Logic does not rely on assumptions. It relies on making deductions about what is probable when faced with the current knowledge.
I see what you are meaning, but it’s a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Base Assumptions never come into play.
The hypothesis comes from the existing evidence, not the other way around.
For example, Eratosthenes didn’t have an “assumption” that the earth was round and then said, “hmmm…how shall we test this?” Rather, he had heard from someone or other that at noon is a certain city, there was no shadow. While in another city, there was a shadow being cast by objects. He started to logically deduce why that could be. He had his evidence, that in one city to the south, no shadow, and in another city, a shadow of 7 degrees at the same time of day. He knew the distance between the two cities and deduced not only that the earth was round, but it’s size as well.
yes but translation from evidence to what caused the evidence to exist requires assumptions, like the fact that trig works. I’m not saying assumptions are bad, just that they should be acknowledged
Science is not a belief, nor is it a fact. It’s a set of tools for building knowledge by methodically separating models that work from models that don’t. Facts can certainly fall out of scientific work, but it’s a mistake to pick up any scientific work and label it “Fact”. It’s a constant work in progress.
Facts aren’t that difficult to define, the real problem is finding universally accepted sources to communicate facts. None of us are going to be able to critically examine every single claim made by every single scientific theory, journalist, blogger, podcast host, ChatGPT instance, preacher, prophet, etc. And did that politician mean to say the words that came out of their mouth, or did they actually misspeak and their real intention was something else?
I think the argument here is that you are going to have to draw the line somewhere. Instead of replicating every experiment yourself, you’re just going to have to take someone’s word for it.
You may trust a particular scientist, publication, journal, school book or another source. You may believe that what they say is reliable and… well true? Or maybe you believe it’s close enough, or at least it’s the best info we have at the moment, but who knows if it’s actually true or not. Either way, people choose to believe something about these sources, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
facts actually are very difficult to define. imagine telling an alien about the fact that people stop at stop signs, when the alien potentially has never seen a road, car, or stop sign
Faith and belief isn’t the same thing, no? Faith is something you have regardless of evidence.
Anyway, the difference between them are that one is evidence-based on a scientific ground, which should be the only valid evidence, while the other isn’t.
but you can’t! are you personally able to verify the results of every scientific investigation ever performed? think about what’s currently happening in psychology. loads of old foundational studies have been found to be irreproducible. and yet people had faith that they were conducted honestly and appropriately
good luck defining where facts end and beliefs begin. ultimately science is a belief, even if it is evidence-based
Science is not a “belief”. It’s a “deduction”
One is based on logic. The other is based on
gut feelingemotion.edited: I feel like emotion is a better contrast in my analogy.
yeah except that logic relies on base assumptions, which are ultimately chosen based on gut feelings
Logic does not rely on assumptions. It relies on making deductions about what is probable when faced with the current knowledge.
I see what you are meaning, but it’s a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Base Assumptions never come into play.
The hypothesis comes from the existing evidence, not the other way around.
For example, Eratosthenes didn’t have an “assumption” that the earth was round and then said, “hmmm…how shall we test this?” Rather, he had heard from someone or other that at noon is a certain city, there was no shadow. While in another city, there was a shadow being cast by objects. He started to logically deduce why that could be. He had his evidence, that in one city to the south, no shadow, and in another city, a shadow of 7 degrees at the same time of day. He knew the distance between the two cities and deduced not only that the earth was round, but it’s size as well.
No gut assumptions necessary.
yes but translation from evidence to what caused the evidence to exist requires assumptions, like the fact that trig works. I’m not saying assumptions are bad, just that they should be acknowledged
Science is not a belief, nor is it a fact. It’s a set of tools for building knowledge by methodically separating models that work from models that don’t. Facts can certainly fall out of scientific work, but it’s a mistake to pick up any scientific work and label it “Fact”. It’s a constant work in progress.
Facts aren’t that difficult to define, the real problem is finding universally accepted sources to communicate facts. None of us are going to be able to critically examine every single claim made by every single scientific theory, journalist, blogger, podcast host, ChatGPT instance, preacher, prophet, etc. And did that politician mean to say the words that came out of their mouth, or did they actually misspeak and their real intention was something else?
I think the argument here is that you are going to have to draw the line somewhere. Instead of replicating every experiment yourself, you’re just going to have to take someone’s word for it.
You may trust a particular scientist, publication, journal, school book or another source. You may believe that what they say is reliable and… well true? Or maybe you believe it’s close enough, or at least it’s the best info we have at the moment, but who knows if it’s actually true or not. Either way, people choose to believe something about these sources, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
facts actually are very difficult to define. imagine telling an alien about the fact that people stop at stop signs, when the alien potentially has never seen a road, car, or stop sign
Which makes it a fact? Facts can change too
can you elaborate? I’m not sure what your point is
The difference is that one belief is evidence-based, and hence a fact, while the other isn’t
but to people with faith, their faith is evidence-based
Faith and belief isn’t the same thing, no? Faith is something you have regardless of evidence.
Anyway, the difference between them are that one is evidence-based on a scientific ground, which should be the only valid evidence, while the other isn’t.
yes but you still have to have faith in the ability of another person to do science and not falsify evidence
That’s why science is peer reviewed and a different matter. You can also potentially fact check it yourself. But this is digressing from the point
but you can’t! are you personally able to verify the results of every scientific investigation ever performed? think about what’s currently happening in psychology. loads of old foundational studies have been found to be irreproducible. and yet people had faith that they were conducted honestly and appropriately