Theory of Evolution.

[Valka D'Ur]

I would go even further and say that most belief in scientific theories is actually not based on evidence. There usually is good evidence fro them, but for most theories, the access to that evidence is limited to very few people. And most of the time those people only have access to a small part of the evidence and have to believe the rest.

The main difference is that you could in theory collect the necessary evidence that supports scientific theories. In practice, however, you are unlikely to get the opportunity to collect more than a small subset of that.

I don't need to go over the equations for gravity or planetary orbits or Earth's rotation to know that if I fall off my balcony I'll probably end up dead, or that night and day follow each other, as do the seasons.

 

[sophie]

I don't need to go over the equations for gravity or planetary orbits or Earth's rotation to know that if I fall off my balcony I'll probably end up dead, or that night and day follow each other, as do the seasons.

And a Catholic wouldn't need to review the Bible or the Papal nuncios to know that if he dies without being shriven he is going to hell.

 

[uppi]

I don't need to go over the equations for gravity or planetary orbits or Earth's rotation to know that if I fall off my balcony I'll probably end up dead, or that night and day follow each other, as do the seasons.

Of course you have enough personal evidence for the the observation that things tend to fall down. But if you wanted to answer the question why things tend to fall down, you would soon run out of evidence other than "It is in the textbook".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't need to go over the equations for gravity or planetary orbits or Earth's rotation to know that if I fall off my balcony I'll probably end up dead, or that night and day follow each other, as do the seasons.

Of course you don't. You are a believer.

 

[Agent327]

That would be the creationist's conclusion. But then, they are the believers. Oh irony.

 

[Flying Pig]

Of course you have enough personal evidence for the the observation that things tend to fall down. But if you wanted to answer the question why things tend to fall down, you would soon run out of evidence other than "It is in the textbook".

Well, I can come up with a theory (that the Earth is a large object, and large objects attract smaller objects in proportion to their mass), and find a way that people have tested it (that when they went and stood on the moon, which is a smaller object, they were less attracted to it than we are to the Earth when standing on it), and good reasons to trust the testing of that theory (that if we hadn't been to the moon, someone would have put together a credible case by now explaining how it was all faked). That does, at some level, hinge on 'I read this somewhere', but it's not exactly an article of faith.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That would be the creationist's conclusion. But then, they are the believers. Oh irony.

What would be "the creationist's conclusion," pray tell?

Valka says she doesn't need to study physics to know that certain physical outcomes of events are probable. That is perfectly true, she doesn't. She could say that the sun has "risen" every day of her life so far so it seems absolutely likely that it will tomorrow. This is sufficient to give her predictive abilities of future events in that regard that match up with the most rigorous student of physics.

A hundred people can provide a hundred "why that is happening" stories.

If she chooses one, doesn't study it, but accepts it as the story, that is belief. Whether you, me, or Einstein have studied that story in minute detail is irrelevant. Whether a "scientific community" has "authenticated" it or not is irrelevant. To accept it as "truth" without study is still belief. To accept it based on the word of that scientific community is to give the gift of credibility, and is still belief.

 

[Agent327]

How does this even remotely relate to your previous post?

Oh irony, pray tell.

 

[warpus]

If she chooses one, doesn't study it, but accepts it as the story, that is belief.

It's a bit of a belief in the system and that it works, not in the particular theory she's looking up.

So yes, I believe that the scientific method works well enough. I've seen it in action! I've read explanations as to how and why it works. So I believe that it works. I've got plenty of evidence suggesting that my belief is a solid one.

If I really want to look up how the Theory of Evolution works and how scientists formulated it, how they reasoned their way through the evidence, etc., then I can, in theory, assuming I have access to the right publications or whatever. I could sit down and go through the material. There's a ton of it, but it's there. It's all written out. The only belief needed is that it's been peer reviewed to hell and back and that there isn't a global science conspiracy in existence.

Contrast this with the religious form of belief. You not only believe that the system works, but you also believe that religious dogma is fact. You aren't able to look up documented step-by-step logic as to how the Church arrived at their conclusions, these things are presented to you as they are. You accept them, or not. Those with enough religious belief, do.

Summary of what I wrote: These are completely different types of belief.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Summary of what I wrote: These are completely different types of belief.

Fair enough.

Note that when I said "you are a believer" I did not specify as to type.

 

[Agent327]

Oh, don't get semantic now. Calling people who trust in science not dogma believers is the typical creationist's response. (In fact, they even resort to calling evolution a religion.)

The difference between the one type of 'believer' and the believer, is that the one has some trust in his fellow man (but has him checked to be on the safe side), while the other has virtually none and therefore believes in some invisible Higher Power.

Hence, irony.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, don't get semantic now. Calling people who trust in science not dogma believers is the typical creationist's response. (In fact, they even resort to calling evolution a religion.)

The difference between the one type of 'believer' and the believer, is that the one has some trust in his fellow man (but has him checked to be on the safe side), while the other has virtually none and therefore believes in some invisible Higher Power.

Hence, irony.

Why not? Semantics is exact. When dealing with science believers being exact is necessary. It frequently goads them into making wild assumptions, which they prefer to think of as theories. In fact they even resort to calling anyone who they find disagreeable a creationist.

Hence, entertainment.

 

[Agent327]

In some cases semantics are very useful. In this case it's just clouding the issue.
As your post eloquently illustrates. So thanks for that.

Perhaps you should try reading what's actually written. Nobody called anybody a creationist. If I were called Berzerker I'd yell Strawman! right now. But then, I'm not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I said that science believers resort to calling anyone who they find disagreeable a creationist. You seem to think I was referring to you calling me a creationist.

Your advice about reading what is actually written is wise. Perhaps you should follow it instead of giving it.

I'll throw in some advice of my own here. If you want to be snotty, go straight out with it.

 

[Agent327]

Ah, you see, here we have a case were semantics do matter.

What, pray tell, are science believers?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah, you see, here we have a case were semantics do matter.

What, pray tell, are science believers?

Already did. Further evidence that you should heed your wise advice.

 

[Aea]

You're being really pedantic Tim. Not saying you're wrong but perhaps the word 'belief' is too blunt to be used both ways here.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're being really pedantic Tim. Not saying you're wrong but perhaps the word 'belief' is too blunt to be used both ways here.

Maybe so. I just don't have anything else to call it. If someone spouts "scientific facts" that they have put absolutely nothing into proving, what else can you call it except belief? They hear it somewhere and take it on faith, that's belief. If it turns out to be "right" that doesn't make them a scientist, just a lucky believer.

 

[Agent327]

Maybe so. I just don't have anything else to call it. If someone spouts "scientific facts" that they have put absolutely nothing into proving, what else can you call it except belief? They hear it somewhere and take it on faith, that's belief.

As you yourself already mention, that's not belief, but faith. You see, semantics sometimes really do matter. If you believe something, that's not necessary belief, as the two are not synonymous.

If it turns out to be "right" that doesn't make them a scientist, just a lucky believer.

Considering the huge (and still mounting) evidence for evolution, I'd say neither luck or belief have anything to do with it.

In short, there's'no such thing as a 'scientific belief' - let alone religion. It would greatly help if you would not use creationist's 'arguments' - especially if you're not one.

 

[Aea]

Can't really stand the source but here's a good analysis on the different uses of the word faith: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html