You can only believe in what you know to be true?

Question

What relevance does this statement have to scientific thought, what could be a possible argument against this idea and what other factors can influence scientific belief?

Thank you so much for all your help and i swear after i have finsihed my BMAT i will stop posting annoying questions xXx

Answer 1

This is quite a tricky issue and needs some teasing apart.

The place to start looking at this statement is 'know to be true'. A person might believe they know something to be true simply because they have never questioned it, have been told it by somebody they trust, or read it in a book which is generally taken to be an authoritive source.

None of these are cases where the person knows for themselves the truth of the statements. Probably most people will accept that there is a planet called Neptune, but few people have seen it. Even the ones who have seen the stunning photographs of it are not in a position to check the veracity of the photographs. They believe in the existence of Nepture, but in what sense do they know it to be true?

So it is perhaps more true to say that we believe in what we believe we know.

In principle the whole edifice of science is based on sound observation, clear definition, rigorous logic, rational theorising and hypothesis testing. This is the hallmark by which a scientist knows something to be true, and is thus something that confidence can be placed in. Even then what you have is simply the best current working hypothesis (classic case being Einsteinian physics refining and reinterpreting Newtonian physics). Science is what scientific process verifies, not simply what a scientist says, so what you know to be true is always an ongoing process of refinement.

However, people can become very psychologically attached to theories. If someone has worked their whole life in a particular field, and their entire thinking revolves around a particular world view, they can be very resistant to change. What they 'know to be true' has become a fixed belief rather than a process of discovery. This is another case where what they believe is psychologically inseparable from what they know to be true.

What other factors can influence scientific belief? Well the threat of torture and execution is one e.g. Galileo. Pre-existing prejudices (alias untested assumptions) is another. The structure of language can be another. Language shapes thinking, so if ones language gives preferences to thinking in a certain way, you might have several untested assumptions built into the very way you think (e.g. use of nouns predispose us to think of things rather than processes).

Until the beginning of the 20th century there wasn't a rigorous foundation for arithmetic (although the whole process of making mathematics more logically rigorous had been going on for 100+ years before that). Nonetheless people continued to successfully use arithmetic. People (including scientists) believed in things that they simply accepted to be true, and probably would have been surprised to discover that if you dug hard enough there weren't really firm foundations. In a sense 'they knew it to be true' because it hadn't failed them in use but that isn't rigorous knowledge.

Answer 2

Shot in the dark here:

Acupuncture has a history of 2500 years. Many acupuncturists came to the west and spread their teachings. Acupuncture works for some and doesn't for others.
The World Health Organization has a list of condition that are treatable by acupuncture, acupuncture is, and has been for almost 20 years, used in correctional facilities in the US as part of detox programmes. And very succesfully too.
If there had not been enough scientists that were open to believe in something other than that what they knew to be true at the time acupuncture would not be used a a treatment option where other conventional treatments fail now. And the WHO would not be wasting it's money on trying to make some sense of acupuncture theory.
The relevance of that statement is in that it shows how narrow-minded scientific thought can be. Or at least some of the minds thinking it. Luckily there are plenty out there that can think scientifically and venture outside their boxes without experiencing existential angst. Those are the one that help science move forward. They dare to take on other beliefs.

Also check out this Q&A:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnTL07ELBLa8MYtcU8xRpTlJBgx.?qid=20060627080338AAMAVV3

Answer 3

In science (vs religion?) beliefs must be tentative. Scientists model reality from careful observations subject to peer review and duplication of experiments in independent labs, building knowledge on an existing base of data and facts, etc. One can model an atom as being similar to a sun orbited by planets (for the nucleus and electrons). That may work for chemical reactions including valence due to incomplete shells or excess electrons. However, more advanced models are needed for quantum mechanics where electrons have spins. Scientists must always be open to better models that help explain what is observed. We may believe that Newton's laws work absolutely for the motion of an automobile but not for a particle near the speed of light. In fact we may believe that relativity works for the auto, but has little practical use. Perhaps scientific belief is not a snapshot but rather a motion picture that can end for an individual but never for a scientific community.

Answer 4

Believing is what you do when you don't know. I used to believe in Santa. I used to believe politicians. There are people who believe space aliens control world leaders. Belief is a substitute for understanding. Fill in the blanks with anything you like, that's belief.

People can believe whatever they like. But understanding is different. Understanding is based on first hand observation. Just because an "authority" says something is so doesn't make it so. You can find an authority to express almost any belief as though it were understanding. Understanding can't be second hand.

Misunderstanding can also be first hand. True understanding is always a work-in-progress. Belief is often displayed by people with closed minds.

Knowing what's true is not easy. It cannot co-exist in the same mind as belief.

Answer 5

Belief is surely based on experience.

For example, if I drop this wine glass on the floor it will break. There is a very faint chance it will not break, but mostly we know it will break. So I know it to be true . . . mostly.

In a scientific sense belief and theory are the same, as in 'I have a theory that this wine glass will break if I drop on the floor.'

The scientific process is one of posing an idea as a possible belief and then testing until experience shows it is the most likely outcome.

It is never a 'scientific fact' only a theory which gets harder and harder to disprove,

Other factors, such as faith, should not not influence scientific belief, because they are essentially unscientific and lead to all sorts of nasties. . like burning witches. . ?

Answer 6

No - belief and knowledge are two separate concepts. I once believed that I knew for a fact that my ex-husband was an honest, competent, decent and reliable man. I relied on that perceived truth but now I know that my perception was flawed.

People believe in all kinds of things, for all kinds of reasons including countless neuroses and idiosyncracies. People's beliefs can run counter to all conceivable logic. For example, people can steal, lie and cheat, and still maintain a belief that they are honest, decent and trustworthy. Some manage to achieve this by manoeuvring facts in their minds, e.g. they tell themselves they didn't actually steal/swindle/defraud that money from that person; she didn't deserve the money and they did, therefore their actions were perfectly justified. See what I mean?

Answer 7

There are different ways of "knowing", such as experience or inherited belief.
Peer group pressure - it is difficult to believe different to the consensus, especially with new truths.
Publish or perish (the size of the check) your reference material could have been produced by someone paid to prove something.
A well presented misunderstanding can be much more convincing than a poorly presented truth.
There are many levels to science - what is taught as true to 4 year olds can be completely different to that taught to 14 year olds, 18 year olds or 40 year old scientists.

it continues !

Answer 8

ha my tale is humorous, i began dating my boyfriend in Jan 07 and had no thought something approximately his relatives. So 3 months later on my frist holiday to his homestead, i got here upon he replaced into loaded. To tutor to those that think of that ladies in basic terms like prosperous adult males, i havent permit him pay for something. We pay for our very own tickets and a million/2 of each meal. christmas is a w/e and we made a cost decrease. so via fact i admire him and coulndt care much less no count if he replaced into broke as hell or richer than he's now, I could desire to assert there remains love out ther =]

Answer 9

Its a bit of a rhetorical question, to believe in something you must be convinced of its current state (ie. existence/non-existence), regardless of definitive knowledge (or the elusive 'proof'). That in turn means it becomes what is perceived as a 'truth' to the observer.

It's an exercise in subjective speculation i think.

Answer 10

i believe today it will rain but i do not KNOW it to be true, i accept it might not but i still believe it will. I think this question is asked a lot in philosophy and metaphysics. when you believe something in your mind then because the reality you is experience is all through senses and thoughts interpreted in your mind then it is true to you, its all about context. or something like that what am i, a genius?