Which science do you not believe in?

Hurr durr, global warming isn’t real it got really cold last night!

Something something I didn’t come from a monkey.

Christian Science
Scientology
Creationism
Intelligent Design

Honestly dude, sometimes I’m so confused by science I can’t believe my TV turns on.

I guess I believe it all, I just don’t understand it very often.

” Which science do you not believe in and why? ”

I do not ” believe in ” any science but I accept the evidence presented for all you have mentioned as, tentatively, correct.

I believe some pseudoscience should be banned from associating itself with scientific fields.

Like homeopathic medicine. Or a homeopathic doctor. shivers

First, @Neodarwinian is correct about the “believe in” vs. accepting the evidence thing. Second, most people here are not going to admit to not accepting an entire branch of science. Rather, you will likely have someone come in soon to say that they accept the evidence for “microevolution” but not “macroevolution” or some crap. Or they’ll likely object to a particular dating method, while still claiming that they accept the vast majority of geology.

@tom_g @Neodarwinian Well done! I was wondering who would pick up on that choice of words.

Science fiction.

love reading it though

Give us a list! My first thought was the same as @YARNLADY‘s list:
Christian Science
Scientology
Creationism
Intelligent Design
But I wouldn’t consider any of those an actual science.

It is rediculous to think that things like inkblots have diagnostic utility. The results can’t be judged by any objective standard and are way too vulnerable to manipulation by the subject or bias from the tester. Thankfully it seems like outside of the moves they aren’t all that common anymore.

That’s funny….@rarebear is the one who taught me “You ‘believe’ in things for which there is no proof. You may choose to ‘accept’ the proof for things for which there is proof.” But that was years ago.

Economic Sciences.

I don’t “believe” in any science. I tentatively accept well-tested theories as useful models of reality.

Single pieces of peer-reviewed research may be persuasive, but not beyond scrutiny, and are often contradicted.

There are particular fields where I take the conclusions with a bigger pinch of salt than I may do otherwise – typically in value-laden fields like economics, or less mature and newer fields where the evidence is more fragmented and the body of knowledge is smaller.

I think the science I’m most dubious about is nutritional science, because there seems to be rather a lot of contradictory conclusions.

I’ve always been a psychology buff, but…more and more I think a lot of pop psychology is bullshit. This recent trend over the years to always be in some perpetual state of personal growth, the bullshit catch phrases that 50 is the new 20 and 90 is the new 50. Fuck this…no, 50 is NOT the “new” 20, it is solidly 50 and don’t pressure me to be running marathons and having wild porn sex when I am 90.
I WANT to sit on the porch and drink lemonade, leave me the fuck alone I am just fine, thank you very much!!! lol

Pseudoscience
Just shut up about yoga already. It’s glorified stretching.

Does homeopathy count?

@Coloma Yeah….a perpetual state of personal growth OR finding a name for what is “wrong” with you. And there is something “wrong” with everyone!

@Seek_Kolinahr Nope, he said “science”.

But homeopathy is considered by some to be a science, like any other medical study. Not by me, but by some. For me, it’s about like astrology, which some pretend is a science.

@Dutchess_III Now we’re back to this question.

Wow, answered the wrong question. Sorry!

@glacial I avoided that one. I didn’t want to get into a rant about postmodernism.

@glacial They’re the same facet. Either something is really true or it isn’t. I mean, a person can believe till the cows come home that the stars can predict and guide their life…but it doesn’t make it true.

@Dutchess_III If something is either true or it isn’t, then homeopathy is either a science or it’s not. People don’t get to decide that it’s a science because they feel like it’s a science.

I agree with that @glacial. Believing something doesn’t make it true.

Scientology.

@Dutchess_III Right? If believing something made it true, there really would be a Santa Clause, Virginia.

THERE’S NO SANTA CLAUS??????????????!!!!!!!!!

Shit!!!! I’m sorry!! I thought you knew!

Sniffles. MOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! KATNISS CALLED ME VIRGINIA!!!!

Squaring time in a formula… Time can not be measured with out affecting space. You can’t get accurate measurements from space time from a formula that is useful to physicians.

@Rarebear . . . careful, your heidegger is showing

I don’t ‘believe’ in any of it because none of it is final. I could have believed in Newton’s laws of motion but they are just a special case of Einstein’s general relativity which itself is incomplete and doesn’t square with quantum theory.

I believe that science is the best method we have of understanding the universe in a particular way but even if we could follow it to its ultimate conclusions I don’t think we would be greatly enlightened by them. I very much believe it is worth doing as part of human endeavour but it is a mistake to expect things of it that it can never deliver.

@Dutchess_III Heh, you’re not a virgin.

Domestic science, that’s what they called cookery lessons at school, I still can’t cook for shit.

@Dutchess_III LMAO!!!!! I ruined Christmas and you’re more upset about being called Virginia!!!!!

And quit trying to get me in trouble!!!!! lol

Any science that closes, rather than opens doors. Any science wrapped around the axle of elitism, prejudice, judgment, limitation, or exclusion of possibility for the sake of propagating an agenda, is cluttering to the human mind,

If the road it provides leads only back into itself and not into new vistas, it is wholly self serving, and falls short of the true meaning of science at the hand of honoring conviction of belief over experimentation.

I think we can all recognize what systems in our culture adhere to a false definition of science in an attempt to cast the glow of validity upon their paradigm.

The irony is, they are the ones that most deny ‘science’ as a pillar that stands alone.

Like all Aries, I don’t believe in Astrology.

@Skylight Can you help me understand what science you are talking about? Can you please give an example?

@filmfann . . . it killed me to give you +5 for that

@filmfann Man, this has always been a pet peeve of mine… if astrology is a real thing, shouldn’t sales of books or scrolls or other paraphernalia about specific signs be consistently poorer than those for others? But no one ever uses those records as proof that it’s real… I wonder why not? ;)

Well, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with those (@Neodarwinian, @tom_g, @Kropotkin) who have issue with the term “believe in”. I don’t consider “believing” to be any less good than “accepting of evidence.” They are exactly the same.

I believe the evidence for darwinian evolution is good. Hence, I believe in darwinian evolution. If tomorrow I find better evidence for something else then I’ll just so happen to believe in that new thing and no longer believe in darwinian evolution.

Maybe this is easier for me to do because I don’t really believe people choose their beliefs freely. I “accept the evidence” that shows all beliefs are the product of exposure to sufficient evidence.

So, I suppose this is all to say that I don’t believe any of the accepted ideas of free will nor their implications on science (or language). You believe what you’re convinced of and you have no say in the matter. I wish people would stop warring against the term “belief”

Astronomy is a science.

Astrology is a religion

@glacial A pet peeve of yours? I’m an astronomer. I can’t tell you how many people come up to me on the street when I have my scope out and say, “I LOVE astrology!”

^ Kill them. It’s justifiable homocide.

@Rarebear I didn’t mean astrology in general, just that specific aspect of it. My feelings about astrology in general are far more intense than just a mild pet peeve.

@ninjacolin . . . So, I suppose this is all to say that I don’t believe any of the accepted ideas of free will nor their implications on science (or language). You believe what you’re convinced of and you have no say in the matter. I wish people would stop warring against the term “belief”.

I am beginning to believe that you may really be a ninja.

As long as that is your truth, @Blondesjon!

@Rarebear And just what proof do you have that I am not a virgin?

I find the whole concept of “believing in science” to be weird. Just sayin’.

If you’re asking if there are any widely accepted scientific theories that I reject in favor of dogma, then no, there aren’t.

@glacial . . . there is no truth. only zool.

@Blondesjon Surely you mean, “There is no data, only zool.”

@Rarebear @Neodarwinian @tom_g @Kropotkin To believe something is to accept it as true. If you would affirm a statement, then you believe it (even if only tentatively). Furthermore, belief is a prerequisite for knowledge (if you know something, then you must also believe it). I don’t know why people have suddenly started getting all hung up about the word “believe,” but this is straightforward dictionary definition (as well as a conceptual truth).

Edit: I see that @ninjacolin has also addressed this above.

@glacial . . . i reckon you win that one by a letter

Well, sure… it’s your truth, @SavoirFaire.

Sorry, I’m just enjoying that a little too much today.

@SavoirFaire – Fair enough regarding “believe”. What are your thoughts on “believe in”, however? Is it the same thing?

M-Theory.
I like M-Theory, and right now it is the only stab at a Grand Unifying Theory humanity has, but it has not been tested, and there is currently no way of testing it.
Therefore it would be inappropriate to believe that it is actually true.

@DominicX Science bless you

There is a fine line between “believing” and “accepting,” that’s true. However, the word “believe” has been used in conjunction with religion for so long that it’s more associated with religion than with science.
During my Born-Again years the chant was often “I BELIEVE Jesus rose from the dead! I BELIEVE Jesus died for my sins!! I BELIEVE!!! I BELIEVE!!!” chanted over and over again.
What was it Peter Pan had to say to save Tinker Bell?

”What was it Peter Pan had to say to save Tinker Bell?”
Bite the pillow, I am going in dry?

@SavoirFaire – It appears that “believe in” is a phrasal verb meaning…

a. to have faith or confidence in the existence of (something)
b. to have trust in the goodness or value of (something)

And you are correct that “believe” means…

a. to accept or regard (something) as true

But remember that @Rarebear‘s question – and all of us that responded were responding to “believe in”.

It seems that there is a difference, right?

@ninjacolin

” don’t consider “believing” to be any less good than “accepting of evidence.” They are exactly the same. ”

No, they are not even close to the same thing. Believe after acceptance ( which implies evaluation of said evidence ), possibly. Believe in smacks of faith, belief without evidence.

” I believe the evidence for darwinian evolution is good. Hence, I believe in darwinian evolution. If tomorrow I find better evidence for something else then I’ll just so happen to believe in that new thing and no longer believe in darwinian evolution. ”

Covered under acceptance of the evidence and tentatively accepted.

The rest of what you posted is semantically philosophical in nature and not really that accepted as consensus science yet. I have been reading the neuroscience on this and it is too early for conclusions here.

Science fiction. But I love it!

@tom_g “Believe in” can be a phrasal verb, but “in” is a preposition with various uses. It would be bad grammar to say “I believe biology,” so we say “I believe in biology.” A more rigorous construction would be something like “I believe that the claims of biology are (largely) true” or “I believe that biology is a trustworthy scientific endeavor,” but “I believe in biology” is a perfectly normal way of expressing this in colloquial English. I try to avoid most “believe in” constructions myself. Still, it’s quite clear what most people mean when they use them. So if @Rarebear was just trying to trap people, he chose an exceedingly uncharitable way of doing so.

^ yea. Maybe it changes from person to person but when I say I believe in something, it means I’ve accepted the evidence for that thing as being greater than any evidence which might oppose it. What else could I possibly mean?

This is the same for religious belief. If someone says they “believe in” God, it means they have accepted whatever evidence they’ve observed for his existence.

Back to the main question though, I just realized there is a theory favored by many which I find myself at odds with:

In that Multiverse theory stuff, which I’m okay with mostly, I don’t like the idea that the universes split at the time of a cross roads in options. I’m much more comfortable with the idea that all possible universes exist at the exact same time in parallel. Maybe the splitting thing was just a metaphor but I’ve never heard it expressed as a metaphor. People usually say a new universe is CREATED with every possible option. Why couldn’t all those options simply have existed at the same time all along?

I’m with @ninjacolin on this. People arrive at what they believe in different ways that have greater or lesser values, but to say you believe in something just indictates that you’ve lived long enough to have formed or accepted ideas about the world. So religious people don’t get to claim believing in science is the same as believing in god and non theists don’t get to be verbal contortionists trying to have an opinion without having a belief.

I have spoken.

And we bow our heads.

Well, only if you feel like it.

And just so you know I won’t execute the first person to stop clapping either.

Damn. It seems that this whole “believe in” thing might just be an attempt to avoid another “just a theory” problem. I feel as though the multiple uses of these words is causing confusion, but it looks like I may be wrong. Did I simply fall into an attempt at reframing an issue by the scientific community here, or is there something to this? Is there a legitimate weak spot in our language when discussing these things as to be incapable of making important distinctions between methods of obtaining knowledge?
I have some thinking to do. But thanks. I am likely wrong here.

Reverend @fundevogel, Kolinahr receives and blesses your Message. Go in peace, my child.

Does anyone believe we can believe anything with absolute certainty? Apart from lunatics, dictators and fundamentalists that is.

Only our own existence.

@tom_g You poke at it long enough you’ll find tricky spots in any vocabulary. My dad and I hit a snag the other day with the word “expect”. I was using it in the predictive sense, as in I believe this condition to be true thus I expect this outcome to follow but we got derailed when it seemed like he thought it was being used to refer to things which one feels entitled to have. Which really made for a confusing tangle when we realized we’d not been using the same definition.

As for this particular weak spot, remember science, as we recognize it to day, is a pretty new thing while people have a really long history of having beliefs without terribly critical means of evaluating them. It shouldn’t be too surprising that language hasn’t quite caught up with the growing need to distinguish between beliefs arrived at in different manners. Clearly a ton of people don’t realize there’s a difference and the language won’t be there until people can move it along.

If there is to be entirely new terminology I vote for portmanteaus. I love portmanteaus. They’re clever and intuitive.

@Rarebear Yes I can give you an example or two groups, Christian Science & Scientology. The fact they consider that there is science supporting their foundations, is, to say the least, wishful thinking. I guess is comes down to how one defines science. If science is merely seen as a form of methodology, then I suppose Christian Science would not seem like an oxymoron.

However, I have always comprehended science as leading to new vistas, new thought, new expansions upon known themes. One thing I know about Christianity is that such ‘nonsense’ concerning truths ‘written in stone’, and therefore immovable, would never fly.

@Rarebear Some don’t believe in Astrology. I recognize Astrology as a science because I have studied it. Have you? The skeptics are the ones who have never given a single moment of their lives studying it. Is that even a logical foundation for conclusive date? No real knowledge of a thing can sanction a logical conclusion? No knowledge is beneath a mere human being.

Beyond the facade of silly daily horoscopes they associate AS being astrology, which is naive on their part, there is rolled out across the centuries a very weighty realm of mathematics behind it. As well, there is documented accuracy concerning its predictions.

I have found those involved in organized religion are navigated away from anything not addressed by the precepts of their religion. However, I admittedly have no clue as to your beliefs.

There have been many forms of thought combining mathematics and philosophy. Pythagorean thought was dominated by mathematics, and it was profoundly mystical.

The idea there can be only mathematics or intuitional knowledge is perceptually fragmented, The need for exclusivity of one from the other is a curious psychological glitch. One must ask, why? Even scientific protocol is suffused with intuition, speculation, hypothesis, and ‘what ifs’.

There is missing in the skeptic, the comprehensive depth of either to see how they connect.

They go hand in hand when studied to any depth. Those who seek knowledge find it.

It is more courageous to embrace a limitlessness in life than defend perceived limitations. In reality, it is only your own life that is affected by your convictions.

Personally, I could not waste my life being cynical of the possibility of life’s true expanse, and the magic of its content. For this would be a demeaning of myself

Einstein said: “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind, a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift”

@Skylight So tell us about astrology.

@Dutchess_III You are asking me to just ‘tell’ you what it takes a very long time to learn. Astrology is based upon a considerable number of configurations, relationships, knowledge concerning all of the planets and their characteristics, knowledge of the twelve houses, as well as how all previously mentioned are changed in synergy with other planets, and the angles that they form in relation to both houses and other planets. As well, you have to learn the phases of planets, all of the aspects of life and individual expression they each influence and how to read alterations born of their own cyclic movement.

Plus, there are many types of Astrology. There is, for example Hindu Astrology, which delves into the configurations of past lives and how they interact, phase into and reform the configurations of planets, houses, angles relationships, time and space in this lifetime.

There is a ton of information on the internet to get one started, as well as books. It is wise to take classes to truly grasp the expanse of Astrology. The more you delve into it, the more complex it becomes.

Suffice it to say, a person’s ‘Daily Horoscope’. is like plucking one star from the sky and thinking you understand a galaxy. Even at that, the one sun sign they use can be strikingly accurate. Too bad a person really has three signs that are meant to combine to make up the daily horoscope, and those three signs undergo such a transformation in relation to the rest of an individual’s chart, I don’t know why any even bothers to write Daily Horoscopes.

I have an Astrologer friend who used to work with the Police department. You would be astounded by the degree of validity very smart people give to this ‘SCIENCE’.

That only rich privileged people from expensive prestigious universities can contribute to science.

@Skylight
Give us an inkling on the mechanism of astrology.

In other words how do celestial bodies influence people on the earth?

” Einstein said: “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind, a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift” ”

Seems you disrespect the servant and worship the gift. Argument from authority and a bad argument at that. Einstein meant that both these thing were to work in concert. Intuition is not just making things up. That is astrology.

@Skylight

If I was born on Mars on 27 December, 1985 at 5.35pm, would I still be a Capricorn, Cancer Moon, Cancer rising, with all that that suggests?

I don’t remember when I was born. I was told it was on July 24th, tho. And it was real hot in Texas and the hospital’s AC was out.

@Seek_Kolinahr You’re a Capricorn? Now I understand your fascination with BSG. ;)

^_^

Yes, I’m a Caprican who grew up on Gemenon – one of the One True God cult cities.

Actually @skylight before you paint me with such a broad brush I have studied astrology quite extensively in my youth. I believed wholeheartedly in it just as I did in chakras, acupuncture, energy crystals, and the power and mysticism if pyramids. So don’t cast stones in waters you know nothing about.

I ended up rejecting it all once I realized how science really works and when I finally understood Bayesian statistics.

Well. I’m a Leo. As in Leotard. I am. You can find proof in my birthdate, July 24th. And…it’s time for me to go to bed now. I believed whole-heartedly in reincarnation for about 3 months while I was in college. I damn near started a revolution I believed in it so much! But that was just me then.

“Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”

I support everything that follows this principle. Scientology, creationism, intelligent design doesn’t, so we can’t consider it to be science.

The word belief in the context of science can only be applied to competing hypotheses, not well-established theories. A belief in evolution is nonsense, because evolution is a fact.

The word belief can be used to matters beyond science.

@Blondesjon – Science fiction is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes potential future knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Fantasy doesn’t. Harry Potter’s wand doesn’t require testable explanations.

@mattbrowne . . . That is undeniably true but it is still fiction.

@mattbrowne I’ve read plenty of science fiction that was really science fantasy.

like star wars

Star Wars was a space opera.

star wars was evil wizards and knights in a space setting. science fantasy, with emphasis on fantasy.

It was actually Reverse Hamlet with laser guns.

either way, it was crap

Star Trek is science fiction, Star Wars is science fantasy, Firefly is space western, Battlestar Galactica is space opera.

Questions?

@ragingloli . . . You might have everyone else fooled but I know that you are sitting there right now dressed up like RZwei-DZwei and giggling like a schoolgirl.

Dundun, dundun, dundun, dundun, Flash…ah-ha…

Star Trek was sometimes science fantasy. Warp Drive, sunspace radio, transporter, Vulcan neck pinch to name a few examples. But it’s more real than Star Wars for sure.

@Rarebear . . . Star Wars took place a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away. Those are lost technologies they are employing.

we have forgotten the faces of our fathers

We used to do the Vulcan neck pinch—Spock Attack!—on each other as kids. It really hurts like hell!

@blondejon ancient wisdom fallacy :-)

well played

Star Trek was a western in space.

Star Wars is space opera.

Battlestar Galactica is the best kind of Science Fiction: the kind that comments on current society. Twilight Zone did that masterfully.

Twilight Zone was not science fiction.

Well, science fiction comprises both hard and soft science fiction. I was talking about hard science fiction. A good example is the work of Stephen Baxter, a prolific British hard science fiction author who has degrees in mathematics and engineering. An excellent novel is Voyage, for example.

So let me rephrase: Hard science fiction is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes potential future knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Star Trek is pure, unadulterated shite & that’s from a non fanboy of Star Wars or any other space series.

Well, there are scientists who wrote books about Star Trek, but not Star Wars. Kirk’s communicator is a reality today, so are laser weapons like Star Trek’s phasers. None look like lightsabers…

@mattbrowne . . . None look light lightsabers yet . . .

You can also thank Trek for inspiring your tablet computers, 3D printers, and this sensory substitution device. Not to mention automatic doors, transparent aluminum armor, molecular tractor beams (called Optical Tweezers), and Skype.

And the mathematical model for a warp drive by Michel Alcubierre, and the first beginnings of a practical solution to a warp drive currently at work at Nasa.

^ All RIGHT!

Now give me a functioning matter transporter, and we’re all set!

Wait…did the OP say people here have denied cosmetology in the past? Horrors!

@Seek_Kolinahr you left replicators

I do not believe in the science of Vagina Noseology.

@YARNLADY That was covered by recent advances in 3d printing. We don’t have the ability to separate atoms and put them back together as new atoms in different sequences, but 3D printing is a pretty cool step.