Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA06050 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:31:27 +0100 From: Philip Jonkers <P.A.E.Jonkers@phys.rug.nl> X-Authentication-Warning: rugth1.phys.rug.nl: www-data set sender to jonkers@localhost using -f To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:39:33 +0200 (CEST) References: <20010923215045.AAA23384@email@example.com> In-Reply-To: <20010923215045.AAA23384@firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.5 X-Originating-IP: 18.104.22.168 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> ... beliefs are tenets held _without evidence_.
Within the context of religions and other systems with
a mere metaphysical basis I can understand that believing
requires acceptance in absence of possible evidence.
But what about science?
I think, in science one has two ways to get
to believing something.
Firstly, one may start out having an empirical basis (experiment)
on some physical phenomenon and sets up hypotheses (theory)
reflecting beliefs on the assumed mechanisms governing the
phenomenon at hand. Further testing aims at confirming
one of the hypotheses and may falsify rivaling one(s).
Belief in some hypothesis thus grows with favoring/confirming and
mounting empirical evidence.
Secondly, without experimental evidence (due to technological
deficiency) one may take the liberty to formulate a theory a
priori and then, based on that newly found theory,
may set up tests aiming to confirm the thesis.
This is prior belief in some hypothesis (brought about by the
orinators's self-confidence or prior record of experience
(or negatively: arrogance)). After evidence has been gained
the belief in the theory should be adjusted correspondingly.
Either way, belief is anything but sacred and rather shaky
to the honest scientist and he should be willing to drop
and revise his beliefs if experiment tells him so.
Time and again, history has shown that theories and
their beliefs come and go. Also, scientific beliefs usually
find hard acceptance. Think of the rough ride the exotic
theory of quantum mechanics had in `convincing' physicists
of its inherent truth. Even some of the original creators,
Planck & Einstein, were reluctant to accept its postulates and
spent a good deal of their lives attempting to prove the
incomplete character of its basis!
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 19:44:50 BST