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

[Twilight Hue]

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.?

Science is exact on its findings. There are no assumptions on its conclusions because established findings are verified and repeatable, even if new information is introduced that affects a prior conclusion that is adjusted but not negated.

 

[Tomef]

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.?

Let's have some proof that you know a single person who believes

'science is 100% fact' and infallible?'​

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

why-do-a-large-number-of-people-seem-to-think-that-science-is-100-fact-and-infallible

In my experience, that is extremely rare. I've never seen anybody who is conversant in science make that claim.

What happens instead, however, is that there are large numbers of people repeating what their anti-science sources are telling them and which they believe uncritically, which are usually creationism apologists at war with the science that contradicts their scriptures.

Then there are those with reading comprehension issues, who transform what they read into what they expected to read. For example, how often do we see an atheist say that he doesn't believe in gods because he has no reason to only to be told that he said that there are no gods. Such a person might ask a question like yours: "Why do large numbers of atheists think they know that there are no gods?"

 

[sew.excited73]

Can I just ask why all the ad hominem?

I just read something… and it triggered some curiosity in me, so… raised the question. (And yes, it was whilst working, and no, I will not share more about my work as, other than what I already posted, it is irrelevant to conversation, because even if I was a gardner I would still be allowed my musings!)

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?!

If you want to discuss the topic at hand I might reply, if your comment interests me, but if there are more fallacies slung my way, I will not engage again.

 

[sew.excited73]

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

Thank you for your respectful reply… (not being sarcastic here, just have to add that, as I was called offensive above for just stating a fact and asking a follow up question!)

Unfortunately, I do not have a full source to share, as this is not based on an already published paper. However, if you Google it, or put it in ChatGTP if that’s easier, you would probably come to pretty much the same percentiles, caveats included of course. So, that part shouldn’t be hard to corroborate.

The “why do so many people still think that anything determined by science is now and will forever be 'a fact'?” …as well as the last question are obviously not from any paper and are purely my own ’assumption’. As such, you are, of course, absolutely allowed to discredit or disagree with that statement in this debate as that is part of my own supposition … That bit is purely based on my personal opinion and just based on experiencing just as much, if not more, zealous behaviour in science (more so outside of work, I hasten to add, but certainly not exclusively) as in religion. (You are, of course also allowed to attack the percentiles for that matter, it’s just ad hominem and some other fallacies I will no longer reply to)

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

 

[sew.excited73]

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.

Good list, I personally think number 8 is my favourite from this list.

 

[sew.excited73]

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.

Thank you for the welcome

I have to admit I was indeed somewhat taken aback by the ‘personal attack’ on something that I intended to be a nice topic for some philosophical debate...

But luckily I have already met more people like you on here too, who are here to actually discuss interesting topics and have more cordially interacted with me (and not just to ‘win an argument’ )

 

[sew.excited73]

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.

I like your positivity. I mostly share it actually. But I have to admit that I have days at which scientific hubris gets to me, … that might be when musings like these pop into my head. (although today was not such a day).

Sure, not everything I think is scientifically proven, but for the same reasons you mention, I don’t need everything to be proven, as some things, such as those you mention, you take on trust/faith.

From my personal experience though… (and I have to emphasise that… even though some people here seem to have trouble with the concept of personal experience and musings being valid topics for discussion, for some reason. …Especially weird to encounter in a space such as this, but I digress…) some people struggle to take anything on trust/faith and need proof/evidence for everything. So, my mind was just wondering whether that makes them ‘scientific zealots’, if you like?

It was merely a funny thought… I had not expected it would be seen as offensive, but then again… maybe that is case in point?

 

[sew.excited73]

Science is exact on its findings. There are no assumptions on its conclusions because established findings are verified and repeatable, even if new information is introduced that affects a prior conclusion that is adjusted but not negated.

Agreed. I have however met many a person who will not even adjust their prior conclusions even in light of new information… that’s my point really. My mind just has trouble comprehending how a person can have such cognitive dissonance even in light of new evidence. It boggles my mind.

 

[HonestJoe]

Agreed. I have however met many a person who will not even adjust their prior conclusions even in light of new information… that’s my point really. My mind just has trouble comprehending how a person can have such cognitive dissonance even in light of new evidence. It boggles my mind.

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".

 

[Quintessence]

While adherents to scientism aren't exactly uncommon, they're not exactly common either and I'm not sure I'd consider them to be a "large number" of anything. And it would be a mistake to conflate inflexible and concrete ideologies with religion (or sciences) in any case.

In psychology, there's a general notion that an individual human's worldview falls somewhere on a spectrum of being inflexible or concrete to being flexible or abstract. Put another way, humans are inclined towards dogmatism or ambiguity; black-and-white thinking or shades-of-grey thinking. You will find humans in any ideology who are dogmatic or ambiguous about it - this isn't unique to the sciences, nor is it unique to religions, or political affiliations, or philosophies, or whatever. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, so it is not particularly surprising to see both present within the human population.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

Nobody with any knowledge of science believes this.

 

[sew.excited73]

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".

Oh yes, science-deniers seem to be even more prevalent these days, that is for sure!
But what you are tasing is exactly my point… 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… or maybe the science-deniers bring out the worst in some people and thus they go ‘all-in’, if you like?

 

[sew.excited73]

Nobody with any knowledge of science believes this.

Those are not the people I am talking about… I am talking about the people who are not scientists or even did science in high school apparently… that group seems to be equally split between science-deniers and ‘blind folllowers’ (and yes this is my personal opinion, not scientific fact. So I cannot prove it with a paper. )

 

[sew.excited73]

While adherents to scientism aren't exactly uncommon, they're not exactly common either and I'm not sure I'd consider them to be a "large number" of anything. And it would be a mistake to conflate inflexible and concrete ideologies with religion (or sciences) in any case.

In psychology, there's a general notion that an individual human's worldview falls somewhere on a spectrum of being inflexible or concrete to being flexible or abstract. Put another way, humans are inclined towards dogmatism or ambiguity; black-and-white thinking or shades-of-grey thinking. You will find humans in any ideology who are dogmatic or ambiguous about it - this isn't unique to the sciences, nor is it unique to religions, or political affiliations, or philosophies, or whatever. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, so it is not particularly surprising to see both present within the human population.

I think I worked out where I went wrong… I used the words ‘large number’ in my title and description, and wasn’t precise enough in what I meant.
I am very sorry about this, and I now realise where I went wrong.
When I said: “a large number” I didn’t mean a large exact number, but I meant a relatively large number… larger than what I expected to see.
It was stupid and very unscientific of me to be so imprecise, especially in a question about science!
My apologies people!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Science is about studying how every thing in the universe works, it is and always will be a work in progress.

We know more now than in any previous age. Advances are being made continuously.
Both the primitive men of the past, and the uneducated today know little if anything about science.
They rely on hand me down beliefs , wishful thinking and fantasy, instead of knowledge gained by experiment, observation, and prior learning by generations of the best brains ever to walk this earth..

 

[HonestJoe]

Oh yes, science-deniers seem to be even more prevalent these days, that is for sure!
But what you are tasing is exactly my point… 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… or maybe the science-deniers bring out the worst in some people and thus they go ‘all-in’, if you like?

You're still missing the key point. The people you're describing exist (though maybe not as widely or definitively as you imagine) but what they are denying or supporting isn't science.

In general, it is about people (individuals or classes of people) and typically determined on whether those people are saying what we want to hear rather than anything to do with their scientific credentials or methods. In so many of the scientific "debates" of the day, people will dismiss out of hand "government scientists" or science presented in the "mainstream media" and yet the same people often support and promote other scientists and their work, up to and including identifying their scientific credentials as a reason.

Very few if anyone denies all science (even if they believe they do) and I'm confident in saying that literally nobody supports any and all science and scientists. Recognition, even celebration, of the opportunities scientific methods have provided us is perfectly justified and not idolatry. Recognition of the limitations and risks in our ability to apply those methods is just as important but they generally aren't limitations of science but limitations of flawed human beings.

Science doesn't kill people, people kill people.

 

[blü 2]

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

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.

.

 

[Arnaud1221]

I think they have the oculus.

 

[sew.excited73]

Science doesn't kill people, people kill people.

I like this, you’re funny!