believing in science
weightingforgodot
Posts: 5
I explained to a friend that I believe in following methods that have sceintific studies to back them up.
My friend made a couple of points:
1. In the past, many scientific recommendations end up being wrong (eg 'Low-fat' in the '80s). It is reasonable to assume that at least some current scientific recommendations are wrong, too. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory, after all. Looking back in history, at any given time some of the ideas that were accepted as facts (the earth being flat, for example) have since turned out to be false. It is reasonable to assume that history will look back on the current period in the same way.
2. There are many truths out there which are yet to be discovered by science.
ie I am putting my beliefs in something (namely, 'proven by science') which I know to be both incomplete and inaccurate in parts.
Or to put it another way, I give 'proven by science' an almost god like status. When I make a decision, I consult what 'proven by science' has to say about it and base the actions I take in my life on this. Even though I know that I am following something which is not entirely true.
He then said that I try to convince people that my beliefs are the right way, and that they should follow my beliefs. Also that I consider people who don't follow my beliefs to be wrong.
He added that I enjoy spending time with people who share my beliefs because it gives us a feeling of community and superiority.
I do all this while knowing that my beliefs are not correct. (see points 1 and 2, above).
What do you think ? Is 'proven by science' just another set of beliefs, no different to the many others that are out there ? In fact perhaps its worse because implicit in the belief is the understanding that the beliefs are wrong ???
My friend made a couple of points:
1. In the past, many scientific recommendations end up being wrong (eg 'Low-fat' in the '80s). It is reasonable to assume that at least some current scientific recommendations are wrong, too. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory, after all. Looking back in history, at any given time some of the ideas that were accepted as facts (the earth being flat, for example) have since turned out to be false. It is reasonable to assume that history will look back on the current period in the same way.
2. There are many truths out there which are yet to be discovered by science.
ie I am putting my beliefs in something (namely, 'proven by science') which I know to be both incomplete and inaccurate in parts.
Or to put it another way, I give 'proven by science' an almost god like status. When I make a decision, I consult what 'proven by science' has to say about it and base the actions I take in my life on this. Even though I know that I am following something which is not entirely true.
He then said that I try to convince people that my beliefs are the right way, and that they should follow my beliefs. Also that I consider people who don't follow my beliefs to be wrong.
He added that I enjoy spending time with people who share my beliefs because it gives us a feeling of community and superiority.
I do all this while knowing that my beliefs are not correct. (see points 1 and 2, above).
What do you think ? Is 'proven by science' just another set of beliefs, no different to the many others that are out there ? In fact perhaps its worse because implicit in the belief is the understanding that the beliefs are wrong ???
0
Replies
-
Science is not a belief - it is a method of inquiry. You can't base your assumptions on one off study here or there. Real scientific inquiry involves meta-analysis and comparative studies.
Unlike a religion that will say "this is the word of God" even though it was actually written by men - and by men I mean people with penises exclusively. Scientists actually challenge each others findings so we can get a more accurate picture of our world, our reality and how it works instead of relying on blind faith to tell us what is what.
This is why science changes and religion remains stagnant.-1 -
Science is not a belief - it is a method of inquiry. You can't base your assumptions on one off study here or there. Real scientific inquiry involves meta-analysis and comparative studies.
Agreed. Science is a process, not a belief.
But following that which is 'proven by science' is following a set of 'facts' taken to be true (whilst knowing that they might not be) ie its a belief.
The fact that it is changing (as you pointed out) gives it less credibility as something to follow.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
Science is just a constructed way of trying to make sense of what nature does. Sometimes we find out science doesn't have it right. The difference between science and religion is that science will welcome those corrections and change accordingly, because it's a method of understanding what the truth really is. When it comes to religion, people tend to dig their heels in when faced with conflicting evidence.0
-
Is there an alternative method for understanding the universe that you think might be superior? Tea leaves? Wisdom of the Astrals?
That science continually continually undergoes one of its greatest strengths. That said, science is never "wrong" -- our understanding is simply not adequate to the task at that moment in time. New technologies, new ideas give us insights we could not have had previously. Old theories are discarded or revised. Again, that's not because science is wrong, but because people are limited and imperfect. (Ducks cannot understand calculus.) Science as method provides us the capacity to make progress toward truth, even if there are countless mistakes along the way.
0 -
Velum_cado wrote: »The difference between science and religion is that science will welcome those corrections and change accordingly, because it's a method of understanding what the truth really is. When it comes to religion, people tend to dig their heels in when faced with conflicting evidence.
So science is a religion that is willing to adapt to the times ?
0 -
Is there an alternative method for understanding the universe that you think might be superior? Tea leaves? Wisdom of the Astrals?
good point. none that I know of.
(though I will look into the Astrals...)
but I am not questioning science.
I'm questioning using 'proven by science' as a set of beliefs on which to make decisions in life. when 'proven by science' can be wrong.
[Well, actually, I just want a winning argument that I can use against my friend.]
0 -
-
Gravity is a theory. Theories are built on observations and general principles of science. Unlike before in the "olden" times, we have at our dispersal much more advantage with tools of measurement to explain why science supports evidence instead of anecdotes being accepted as mere truth now. And science didn't make up the food pyramid back in the 80's. It was a committee not based on science.weightingforgodot wrote: »I explained to a friend that I believe in following methods that have sceintific studies to back them up.
My friend made a couple of points:
1. In the past, many scientific recommendations end up being wrong (eg 'Low-fat' in the '80s). It is reasonable to assume that at least some current scientific recommendations are wrong, too. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory, after all. Looking back in history, at any given time some of the ideas that were accepted as facts (the earth being flat, for example) have since turned out to be false. It is reasonable to assume that history will look back on the current period in the same way.
Beliefs are usually based on exposure. Raise someone believing in religion, they believe it exists. And vice versa. As of now, there's no way to prove either is correct.2. There are many truths out there which are yet to be discovered by science.
ie I am putting my beliefs in something (namely, 'proven by science') which I know to be both incomplete and inaccurate in parts.
Or to put it another way, I give 'proven by science' an almost god like status. When I make a decision, I consult what 'proven by science' has to say about it and base the actions I take in my life on this. Even though I know that I am following something which is not entirely true.
He then said that I try to convince people that my beliefs are the right way, and that they should follow my beliefs. Also that I consider people who don't follow my beliefs to be wrong.
He added that I enjoy spending time with people who share my beliefs because it gives us a feeling of community and superiority.
I do all this while knowing that my beliefs are not correct. (see points 1 and 2, above).
What do you think ? Is 'proven by science' just another set of beliefs, no different to the many others that are out there ? In fact perhaps its worse because implicit in the belief is the understanding that the beliefs are wrong ???
Trying to convince people who's belief systems may have to do a 180, is a hard thing to do in many cases. There are lots of people who directly rely on scale weight as their success/failure measurement, yet science will show that weight fluctuation is normal and that weight loss isn't linear.
Speaking from experience and "growing up" in the fitness industry, I was indoctrinated into the broscience world and completely believed all of it...till I started taking biology and physiology in college (in my later 20's). Lot of what broscience wasn't adding up and at that point I was learning more about how science and peer reviewed studies actually worked.
Haven't looked back since. Have I still made some errors? Yep, some on here too and had to eat crow cause science told me a different story.
So I'll stick to science.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Everyone has a belief on a subject, study, etc. There beliefs are usually going to be based on what knowledge they actually have on the subject. And some will have it completely wrong.weightingforgodot wrote: »Science is not a belief - it is a method of inquiry. You can't base your assumptions on one off study here or there. Real scientific inquiry involves meta-analysis and comparative studies.
Agreed. Science is a process, not a belief.
But following that which is 'proven by science' is following a set of 'facts' taken to be true (whilst knowing that they might not be) ie its a belief.
The fact that it is changing (as you pointed out) gives it less credibility as something to follow.
You still hear on here people asking for ab exercises to lose fat off there midsections.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
+1Is there an alternative method for understanding the universe that you think might be superior? Tea leaves? Wisdom of the Astrals?
That science continually continually undergoes one of its greatest strengths. That said, science is never "wrong" -- our understanding is simply not adequate to the task at that moment in time. New technologies, new ideas give us insights we could not have had previously. Old theories are discarded or revised. Again, that's not because science is wrong, but because people are limited and imperfect. (Ducks cannot understand calculus.) Science as method provides us the capacity to make progress toward truth, even if there are countless mistakes along the way.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Religion relies on faith. Science relies on facts. Big difference.weightingforgodot wrote: »Velum_cado wrote: »The difference between science and religion is that science will welcome those corrections and change accordingly, because it's a method of understanding what the truth really is. When it comes to religion, people tend to dig their heels in when faced with conflicting evidence.
So science is a religion that is willing to adapt to the times ?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Argument with him on this is moot. He's gonna believe what he wants. Even if you win, they'll be no changing of the mindset.weightingforgodot wrote: »Is there an alternative method for understanding the universe that you think might be superior? Tea leaves? Wisdom of the Astrals?
good point. none that I know of.
(though I will look into the Astrals...)
but I am not questioning science.
I'm questioning using 'proven by science' as a set of beliefs on which to make decisions in life. when 'proven by science' can be wrong.
[Well, actually, I just want a winning argument that I can use against my friend.]
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
-
It is only science that can tell me how my body works within the world around me.
It is only faith that will ever give me a reason why it matters.0 -
weightingforgodot wrote: »
Scientific theories are models that best fit all available evidence. Although nuances within the theory may change, enhancing our understanding of the subject, it is absurdly improbably that such new information would completely invalidate a theory (in the scientific sense of the word). E.g., gaining new information of how gravity works at a quantum level is quite unlikely to disprove our basic understanding that bodies of mass attract each other in predictable ways.
Scientific knowledge isn't factual...it's observable, testable, and repeatable. More importantly, the discovery process is not just aware that the findings may be wrong, it actively seeks to prove them so. What other way would you want to live your life than that which requires constant introspection and course correction?0 -
Um, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is known (and proven) scientific fact. "Theory" has a different meaning in the scientific context:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
Gravitational theory
Cellular theory
Evolutionary theory (yes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
0 -
Wow now that's a statement and actually a bad example for the point you're trying to make. There's still a good argument that the science was right but the interpretation by many has been lets say mis interpreted. It's not as black and white as low fat was wrong high fat is now right. As with all science there are schools of thought. In your opening post you've actually made the mistake that most people do assuming that science is proven or not proven. Science as with most things is about learning and investigation new ideas and discoveries don't dis prove things they just add to the overall body of knowledge.weightingforgodot wrote: »1. In the past, many scientific recommendations end up being wrong (eg 'Low-fat' in the '80s).
I'm actually assuming your a ghost account and spoiling for an argument but not brve enough to use your primary account. That is a theory also ;-)
0 -
General Relativity is the best theory of gravity we have today but it doesn't fit ALL of reality. At Planck's length both quantum mechanics and general relativity break down. We don't have a theory which we can use to do calculations at Planck's length.
Just like when Newton unified celestial motion and terrestrial motion, we need a unified theory of quantum gravity. So, you see Einstein's "Theory" is proven but it's insufficient and it will eventually be replaced.
0 -
General Relativity is the best theory of gravity we have today but it doesn't fit ALL of reality. At Planck's length both quantum mechanics and general relativity break down. We don't have a theory which we can use to do calculations at Planck's length.
Just like when Newton unified celestial motion and terrestrial motion, we need a unified theory of quantum gravity. So, you see Einstein's "Theory" is proven but it's insufficient and it will eventually be replaced.
The beauty of the scientific process, though, is that we know it is insufficient and needs to be refined or replaced. That's the best thing I can ever say about Science: it never settles for our current level of understanding. Whether it be cosmology or the human body, we never say, "Ah, *kitten* it. That's good enough."0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »weightingforgodot wrote: »
Scientific theories are models that best fit all available evidence. Although nuances within the theory may change, enhancing our understanding of the subject, it is absurdly improbably that such new information would completely invalidate a theory (in the scientific sense of the word). E.g., gaining new information of how gravity works at a quantum level is quite unlikely to disprove our basic understanding that bodies of mass attract each other in predictable ways.
Scientific knowledge isn't factual...it's observable, testable, and repeatable. More importantly, the discovery process is not just aware that the findings may be wrong, it actively seeks to prove them so. What other way would you want to live your life than that which requires constant introspection and course correction?
+1
0 -
mikeshockley wrote: »Um, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is known (and proven) scientific fact. "Theory" has a different meaning in the scientific context:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
Gravitational theory
Cellular theory
Evolutionary theory (yes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
They're considered 'theories' since they are just describing models that fit what we can observe today. As we progress, our ability to observe will improve and may necessitate changes to today's 'theories'.
Since they are subject to change as our understanding deepens, theories are indeed, NOT facts.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tincanonastring wrote: »General Relativity is the best theory of gravity we have today but it doesn't fit ALL of reality. At Planck's length both quantum mechanics and general relativity break down. We don't have a theory which we can use to do calculations at Planck's length.
Just like when Newton unified celestial motion and terrestrial motion, we need a unified theory of quantum gravity. So, you see Einstein's "Theory" is proven but it's insufficient and it will eventually be replaced.
The beauty of the scientific process, though, is that we know it is insufficient and needs to be refined or replaced. That's the best thing I can ever say about Science: it never settles for our current level of understanding. Whether it be cosmology or the human body, we never say, "Ah, *kitten* it. That's good enough."
THIS
0 -
Science isn't an agenda, it is, in its simplest form, the logical conclusion/consensus reached on the best information available. Science is never wrong/illogical in the moment, but past determinations revised based on new information. It can be counter-intuitive, but never illogical.0
-
The factor I like best about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. There is no vested interest in the individual.0
-
I believe in science. There is truth in science. But I also believe that scientists can be wrong and have been wrong in the past. Just because a scientist says its true doesn't mean it is (the brightest scientific minds once thought the world was flat).
The fallible scientist argument, while persuasive, doesn't invalidate the process. That's why peer-review exists. As for the bolded part, it's been over two thousand years since the brightest scientific minds thought the world was flat. There are better examples you can use if you want to make that argument.0 -
I believe in science. There is truth in science. But I also believe that scientists can be wrong and have been wrong in the past. Just because a scientist says its true doesn't mean it is (the brightest scientific minds once thought the world was flat).The factor I like best about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. There is no vested interest in the individual.
This is what I also meant to point out. When we make determinations based on scientific inquiry, our beliefs don't matter. We know the universe is expanding because, among other things, we can calculate red shift. It doesn't matter if you think the galaxies are fixed; the science is still true. I don't care what your beliefs about the universe are; if they conflict with the data, it is the belief that must change.0 -
Anyone else come in here just because OP said science?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions