Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(35,293 posts)
19. Yup.
Sat Feb 7, 2015, 04:22 PM
Feb 2015

Even without the narrow interpretation of "believe" as something taken on faith with no evidence. "Believe" can also just mean "have confidence in" with evidence to back it up. Silly word games in an effort to so narrow the argument that the conclusion has to be predetermined, rather than argued on the basis of evidence.

That's how the human mind works. It's not consistent. Doesn't need to be consistent. Most of those who have confidence in the assertions of global warming haven't looked at the tree ring evidence, calibration evidence from weather stations in the 1930s or 1970s, the distribution of weather stations over time or either the carbon dioxide concentrations in ice cap ice cores or calcium carbonate isotopes in coral cores. They haven't studied dendrology, they couldn't derive the equations for absolute radioisotope dating, nor prove that the math used to derive the equations was valid. Their "evidence" is all clearly hearsay, depending on having trust and confidence in those presenting the evidence, their ability to draw conclusions, and the independence of those conclusions from conflicts of interest.

(In other words, please note that when push comes to shove, unless you've actually collected the data yourself there 's an element of unsubstantiated trust and confidence that has to come into play. It's not all abstract reasoning, and those data aren't divinely revealed and therefore infallible.

One accepts what mostly readily fits with what one already accepts as true. Sometimes one accepts what is convenient, to avoid discomfort. One often accepts claims based not on the claims but on the attributes of the person making a claim--letters after the name, party affiliation, who else supports that person's claims. Often all of that depends on familiarity with the data and what "critical thinking" means in that particular discipline (since it seems to vary, with very good critical thinkers in one discipline having no clue how to think critically in another).

People believe what they want. TexasProgresive Feb 2015 #1
I can "believe in" medical science, yet not in every. single. element. of it. "Science" is always WinkyDink Feb 2015 #2
If "belief" is a part of science for you, you're doing it wrong. WestCoastLib Feb 2015 #3
How do you explain people who think climate change is real onecaliberal Feb 2015 #4
I suspect that it's more often the other way around Fumesucker Feb 2015 #14
There are no scientific studies that say vaccines cause autism. Marr Feb 2015 #16
They are using science (poorly) to support their beliefs... WestCoastLib Feb 2015 #20
"Science" isn't what people believe in, or not tkmorris Feb 2015 #21
A science based on a single scientific method is most certainly a belief HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #22
Thanks, I was trying to think of how to say that. (nt) enough Feb 2015 #9
I just don't understand those folks. I also don't think they are liberal if they don't believe onecaliberal Feb 2015 #10
You correct, but the word "believe" is often used... Adrahil Feb 2015 #25
Yes, thanks for explaining that better than I ever could. onecaliberal Feb 2015 #35
depends Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #5
I'm not talking about religion. Just purely science. onecaliberal Feb 2015 #6
there are two things that go by the name of science Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #18
Very well stated. n/t Crunchy Frog Feb 2015 #39
It's possible, but it's not very logical, if one subscribes to the Scientific Method KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #7
Exactly. Not logical. No critical thought. onecaliberal Feb 2015 #8
You can believe in science as a process while also knowing that part of the process pnwmom Feb 2015 #11
Excellent post. I would go further and say all science should be subject to KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #17
There's a small shitload (and I do mean shitload) of scientists who are creationists. hunter Feb 2015 #12
Science isn't about 'belief'. Marr Feb 2015 #13
Define "believe in medical science" mzmolly Feb 2015 #15
Yes, there's the rub daredtowork Feb 2015 #33
As you note, there are nuances. mzmolly Feb 2015 #41
Yup. Igel Feb 2015 #19
Very good explanation. Thank you! onecaliberal Feb 2015 #23
Excellent post salib Feb 2015 #29
I think most eveyone does this to some degree. Kaleva Feb 2015 #24
Anti vaxxers confuse for profit RX companies who might very well lie and harm for profit NoJusticeNoPeace Feb 2015 #26
Absolutely. Especially if one is familiar with one topic and not another. arcane1 Feb 2015 #27
Science is a method to produce theories, you can support 1 theory but not another based on evidence on point Feb 2015 #28
Right. E.G whereas testing the hypothesis that a rise in reported autism cases was related to MMR Yo_Mama Feb 2015 #36
That's a misunderstanding of "theory" Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #40
Vaccines are technology and not science per se exboyfil Feb 2015 #30
I think people tend to engage in confirmation bias. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #31
yes roguevalley Feb 2015 #32
Science doesn't have much to do with belief, does it? Yo_Mama Feb 2015 #34
You can agree with the idea of scientific methodology in its pure form but luke102938 Feb 2015 #37
Some science is done well, and some is done badly. Crunchy Frog Feb 2015 #38
If you are a complete dumbass - anything is possible jpak Feb 2015 #42
I don't think science is something to "believe." LWolf Feb 2015 #43
Of course. There are millions of examples of people doing just that. JHB Feb 2015 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Do you think it is possib...»Reply #19