claim that

"a large number of people seem to think that 'science is 100% fact" and infallible?"​

​

 

[HonestJoe]

These percentages are rough estimates and can vary significantly. However, none of them say: Assumptions: 0%, Fact: 100%... so why do so many people still think that anything determined by science is now and will forever be 'a fact'?

What proportion of assumption vs fact are you basing your assertion that "so many" people believe this on?

In my experience, the vast majority of people have little or no direct relationship with science, only with conclusions presented to them, often passing through multiple other people first. Both consciously and unconsciously, I think whether and how much trust people put in those conclusions is based much more on the trust in the people (they think) are giving them and whether the conclusions are ones they want to hear.

Also, people are just as likely to attack "science" when they hear conclusions they don't like (accurate or not) and will favour unscientific methods that give them their preferred answers. And with respect, I would suggest that might be a key factor in what led up to this thread in the first place.

 

[sew.excited73]

Are you just making things up?

As to your first and last line, any such reference is
to stupid uneducated people.

Of what interest are they to you?

They are of interest to me as I work at a university.
Why do you want people to think I just sucked this out of my own thumb?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@sew.excited73 :

It appears that you list your occupation as University staff. May I ask which university and what staff position?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why do you want people to think I just sucked this out of my own thumb?

That's precisely what your post title suggests and what your post leads me to think.

 

[Revoltingest]

Could be
1. It’s what they were taught.
2. Peer pressure.
3. They never spiritually seeked answers.
4. Fear of the unknown qualities of spirituality.
5. They saw bad things related to religion and were unable to cope and learn how to make religion their own and work for them.
6. They love science.
7. They’re unable to see the hidden meanings and messages in religion and see it as fictional hogwash.
8. Scientifically knowing things makes them feel safe.
9. Fear of how others will look at them if they were religious.
10. They become frustrated with religion and aren’t getting the answers they’re seeking.

There are people who believe that science = truth.
It's not. But this bogus belief is still far better than
religion = truth.

 

[Audie]

They are of interest to me as I work at a university.
Why do you want people to think I just sucked this out of my own thumb?

Gardeners work at universities.

Your crude and offensive but about where you got
your nonsense only reinforces that you either made it up, or let someone else make it up for you.

 

[Audie]

What proportion of assumption vs fact are you basing your assertion that "so many" people believe this on?

In my experience, the vast majority of people have little or no direct relationship with science, only with conclusions presented to them, often passing through multiple other people first. Both consciously and unconsciously, I think whether and how much trust people put in those conclusions is based much more on the trust in the people (they think) are giving them and whether the conclusions are ones they want to hear.

Also, people are just as likely to attack "science" when they hear conclusions they don't like (accurate or not) and will favour unscientific methods that give them their preferred answers. And with respect, I would suggest that might be a key factor in what led up to this thread in the first place.

We got a non response to my challenge to
authenticity. Stand by for yours.

 

[Jimmy]

There are people who believe that science = truth.
It's not. But this bogus belief is still far better than
religion = truth.

In your opinion

 

[bobhikes]

It’s challenging to assign exact percentages to how much each type of science relies on assumptions versus facts, as this can vary widely depending on the specific field, research context, and methodology. However, we can provide a general idea of how assumptions and facts interplay in each type:

1. Experimental Science:
   • Assumptions: ~20-30%
   • Facts: ~70-80%
   • Experimental science relies heavily on empirical data and observable facts, but assumptions are made in the design of experiments and interpretation of results.
2. Theoretical Science:
   • Assumptions: ~50-70%
   • Facts: ~30-50%
   • Theoretical science often starts with assumptions to build models and theories, which are then tested against empirical data.
3. Applied Science:
   • Assumptions: ~30-40%
   • Facts: ~60-70%
   • Applied science uses established facts to develop practical solutions, but assumptions are necessary when applying these facts to new contexts or technologies.
4. Natural Science:
   • Assumptions: ~20-30%
   • Facts: ~70-80%
   • Natural sciences are grounded in observable phenomena and empirical data, though assumptions are made in forming hypotheses and models.
5. Social Science:
   • Assumptions: ~40-60%
   • Facts: ~40-60%
   • Social sciences often rely on assumptions about human behavior and societal structures, balanced with empirical research and data.
6. Formal Science:
   • Assumptions: ~10-20%
   • Facts: ~80-90%
   • Formal sciences like mathematics and logic are based on established axioms and logical reasoning, with fewer assumptions compared to empirical sciences.
7. Interdisciplinary Science:
   • Assumptions: ~30-50%
   • Facts: ~50-70%
   • Interdisciplinary sciences integrate methods and knowledge from multiple fields, requiring assumptions to bridge gaps between disciplines.

These percentages are rough estimates and can vary significantly. However, none of them say: Assumptions: 0%, Fact: 100%... so why do so many people still think that anything determined by science is now and will forever be 'a fact'?

Is such a belief in 'scientific infallibility' akin to religious beliefs with scientist being their 'elders'/'priests' etc.?

I like the thought but I need a source to believe the statements.

 

[Revoltingest]

In your opinion

Of course!

 

[Audie]

I like the thought but I need a source to believe the statements.

Hmm.

What thought is that?

 

[Alien826]

I see this poster is quite new to the forum. In view of the out and out rudeness with which she has been greeted, it would not surprise me if this turns out to be her last post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you just making things up?

I think we know the answer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Formal Science:

Interdisciplinary Science:

Natural Science:

Applied Science:

Theoretical Science:

Experimental Science:

Do you even know what any of that means? Do you know it's very obvious you list is bogus? Do you know you betray the understanding of science youbare trying to project?

 

[sayak83]

It’s challenging to assign exact percentages to how much each type of science relies on assumptions versus facts, as this can vary widely depending on the specific field, research context, and methodology. However, we can provide a general idea of how assumptions and facts interplay in each type:

1. Experimental Science:
   • Assumptions: ~20-30%
   • Facts: ~70-80%
   • Experimental science relies heavily on empirical data and observable facts, but assumptions are made in the design of experiments and interpretation of results.
2. Theoretical Science:
   • Assumptions: ~50-70%
   • Facts: ~30-50%
   • Theoretical science often starts with assumptions to build models and theories, which are then tested against empirical data.
3. Applied Science:
   • Assumptions: ~30-40%
   • Facts: ~60-70%
   • Applied science uses established facts to develop practical solutions, but assumptions are necessary when applying these facts to new contexts or technologies.
4. Natural Science:
   • Assumptions: ~20-30%
   • Facts: ~70-80%
   • Natural sciences are grounded in observable phenomena and empirical data, though assumptions are made in forming hypotheses and models.
5. Social Science:
   • Assumptions: ~40-60%
   • Facts: ~40-60%
   • Social sciences often rely on assumptions about human behavior and societal structures, balanced with empirical research and data.
6. Formal Science:
   • Assumptions: ~10-20%
   • Facts: ~80-90%
   • Formal sciences like mathematics and logic are based on established axioms and logical reasoning, with fewer assumptions compared to empirical sciences.
7. Interdisciplinary Science:
   • Assumptions: ~30-50%
   • Facts: ~50-70%
   • Interdisciplinary sciences integrate methods and knowledge from multiple fields, requiring assumptions to bridge gaps between disciplines.

These percentages are rough estimates and can vary significantly. However, none of them say: Assumptions: 0%, Fact: 100%... so why do so many people still think that anything determined by science is now and will forever be 'a fact'?

Is such a belief in 'scientific infallibility' akin to religious beliefs with scientist being their 'elders'/'priests' etc.?

Firstly, welcome to the forum.
Your post requires context. Why do you believe that there exists a large number of people who believe what science says just blindly? And what does believing blindly mean? If I go to a doctor with illness and she says that I have, say a liver disease and gives some medication, should I not believe her? Most of our society works on trusting that other people know their jobs. You deposit money in the bank trusting that the banker will not just rob you. You cross the street in a red light trusting that the cars will stop at the light. I bet that you cannot live a single day without placing trust that other PPL are doing their jobs properly. It was not always like this. There has been 10,000 years of social evolution to get us to this point, where we can trust perfect strangers with our most valuable assets, even life. Science and scientists are a small part of this structure of expert specialisations that PPL rely on to give the best available knowledge today.
So what is your concern? Restate it.