Runa216 said:
Kasz216 said:
Runa216 said:
Kasz216 said:
You'd actually be quite surprised. If you've ever been around the scientific journal system or in general study the "evolution" of science... which is better called a "revolution" of science.
Not saying it's as much faith as... well faith...
but faith actually plays a MUCH bigger roll in science then we'd wish.
It's been that way ever since we monetized science. Well, even before then... but the monteization of it has made it even more faith based since it's livelyhood based.
I mean, in reality, when new theories come out, they get popular... mostly because the young scientists entering the field and taking classes become fans of the theory and acknowledge it.
While the older scientists generally stick to their own theories and go out of their way to discredit it, even when it can no longer be discredited.
You'd be surprised what scientists will believe to keep their funding.
|
No, it's not faith to believe in something that can be proven, repeated ad nauseum, and recreated. That's what science is, taking a theory and testing it....and testing it and testing it and testing it to prove it works. They alter every single possible variable to ensure that the result they got was a result of whatever variable it is.
Faith is to believe something regardless of the facts, or lack thereof.
Yes you can believe in science (which makes it sound like it's a religion), but it's not faith. If you have faith in something scientific rather than following the data, then frankly you're doing it wrong. There have been errors in our past science methods, but they've gotten better, the scientific method is near infallible now, and it will only get better with time. Even theories are not faith based, because the whole point of a theory is that it has evidence to support it, but not enough to make it conclusive. again, not faith, fact.
|
I can only imagine you didn't read my actual post... as the point seemed to fly waaaaaay over your head.
|
no, I read it, it was about theories and how new scientists take to them and make them, I was explaining that even theories are supported by facts, therefore it's not fait.
|
Which again... is missing the point.
It isn't that thew new theories are taken to by new scientists.
It's about how the old theories are clinged to by old scientists. Even though the new theories better explain the world.
Outside which, if you want to go the other way though, while every theory is supported by facts... every theory is also discredited by other facts.
Theories, and even laws really aren't perfect. Nothing in science is as of yet.
To believe in said theories we need to have faith that the contrary evidence or things that don't work yet, WILL work under the current framework and that we simply don't understand how that works yet.
Which is how every theory works, when one theory replaces another it's because it explains more then the last theory and does it more simply. Faith in the old system's faults being fixed is removed.
This is a basic thing all scientists should understand. I'd suggest reading "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
