Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy

[Twiglet]

What is it that distinguishes a scientific idea from speculation about how the world works?
Is it necessary to understand a scientific concept to question it's validity, and if not, why not?
Should the general public trust ideas imparted by scientists, such as those on climate change?
Whose responsibility is it to ensure that science which affects the public is understood by the public?

It's easy to identify topics that raise these kinds of questions in the most serious way.

E.g. Is humanity causing climate change, to what extent, and to what effect?
or Does smoking cause cancer, or is smoking merely correlated with a higher incidence of cancer?

I want to leave those questions open as inspiration for discussing this point:

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion". We've all heard that trotted out, and in scientific arguments open to public consumption, it is often used to provide a platform to pit climate scientists against skeptics. There are, after all, two points of view. But should they be accorded equal weight?

Also, should some distinction be made between an "opinion" and a "reaction"? If someone says they don't "believe in climate change", and is asked why, they might well say they saw something on the news where the climate scientist didn't seem very convincing. But is that really an "opinion" or is it simply a **reaction**?

IIt seems to me that those who perpetually advocate the "right to an opinion" are really advocating their right to react, and usually at the expense of their willingness to reason. Perhaps because reason involves some work on their part, whereas anyone can react and form an opinion (which they have every right to) - on that basis. The right to an opinion, and the advocacy of that right was ionstrumental in promoting genuine democracy and scientific advancement, but in terms of what it is now used to justify, I fear it has become little more than an advocates argument for idiocy.

It speaks to the heart of scientific debate. Scientists test their ideas against nature, and where nature finds those ideas wanting, they must be re evaulatated until they fit or be discarded for their irrelevance. The people involved in that work are not generally selected on the basis of their charisma or ability to communicate to a wider audience, and the very nature of the work they do often pushes it far beyond the realms of easy communication. One only has to look PhD level research paper in chemistry or physics to see just how alien.

If someone says to me they are of the opinion they speak Urdu, but they have never heard the language spoken or written it, should I be defending their right to that opinion or calling them out on their extremely obvious idiocy?

I have noticed in the public arena that the areas which the public feels qualified to dispute most are those with a political agenda attached to them. I await the day I hear a layman arguing that semiconductors don't act as transistors because silicon isn't a metal. I have not found anyone who doesn't believe in computers on the basis of that supposition because it's ridiculous. And yet on the much bigger issue of compromising the future survival of our civilization and preservation of biodiversity, the public seems only too willing to have an opinion, despite, on the whole, knowing no more about climate science than semiconductors.

Thoughts?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You've taken a very philosophical position there.

A thread title from (somewhere else): Science is a sophisticated subjective opinion of experience (Guess which forum?)

[Twiglet]

You've taken a very philosophical position there.

A thread title from (somewhere else): Science is a sophisticated subjective opinion of experience (Guess which forum?)

Well it probably is, however, we seem to inhabit a consensus reality which lends itself to our being able to repeat experiments which produce the same results regardless of any absolute claims to truth and reality, but that isn't really the debate I was hoping to open up here

[FBM]

Science is a philosophy and depends vitally on the rules of logic and, in particular, inference detailed in philosophy. Likewise, science would get nowhere without speculation. I think I see what you're trying to do, Twig, but I think you're going about it the wrong way.

[Twiglet]

Science is a philosophy and depends vitally on the rules of logic and, in particular, inference detailed in philosophy. Likewise, science would get nowhere without speculation. I think I see what you're trying to do, Twig, but I think you're going about it the wrong way.

I'm honestly trying to open the debate up.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Science is a philosophy and depends vitally on the rules of logic and, in particular, inference detailed in philosophy. Likewise, science would get nowhere without speculation. I think I see what you're trying to do, Twig, but I think you're going about it the wrong way.

There are two kinds of philos. Those who think and somebody calls it philosophy, and those who don't think and call themselves philosophers.

[FBM]

Science is a philosophy and depends vitally on the rules of logic and, in particular, inference detailed in philosophy. Likewise, science would get nowhere without speculation. I think I see what you're trying to do, Twig, but I think you're going about it the wrong way.

I'm honestly trying to open the debate up.

OK, I do think that trust and belief in the scientific method(s) are essential to the modern worldview. As long as Hume's problem with induction goes unresolved, it seems this will always be the case. We don't actually know, for example, that the laws of physics apply equally throughout the universe; we just have to assume that in order to make a coherent model. It's a leap of faith. Small, maybe, but a leap nonetheless.

Edit: Come to think of it, it's not a small leap at all. It's huge.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We don't actually know, for example, that the laws of physics apply equally throughout the universe; we just have to assume that in order to make a coherent model. It's a leap of faith. Small, maybe, but a leap nonetheless.

FBM, we DON'T know that the laws work everywhere, and scientists use that idea with caution. It's useful, as you said, to make a model, but good scientists keep in mind that we're observing the universe from a single point.

[Twiglet]

Science is a philosophy and depends vitally on the rules of logic and, in particular, inference detailed in philosophy. Likewise, science would get nowhere without speculation. I think I see what you're trying to do, Twig, but I think you're going about it the wrong way.

I'm honestly trying to open the debate up.

OK, I do think that trust and belief in the scientific method(s) are essential to the modern worldview. As long as Hume's problem with induction goes unresolved, it seems this will always be the case. We don't actually know, for example, that the laws of physics apply equally throughout the universe; we just have to assume that in order to make a coherent model. It's a leap of faith. Small, maybe, but a leap nonetheless.

Edit: Come to think of it, it's not a small leap at all. It's huge.

That's true, but again the test of science is in nature. If a contradiction was found, the science explaining the world would need to develop to explain the change. That's the best we can do. It only takes one experimental contradiction to undermine a theory. Science doesn't claim truth, it only holds itself up repeatability and disproof.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's true, but again the test of science is in nature. If a contradiction was found, the science explaining the world would need to develop to explain the change. That's the best we can do. It only takes one experimental contradiction to undermine a theory. Science doesn't claim truth, it only holds itself up repeatability and disproof.

Contradictory data makes us re-examine our theories. That's the beauty of science, you don't get to ditch a trench and fight off reality.

[FBM]

Science is a philosophy and depends vitally on the rules of logic and, in particular, inference detailed in philosophy. Likewise, science would get nowhere without speculation. I think I see what you're trying to do, Twig, but I think you're going about it the wrong way.

I'm honestly trying to open the debate up.

OK, I do think that trust and belief in the scientific method(s) are essential to the modern worldview. As long as Hume's problem with induction goes unresolved, it seems this will always be the case. We don't actually know, for example, that the laws of physics apply equally throughout the universe; we just have to assume that in order to make a coherent model. It's a leap of faith. Small, maybe, but a leap nonetheless.

Edit: Come to think of it, it's not a small leap at all. It's huge.

That's true, but again the test of science is in nature. If a contradiction was found, the science explaining the world would need to develop to explain the change. That's the best we can do. It only takes one experimental contradiction to undermine a theory. Science doesn't claim truth, it only holds itself up repeatability and disproof.

In my experience, many people point to science as if it encapsulated, or rather, defined, Truth. The position you espouse is the one I defend. Scientific 'truths' are provisional, including beliefs concerning the value of the scientific method(s). It's the best game in town, but that doesn't mean that it's infallible.

[Twiglet]

That's true, but again the test of science is in nature. If a contradiction was found, the science explaining the world would need to develop to explain the change. That's the best we can do. It only takes one experimental contradiction to undermine a theory. Science doesn't claim truth, it only holds itself up repeatability and disproof.

Contradictory data makes us re-examine our theories. That's the beauty of science, you don't get to ditch a trench and fight off reality.

This is speaking to the broader discussion I was hoping to open on probability. We assert the sun will rise tomorrow based on astronomy and some understanding of whether the sun will burn out, but the surprising validations of astronomy came in their ability to predict eclipses, which nobody expected, or the return of comets. Those are kind of "wow" factors from ideas which predict what everyone pretty much suspected in the first place "the sun will rise tomorrow".

Yet we evaluate scientific theory all the time just by living. We have some trust that the people who designed our cars made them safe, and that they are well repaired. We trust that our calculators accurately perform addition, subtraction. We trust that when we turn our computer on it will probably work and so on. Much of our modern lives are fabricated around a latent trust that products wer use, designed on scientific principles, will reliably function.

The times we seem to want to question science most are (I would argue) not to do with it's likely accuracy, but to do with whether we like what it's telling us about what we need to do. The philosophical arguments about the truth of science seem to have a place in the climate debate, much less so when you want someone to fix your fridge or supply your electricity....

[Xamonas Chegwé]

f someone says to me they are of the opinion they speak Urdu, but they have never heard the language spoken or written it, should I be defending their right to that opinion or calling them out on their extremely obvious idiocy?

If you are acting scientifically, you should test their hypothesis and (one assumes) find it wanting. To simply say, "That is impossible - you are an idiot," while undoubtedly true, is unscientific. One conversation with an Urdu speaker would be enough to demonstrate or refute their claim and that would be the scientific method of verification. In a case such as this, where the opinion proffered is so abstruse, you would also be within your rights scientifically to insist that the burden of proof rested with the claimant and to insist that they produce a corroborating, native Urdu speaker before you would take them seriously.

I would say that the following process should be followed when presented with any opinion in debate.

1. Does the opinion agree with your understanding of science? Then accept it.
2. Does the opinion contradict your knowledge of science? Then reject it.
   1. Is it easily refuted? Then explain the faults in the opinion and provide corroboration if required.
   2. Otherwise demand proof. If possible, provide the mechanism by which that proof could be shown. (Obviously, a combination of these two is often required.)
3. Is your understanding of the science behind the opinion insufficient to decide its veracity to your satisfaction? This is the basis of a true scientific debate. There are several options available here. The aim being to arrive at either condition 1 or 2.
   1. Ask the person to explain in more detail/in terms that you can understand.
   2. Research the subject more thoroughly.
   3. Seek advice from those whose capabilities you trust in the relevant field. (Again, a combination of these approaches is often required.)

[Azathoth]

That's true, but again the test of science is in nature. If a contradiction was found, the science explaining the world would need to develop to explain the change. That's the best we can do. It only takes one experimental contradiction to undermine a theory. Science doesn't claim truth, it only holds itself up repeatability and disproof.

Contradictory data makes us re-examine our theories. That's the beauty of science, you don't get to ditch a trench and fight off reality.

The eminence of a scientist is measured by the length of time that he manages to hold up progress in his field.

[hackenslash]

OK, I do think that trust and belief in the scientific method(s) are essential to the modern worldview. As long as Hume's problem with induction goes unresolved, it seems this will always be the case. We don't actually know, for example, that the laws of physics apply equally throughout the universe; we just have to assume that in order to make a coherent model. It's a leap of faith. Small, maybe, but a leap nonetheless.

Edit: Come to think of it, it's not a small leap at all. It's huge.

I don't agree with this. I do agree with its intent, but not its content.

The idea that the laws of physics apply equally throughout the universe (clarification on what is meant by 'universe' in this case is probably in order) is a reasonable assumption for several reasons. Firstly, there would be the problem of what happens in the border regions between areas of the unverse in which the laws of physics applied differently. Unless some barrier can be elucidated that keeps these regions from influencing each other, then these differences would quickly become apparent (dark flow may provide an instance of this actually happening, although the data on this are scant and ill-defined). Secondly, we have observational data covering some 27 Gly and 13.7 billion years in which the laws of physics hold consistently. Finally, we don't actually have any reliable data to suggest that the laws of physics could be any different.

In light of the above, the assumption that they do hold everywhere is the parsimonious one and, as such doesn't actually require any faith. In any event, faith is not applicable given a proper definition of faith, simply because the idea would be discarded in the blink of an eye should any reliable data provide falsification. I realise that this last is a semantic point but, I think, an important one (as are most semantic points, IMO).