• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

sew.excited73

sew.excited73

Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
blü 2 said:
I dare say it has something to do with ─
(a) the slightness of their personal acquaintance with science as such,
(b) their understanding that a great many human achievements in technology and Big Question insights are attributed to science,
(c) their awareness of the prestige given by the media to science and
(d) their lack of any need to enquire into the actual philosophy of science, and their unawareness that the justification for science is not that it makes perfect or absolute statements but that it works.

Or something like that.

.
Click to expand...
You are onto something here that was probably along the reasoning I had myself but did not know how to put in words, when you said they are absolutist thinkers, and the important bit is that it works (well, when done properly that is).
 
anotherneil

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
I'm curious to know where or how you arrived at these percentages, but regarding the title, it seems like a loaded question. While I wouldn't be inclined to disagree that there may be a rather small number of people who think that science is 100% fact and infallible, you don't provide a basis for your assertion that a large number of people "seem to think" such a thing.

What do you consider to be a large number of people?
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
sew.excited73 said:
Why is it that my OP deserves (what feels like) a personal attack?
Click to expand...

Why do a large number of people think that the "Dutch/British" are 100% incompetent dunces?

Well, in fact, they don't; it's an absurd leading question for which there can be no rational answer.

Furthermore, your claim was not well served by being supported by a list of unsupported claims.

FWIW, I've been active hereat RF for roughly two decades and I cannot recall a single instance where someone claimed science to be infallible. On the contrary, a good deal of the debate tends to be between those who belittle science because it has made mistakes and those who applaud its built-in capacity to learn and grow from those mistakes.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
sew.excited73 said:
Why is it that my OP deserves (what feels like) a personal attack?
Did I offend anyone with my wondering question at the end? If so, I apologise, but I don’t see why a philosophical musing like that would be inappropriate for a forum like this?!
Click to expand...

Obviously, you weren't here before to see this, but typically, when a new member shows up with a thread about how science is taken too seriously and comparing science to religion, it's generally a big red flag that the member is going to follow it up with thread after thread of unhinged ideas where they'll spend most of their time shouting at others for being "unreasonable" when those other members point out that the unhinged ideas don't seem to be based on anything real.

If this doesn't describe you, great. Apparently, your opener raised enough red flags for people to jump to the conclusion that the scenario that played out many times before was happening again. They should have given you a full chance before assuming.
 
Alien826

Alien826

No religious beliefs
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Obviously, you weren't here before to see this, but typically, when a new member shows up with a thread about how science is taken too seriously and comparing science to religion, it's generally a big red flag that the member is going to follow it up with thread after thread of unhinged ideas where they'll spend most of their time shouting at others for being "unreasonable" when those other members point out that the unhinged ideas don't seem to be based on anything real.
Click to expand...
The OP didn't mention religion at all and as far as I can see has continued in that.

My earlier comment came from the observation that people seemed to have jumped all over her without the usual "gentle" approach that even the craziest of posters tend to get in the first few replies. Though if they persist in their craziness, that goes away and probably rightly so.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
If this doesn't describe you, great. Apparently, your opener raised enough red flags for people to jump to the conclusion that the scenario that played out many times before was happening again. They should have given you a full chance before assuming.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Incidentally, My response to the question would include a consideration of how science is often presented in the media, and a certain demographic in the readership. Though a scientist would not do so, scientific discoveries tend to be presented as fact. "In the early days of the universe, all that existed was a super hot ball of plasma". Corrected for my own possible errors, that may be a fairly accurate statement of the current scientific understanding on the matter, but it doesn't say that not all scientists agree, that next week we may have a new version of the theory and so on. The writers may have limited space, or want to avoid boring the reader, and the reader may not have a great understanding of how science works and only wants a general idea on the subject. Whatever, he comes away with the impression that he just learned exactly what happened in the early days of the universe.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Alien826 said:
Incidentally, My response to the question would include a consideration of how science is often presented in the media, and a certain demographic in the readership.
Click to expand...
And I was hoping that your response would have included examples from RF where someone seems to to think "that 'science is 100% fact' and infallible.

Furthermore, you might have considered asking @sew.excited73 to share the source of her intriguing data.
 
Alien826

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Jayhawker Soule said:
And I was hoping that your response would have included examples from RF where someone seems to to think "that 'science is 100% fact' and infallible.
Click to expand...
The OP didn't mention RF, so I didn't think examples from RF were indicated. I took it as a general claim asking for a general answer. Incidentally, I would expect people on RF to exhibit this tendency less than the general public.
Jayhawker Soule said:
Furthermore, you might have considered asking @sew.excited73 to share the source of her intriguing data.
Click to expand...

That's been asked already. I don't imagine a further request from me would make a reply any more likely. By the way, exact percentages aside, I do recognize that tendency and my suggestion was addressed to that observation.
 
sew.excited73

sew.excited73

Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
Alien826 said:
The OP didn't mention religion at all and as far as I can see has continued in that.

My earlier comment came from the observation that people seemed to have jumped all over her without the usual "gentle" approach that even the craziest of posters tend to get in the first few replies. Though if they persist in their craziness, that goes away and probably rightly so.



Yup.

Incidentally, My response to the question would include a consideration of how science is often presented in the media, and a certain demographic in the readership. Though a scientist would not do so, scientific discoveries tend to be presented as fact. "In the early days of the universe, all that existed was a super hot ball of plasma". Corrected for my own possible errors, that may be a fairly accurate statement of the current scientific understanding on the matter, but it doesn't say that not all scientists agree, that next week we may have a new version of the theory and so on. The writers may have limited space, or want to avoid boring the reader, and the reader may not have a great understanding of how science works and only wants a general idea on the subject. Whatever, he comes away with the impression that he just learned exactly what happened in the early days of the universe.
Click to expand...
You put it so much more eloquently than I did. Thank you…
I apologise that my brain sometimes races at a million miles an hour, which means that often I skip steps in my explanation that to me seem obvious… but indeed, the people I refer to are those who listen to scientific announcements in the media… ( in popsci lingo - but still better than I am clearly capable of ;))… and take what they learn as the forevermore truth, even in light of new evidence from others, often even rebuking new doi’s as having been written by quacks, and as such disregarding the fact that these people they labelled as quacks actually still have more education/knowledge/background/experience in that field than they themselves do.
I think it’s called ‘belief perseverance’ or something, but I’d have to check.
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
sew.excited73 said:
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.?
Click to expand...
Hello and welcome,

These percentages, what do they refer to? The wordcount of a paper or text? The total output of a field of study?
 
sew.excited73

sew.excited73

Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
HonestJoe said:
You're not entirely wrong there but my question is this; where is the word "science" in any of that?

As I said in my initial response, people can often get stuck on particular beliefs or conclusions, even in the face of contradictory information, but that isn't necessarily attributed to science (and even then, often not formal science) and it can be as often against evidence labelled as "science".
Click to expand...
Exactly! That is what I mean…

I did not ‘attribute’ it to science, it merely occurred to me that this belief perseverance, which is strong in other beliefs, also appears to happen to (mostly lay) people where it comes to science. And just to be clear, their are not even mutually exclusive, maybe even especially not so? I mean maybe it stems from the same root, so that some people are just wired that way and they apply it both to their steadfast belief in their religion as they do their own personal scientific beliefs… maybe it’s all the same psychological mechanism in certain people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top