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

[wellwisher]

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.?

Applied science may start out as both assumptions and facts, especially if you are doing early R&D from scratch. But as the concept evolves, and the assumption used, become proven facts, the final development product can become a 100% fact of reality; iPhone. Applies science has the most control over the ratio, since the free market only wants to buy real things that are complete and self standing.

Interdisciplinary Science is interesting in that the assumptions needed to help bridge two different disciplines, can create more assumptions in the originals fields. The more specialty fields, can lose track of the forest, because of the trees; details. While someone with a wider view of the forest, from the hill, can see the layout of the land and show those things at the interface, not currently seen. That extra data may require revisions in the connected fields. Or a flag planted in the middle and developed from there.

Math is similar to applied science, with the goal a tangible simulation of some aspect of reality. But this may still require intentionally leaving in some assumptions, such as in video game math, which may need the assumption of infinite lives to make the game play less frustrating. Math is like a faithful horse that the driver; mathematician, can lead anywhere; based on the needed assumptions in the final product.

Theoretical science uses math and logic to extrapolate assumptions to conclusions, that then get tested to see if this all works. Theoretical Physics experiments are often difficulty and expensive to do, so more time is about simulating assumptions with math to b more cost effective.

Empirical science generates the data and draw the best curve, which may not touch all the data. But we develop a theory from there. Like theoretical science this may then become an extrapolated assumption to predict the future. But since the original theory is short of a fact; does not touch all the data, it can fall short of the future and just remain in the haze. It linger or may require new assumptions.

 

[Yerda]

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?

Maybe you've answered your own question here.

I think we can justifiably marvel at the explanatory and creative tools science has given us. Perhaps people get a bit too excited and forthright about the powers of science sometimes. You know like when your favourite sports team is demolishing all comers, you get really confident that they will win every game, they are untouchable. Then they get a doing and you realise the power of misplaced belief in infallibility on the human mind.

See my answer from

• Monday at 9:37 PM

Can you spell it out like I'm a bit dim?

 

[sew.excited73]

Applied science may start out as both assumptions and facts, especially if you are doing early R&D from scratch. But as the concept evolves, and the assumption used, become proven facts, the final development product can become a 100% fact of reality; iPhone. Applies science has the most control over the ratio, since the free market only wants to buy real things that are complete and self standing.

Interdisciplinary Science is interesting in that the assumptions needed to help bridge two different disciplines, can create more assumptions in the originals fields. The more specialty fields, can lose track of the forest, because of the trees; details. While someone with a wider view of the forest, from the hill, can see the layout of the land and show those things at the interface, not currently seen. That extra data may require revisions in the connected fields. Or a flag planted in the middle and developed from there.

Math is similar to applied science, with the goal a tangible simulation of some aspect of reality. But this may still require intentionally leaving in some assumptions, such as in video game math, which may need the assumption of infinite lives to make the game play less frustrating. Math is like a faithful horse that the driver; mathematician, can lead anywhere; based on the needed assumptions in the final product.

Theoretical science uses math and logic to extrapolate assumptions to conclusions, that then get tested to see if this all works. Theoretical Physics experiments are often difficulty and expensive to do, so more time is about simulating assumptions with math to b more cost effective.

Empirical science generates the data and draw the best curve, which may not touch all the data. But we develop a theory from there. Like theoretical science this may then become an extrapolated assumption to predict the future. But since the original theory is short of a fact; does not touch all the data, it can fall short of the future and just remain in the haze. It linger or may require new assumptions.

Exactly and it’s the latter that causes me the most problems when explaining why science is not always as exact as some people want it to be (especially politicians - but maybe I should not be opening that can of worms? )

 

[sew.excited73]

Can you spell it out like I'm a bit dim?

I am sure you are not… but rather than me typing it all again you can just click on the blue letters it will take you to the post.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Asked and already answered on

• Monday at 9:37 PM

What time zone (or, preferably, what post number)?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Asked and already answered on

• Monday at 9:37 PM

Just FYI: people participating in the forum live in different timezones. But, from you post:

Anyway, I am sorry to not be able to provide any ‘proof’, but my musings were merely philosophical in nature.

So the answer to the question is that you had none. Thanks.

 

[sew.excited73]

What time zone (or, preferably, what post number)?

Just click on the word Monday and it should take you there… no time zone needed, I think. Let me know if this doesn’t work for you and I will try again for you. (probably tomorrow though, going to sleep now)

 

[sew.excited73]

So the answer to the question is that you had none. Thanks.

Sure, if that makes you happy, then ‘you’ve won’.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just click on the word Monday and it should take you there… no time zone needed, I think. Let me know if this doesn’t work for you and I will try again for you.

I assume you mean the post I previously quoted? When you figure out what that might suggest I'll try to explain it to you.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sigh… no true Scotsman….

No. It is a basic part of science to understand that it makes no claim to be absolutely true.

It's no more a no true Scotsman fallacy that saying that nobody who knows anything about arithmetic would think that 2+2=678.9.

 

[ratiocinator]

Math is similar to applied science, with the goal a tangible simulation of some aspect of reality.

Funniest thing I've read all week!

 

[sew.excited73]

No. It is a basic part of science to understand that it makes no claim to be absolutely true.

It's no more a no true Scotsman fallacy that saying that nobody who knows anything about arithmetic would think that 2+2=678.9.

A) I never claimed to be talking about people who know about science;
b) even if I were, it would still be a true Scotsman fallacy

 

[sew.excited73]

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?

I refer to my previous postings of both:

here

and

Here

(Just click in the blue letters and they should take you to the posts.)

 

[ratiocinator]

A) I never claimed to be talking about people who know about science;

It was implicit in your accusation of the fallacy, since I was talking entirely about people who know about science.

b) even if I were, it would still be a true Scotsman fallacy

False.

 

[Alien826]

Don’t worry it happens. I like you though… you are not afraid to admit when you are wrong/made a mistake. I think that is a valuable trait… which indirectly is the topic on my post, really

Why stick to something you know is false (unless you are deliberately trying to mislead)? Admitting error is simple honesty and when I see see it in others it makes me admire them more, not less. In any case, if the objective of these discussions is to increase our knowledge, rather than winning debate points, that would be the best strategy, and how science works too.

 

[Brickjectivity]

such a belief in 'scientific infallibility'

This is a political position, not so much an academic one. Sometimes it is an academic one; but its typically pushed by communist regimes and sometimes by western ones, too. The main problem is though not in policy nor academy but is in the lack of education of people generally. STEM education is going poorly in many places, and so modern technology appears magical. This leads to magical acceptance or rejection of the science as a magical thing. Just like we have people who, yes, believe in a flat Earth. It begins with ignorance and a disinterest in how things are measured and calculated. That is the strong fountain of this infalibility nonsense.

Why do you believe that there exists a large number of people who believe what science says just blindly?

This is a good point, however I have seen this in people with no interest in studying Science. They just believe in it. Others are skeptical and see it as potentially a conspiracy. Both are the in same boat filling it with water.

While adherents to scientism aren't exactly uncommon, they're not exactly common either

In academia, no. Out in the bluecollar workplace I encounter it and also in movies. A lot of people never take any stem courses. They are taught things such as the theoretical model of an atom and what gravity is, but they don't do calculations. If a friend tells them "Its impossible to send a rocket to the moon" they have no defense -- except to believe. I, on the other hand, know how things are calculated and that its entirely possible to fly a rocket to the moon, but for many people they don't know. May as well show them the Wallace and Gromit show.

on the other end of the spectrum of the science deniers, there seem to be more and more science idolators too. It almost as if their needs to be a balance…

Education has gone downhill is all. No balance is needed. What's needed is better education.

 

[shunyadragon]

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'?

The above are estimates with a lot of ~s and interpretation and conclusions are not easily arrived at using the above.

First I do not consider math in and of itself a science. It is numbers logic system based on number theorems and proofs. We mostly base our math on base 10. It is part of the toolbox for science, technology and everyday use.

Science in and of itself is never a fact, It is an evolving body of knowledge based on objective factual evidence.

I consider the above somewhat misleading and not a good basis for discussion of science.

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

No, academic science does not consider there is any such thing as 'scientific infallibility.'