New from Framing Logic, who quickly became one of my favourite channels.

  • CybranM@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    that certain things exist until proven wrong

    Mind sharing an example of this? Do you mean dark matter/energy?

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yes, like ether was kind of a place holder. It goes in and out of favor. I don’t know that much about dark matter but I grew up right next to fermilab. They were successful in their experiments, but that took a bunch of faith that it would work. Same *with the cern and the hadron collider. Astronomy is probably the biggest area that you have to have faith in, because there aren’t a lot of ways to test it. I suspect that religious people also test their religion in the same way, no matter what they say or do on the outside.

            • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Why are you so angry and judgemental about this. You need to have faith in a theory to explore it, yes? If you didn’t, you would let it go. I’m saying faith and theories are similar, if not the same.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                There is a difference between confidence and expectation and faith. The scientific method has 5 steps.

                1. Question
                2. Research
                3. Hypothesis
                4. Experiment
                5. Conclusion

                Yes, as a general rule, scientists believe a certain outcome will occur. This isn’t faith, though, this is an expectation based on their knowledge and the research they’ve done to design the experiment. They then go on to ignore their beliefs and test it anyway. They do this because they don’t operate on faith, they operate on proof. And if the outcome isn’t something they expect, which has certainly happened, they then try to find out why, design new experiments, and perform further studies until they have confidence that they have a good understanding of what they’re studying.

                If they were operating on faith, they could skip all those steps and just go on what they believe, like with Aristotle believing women had fewer teeth. This leads into other related components of the scientific method: verification and repeatability. A good experiment can be repeated by another scientist and get the same results. And why would they repeat the test? Certainly not due to faith!