By Whereas non-scientific (and potentially dangerous) thinking starts with a premise and then looks for things that support it, scientific thinking constantly tries to disprove itself. That alone makes all the difference in the world.
—Derren Brown, Tricks of the Mind, p. 266
If we start with a premise and only look for things that support it, we will find something, and we will be confirmed in our belief. But science — at least good science — looks not only for things that support it, but for things that disprove it. That is why studies and tests are done, instead of citing an ancient “authority” and/or appealing to emotions.
If everyone tried to disprove their own beliefs, we would be much closer to the truth.
Entropist: These idiots are wrong on so many different levels, its hard to... 
Just a Guy: Me an my wife have negotiated infidelity. Meaning she can be with other guys as long as she doesn’t hide... 
Gwenny: Absolutely not! The world has plenty of people having kids. A child consumes HUGE amounts of resources, which from both a... 
Siberia: Or maybe they know they have neither patience nor inclination to deal with the fruit of their loins and thus, rather than be... 
DDM: Repubs and Dems. He’s saying they only take first impressions and... 
CM: Good point, most religions encourage having a lot of children. From an evolutionary standpoint you sort of owe it to your... 
Jasowah: “They don’t go beyond those emotions, and that’s the... 
26 Comments
If everyone tried to disprove their own beliefs, we would be much closer to the truth.
Yes, and if it were done honestly, not one smart person would remain a Christian after a couple of days.
True but many scientists don’t really do this either I hate to say. It the ideal that they hold themselves to a la Karl Popper. But even in his own writings about this he admits that people will often fail to true listen to all valid criticisms of a theory and then reject that theory. It’s the major point that the works of Lakatos that he tried to resolve this problem within the execution of science under Popperian philosophy.
It’s the major point that the works of Lakatos that he tried to resolve this problem within the execution of science under Popperian philosophy.
He certainly tried. I tend to think that he failed as far as most of the activities we would deign to call science though. Unfortunately, I would argue that Feyerabend was closer to being right (science is a pragmatic instrumental occupation where whatever works dominates, with whatever works being at best defined in a weak intersubjective fashion) and Lakatos’ notion was/is true only of narrow bands of the wider field. Hence the continuing demarcation problem that Popper himself pointed out.
That mostly happens with pharmaceuticals, because people are dying and often even demanding the experimental drug.
But space travel, math, and physics are also sciences where the margin of error is minimal, and scientists often compete, thus doing all possible to prove another’s theories wrong. (Scientists compete for journal publication, awards, and grants.)
But space travel, math, and physics are also sciences where the margin of error is minimal, and scientists often compete, thus doing all possible to prove another’s theories wrong.
Space travel is engineering more than science, which is a domain where what works always matters more than what’s true.
Math is arguably not a science at all (for many reasons).
I’ll give you physics, unless you’re talking about the part of physics that dips haphazardly and with abandon into metaphysics (e.g. when it discusses the deep structure of the really small stuff).
That’s the key point though — whatever works or can be shown to work dominates. Science still has a underlying mechanism that allows the ‘truth’ to matter but it’s just not as clean cut as it may often be presented. Scientists are still human after all so can be very guarded of the own positions and even actively falsify evidence. The thing, is it’s still the best method we have developed of working out what’s true and what isn’t. It reminds me of a Churchill quote:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
I stumbled upon this looking for a quote and just thought I’d leave my two cents.
It’s interesting that so many of you claim that any religious person who did the above would cease to believe? I’ve been doing that since I’ve been a Christian and I still believe strongly. I’m maybe a different Christian to what you might expect because I believe a lot of the things that get us painted with a bad brush (e.g. I believe in evolution and the Big Bang) but I still have an active and exciting faith.
Yes, we scientists never prove a hypothesis, we only fail to disprove it. Further, we don’t claim to have the objective reality of a situation described, only a paradigm of it that will shift and grow as new evidence comes to light.
Thing is, most believers are absolutely convinced that they’re not starting with a premise. They believe because that’s where the “evidence” points them and would change their minds if they found evidence to the contrary. Of course, the evidence will never be found, because there is a God, so end of story.
That’s been my experience, anyway.
And yes, you are right! There IS a God! :)
So you keep saying. Anything like evidence popping up yet?
Did you see him? In which case, you need medication.
uh, actually I was being sarcastic.
I got it! John C didn’t. (Either that or it didn’t matter if he did, since no thinking happens, only the playing of the same loop.)
Of course I knew you were being sarcastic, just needed a little tweaking to hear a…Truth!
have you ever tried disproving that truth, John C?
Try and disprove Truth…Himself? Why would I want to do a silly thing like that? Then I would really be delusional, lol.
Yes,God IS and He is Love!
I think I saw Jesus trying to climb out of my cat’s bowl. Wonder what he was doing there. Do you guys think he was trying to steal snowball’s food? Or maybe he fell in by accident (he’s not that young anymore). Also, does this prove the resurrection? Just an observation and some points to ponder….
Sorry about that last post, just trying to fit in with the earnestness and silliness of the christians on this site – just trying to make you all feel welcome…
Try and disprove Truth…Himself? Why would I want to do a silly thing like that?
Because if you tried hard and failed, then that would be more subjective evidence that it was in fact truth. If you never tried, then you have no good reason to think that what you believe could survive scrutiny, pressure, or criticism, and thus is unlikely to be true.
If there is a God, one imagines He didn’t give people brains capable of logical thought just for the lulz.
So you’re saying God gives us enough brains to reject Him? You must think the real “Christian” experience is a head trip, an illogical belief system of sorts?
So you’re saying God gives us enough brains to reject Him?
No, I’m saying that since we have brains of a given sophistication, if there is a God, that God must have been cognizant of that fact when He created us, hence those brains are purposeful, hence “not for the lulz”. If God exists, and God created our brains, and God is not a twisted ass, he intended us to use our brains.
See? logic.
You must think the real “Christian” experience is a head trip, an illogical belief system of sorts?
Not at all. I think that Christianity can be logical (Tillich, Chesterton, Lewis, et al.), or not (Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, et al.). I have no problem calling one expression superior to the other. One embraces the human capacity for reason and the other runs away screaming. If human intellect were truly a gift from God, then one would be honoring the gift and the other scorning it. Of course, the risk of thinking about something is that one might come to an uncomfortable conclusion, even a radical one.
John C’s garage sale: 1 brain lightly used.
I discovered this person saying what I already believe this way, on your very own site!
“Science adjusts its views
based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation
So that belief can be preserved.”
-”Storm” by TIm Minchin
“Storm” has my favorite line ever on alt med too
Alternative medicine has either not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. Do you know what they call medicine that’s been proven to work? … Medicine.
Believers not only stop at the first proof they find and ignore the ones that indicates that they are wrong, they also ignore competely different sources. They only crosscheck their findings with their own little limited number of texts they have.
For example, creationists keep on believing that Earth is only 6000 years old while geology, archeology, astronomy, clearly states that this can not be true.