Scientists as "believers".

[Stumpy]

Edge on-line magazine has asked 100 scientists "What do you believe to be true that you cannot prove?". A number of those scientists are well known as skeptics yet have still chosen to answer.
Am I wrong in thinking that this is somewhat of a betrayal of scientific principles? The majority of answers given concern ideas within each respondents specialist field. Surely the answers given betray a partiality which should be avoided in science, and is something we frequently and justifiability accuse woo-woos of?

How can a scientist justify holding a belief without proof? Where is the concept of "doubt until proven", which surely should be the basis proper science?

 

[DaveW]

How is not holding any beliefs the basis of proper science? Isn't that what a hypothesis is - a belief (that will later then be tested so it can be proven or disproven)?

 

[Stumpy]

How is not holding any beliefs the basis of proper science? Isn't that what a hypothesis is - a belief (that will later then be tested so it can be proven or disproven)?

I disagree, surely a hypothesis is just a proposal to explain an observation? If that proposal is held as a belief it is a recipe for experimenter bias.

 

[DaveW]

I disagree, surely a hypothesis is just a proposal to explain an observation? If that proposal is held as a belief it is a recipe for experimenter bias.

Sure, but since you don't have hard evidence to prove that it is correct (until you test), wouldn't that qualify as a belief?

 

[drkitten]

I disagree, surely a hypothesis is just a proposal to explain an observation? If that proposal is held as a belief it is a recipe for experimenter bias.

... which is why experimental protocols are set up to minimize the role that experimenter bias can play. For example, the classical "double-blind" medical experiment, where neither the doctor nor the patient know whether the patient has gotten actual medicine or not.

Almost every hypothesis is believed to be true by its proposers; it's hard work running experiments and there are too many false hypotheses out there to waste time and effort doing things that you expect will not pan out. However, most scientists recognize the difference between their personal beliefs and what can be "proven."

There's also a lot of grey space in evaluating evidence; I might believe something to be true (tentatively) on the basis of less than entirely convincing evidence.... but because I believe it, I think it's worth my time/trouble to look for more convincing evidence. E.g., I'm a birdwatcher, and a friend tells me they saw a family of ravens in a park north of here. Ravens are rare birds, often mistaken from crows, but my friend is pretty sharp. Can I prove there are ravens in that park? No. Do I believe that there are ravens in that park? Possibly, depending on how sharp my friend is. If I want to find ravens, is that park a good spot to start looking? Definitely.

 

[Stumpy]

.

Sure, but since you don't have hard evidence to prove that it is correct (until you test), wouldn't that qualify as a belief?

I'm not so sure, I think the difference is subtle but crucial from a scientific point of view. The majority of dictionary definitions refer to a "confidence" or "acceptance" of an idea, I'm sure this would reflect the commonly understood meaning as well.

I think that generally, it's okay to hold beliefs, but to hold them in science (without the requisite standard of proof...in which case they are no longer a mere belief) undermines the whole edifice

 

[Stumpy]

There's also a lot of grey space in evaluating evidence; I might believe something to be true (tentatively) on the basis of less than entirely convincing evidence.... but because I believe it, I think it's worth my time/trouble to look for more convincing evidence. E.g., I'm a birdwatcher, and a friend tells me they saw a family of ravens in a park north of here. Ravens are rare birds, often mistaken from crows, but my friend is pretty sharp. Can I prove there are ravens in that park? No. Do I believe that there are ravens in that park? Possibly, depending on how sharp my friend is. If I want to find ravens, is that park a good spot to start looking? Definitely.

I don't see that this approach is wrong for a non-scientist. However, I think that the correct approach of a scientist would be to ignore any notions of the reliability of the person making the claim and simply investigate it with an open mind.

Let's approach this from a different direction. Say if one of those 100 hundred scientists had answered "I believe that the afterlife exists and that certain people are able to contact surviving conciousnesses in that afterlife". Wouldn't we be crying "foul", particularly if that scientist was actively involved in "survival" experiments? Wouldn't we, as skeptics, being using that statement as a means of casting doubt on any "positive" results that the scientist achieved? I'm sure we would, because it undermines the principle of approaching any scientific investigation with open-minded scepticism.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Science is a tool, but scientists are human, and humans have beliefs. Now, it doesnt matter if a scientist have strong bias toward something, because, in the end, the "hard facts" crash any previous belief (if it doesnt support or attempt to explain the new facts).

IF the right questions are asked.

 

[geni]

How can a scientist justify holding a belief without proof? Where is the concept of "doubt until proven", which surely should be the basis proper science?

Have you ever used a credit card on the internet? If so you belive along with most people that no one is going to figure out how to factorise large numbers quickly any time soon.

 

[wollery]

I haven't read all of the entries in the list, but all of the ones I have read are hypotheses based on extant evidence. Not a single one is a blind belief. Which just goes to show, something or other, I'm certain.

 

[Stumpy]

Now, it doesnt matter if a scientist have strong bias toward something, because, in the end, the "hard facts" crash any previous belief (if it doesnt support or attempt to explain the new facts).

To the general public, the "hard facts" generally mean very little. We can see all the time how bad science of the Schwartz variety (driven by his obvious pre-existing belief and bias) merely perpetuates irrational belief within the public domain. The quickest glance at the woo-woo web-sites, which use the bad science of Schwartz et al to legitimize their belief, tends to suggest that strong scientific bias does indeed matter. Similarly the overwhelming scientific bias towards the social theory of health has lead us down a medicinal dead end which has wasted huge amounts of public money.

Have you ever used a credit card on the internet? If so you belive along with most people that no one is going to figure out how to factorise large numbers quickly any time soon.

I'm not sure that such considerations enter my mind when using my credit card on-line. Nevertheless, as a non-scientist not engaged in trying to establish objective scientific truth, I suggest that I there is a much lesser requirement on me to try and eliminate bias and belief in my work.

I can accept that scientists as humans can have any belief that they want, but scientists as scientists should be bound by the accepted scientific convention. As scientists giving science based views in a science based article, as they were in the "Edge" piece, I feel that the scientists have inexplicably abandoned scientific principles.

 

[Armi Shanks]

I wonder if 'belief' is too strong a word. When hypotheses are formed, surely there is an 'inkling' rather than a belief behind it at least, otherwise the hypotheses wouldn't be formed in the first place.

Of course, in an ideal world the approach would be entirely balanced, but I'm not sure that that's achievable - if there's no 'inkling' in one direction or another, are scientists merely sitting around pulling their lower lips, unsure of which direction to take with regards to research?

Or is that too simplistic a view?

 

[drkitten]

I don't see that this approach is wrong for a non-scientist. However, I think that the correct approach of a scientist would be to ignore any notions of the reliability of the person making the claim and simply investigate it with an open mind.

In practice, this approach is much less efficient. Basically, you'll be spending lots of time looking for ravens on football fields instead of in the parks.

Let's approach this from a different direction. Say if one of those 100 hundred scientists had answered "I believe that the afterlife exists and that certain people are able to contact surviving conciousnesses in that afterlife". Wouldn't we be crying "foul", particularly if that scientist was actively involved in "survival" experiments?

Well, I can't speak to what you would do, but I wouldn't necessarily be crying "foul." The scenario I constructed above assumes that the scientist has some evidence, evidence that does not however rise to the level of "proof," or even of "convincing." I would object only if I thought, first, if I thought I had a legitimate stake in how the scientist spent the money/time (for example, if it were a government grant or something), and second, if the scientist didn't even have enough evidence to support the very idea of the research. In the case of research into the afterlife, the question isn't "has it been proven," but "has there ever been an anomolous effect demonstrated" -- it's not a question of evidence that doesn't support belief, but a question of a complete and total lack of evidence.

To put it another way, I don't think there's any practicing scientist who doesn't belief his/her current working hypothesis. Life (and funding) is simply too short to chase things you don't think are going to turn out to be true. The way to judge a scientific report is not by the belief (or lack) of the writer, but by the quality of evidence amassed and presented.

Wouldn't we, as skeptics, being using that statement as a means of casting doubt on any "positive" results that the scientist achieved? I'm sure we would, because it undermines the principle of approaching any scientific investigation with open-minded scepticism.

Absolutely not; open-minded skepticism demands an evaluation of the evidence. The biggest fool in the world can say that the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out. Skepticism is not an excuse for using ad hominem and well-poisoning arguments to replace rational analysis.

 

[geni]

I'm not sure that such considerations enter my mind when using my credit card on-line. Nevertheless, as a non-scientist not engaged in trying to establish objective scientific truth, I suggest that I there is a much lesser requirement on me to try and eliminate bias and belief in my work.

Why? The same rules about logic and belife apply to everyone.

 

[Stumpy]

To put it another way, I don't think there's any practicing scientist who doesn't belief his/her current working hypothesis.

Which may explain the astonishing amount of Junk Science being published these days.

In the case of research into the afterlife, the question isn't "has it been proven," but "has there ever been an anomolous effect demonstrated" -- it's not a question of evidence that doesn't support belief, but a question of a complete and total lack of evidence.

Agreed. However, what about the numerous examples that scientific fraud and junk science in more mainstream areas of science. Aren't these things driven by an "a priori" belief in a particular hypothosis. Things like the EPA's meta-analysis that concluded that environmental tobacco smoke causes cancer. This conclusion was only reached after deliberately ignoring studies that gave results contrary to the "desired" result and then manipulting the numbers. There are thousands of examples, aren't such dubious scientific endeavours driven by a pre-existing belief in the hypothesis that is being tested?

Are we saying that a pre-existing belief cannot affect the results of science? Every mindless health scare that appears virtually every day, backed up with scientific epidemiolgical study is driven by such prejudicial thinking, IMHO.

In practice, this approach is much less efficient. Basically, you'll be spending lots of time looking for ravens on football fields instead of in the parks.

Which isn't a problem if the ravens are actually based in the football fields. You will be wasting as much time looking in parks if there are no ravens there but you believe that there is.

 

[Stumpy]

Why? The same rules about logic and belife apply to everyone.

Isn't that an oxymoron? What are the rules of "belief" and how do they relate to logic?

Also is the church minister bound by the same rules of logic and belief, as the scientist, in his work ? Is the artist bound by the same rules when painting an abstract piece of art for sale?

Scientists should be striving towards the truth, isn't there an almost inexhaustable supply of examples of how bias and "a priori" belief have got in the way of that?

 

[geni]

Isn't that an oxymoron? What are the rules of "belief" and how do they relate to logic?

Also is the church minister bound by the same rules of logic and belief, as the scientist, in his work ? Is the artist bound by the same rules when painting an abstract piece of art for sale?

Scientists should be striving towards the truth, isn't there an almost inexhaustable supply of examples of how bias and "a priori" belief have got in the way of that?

There is a difference between of and about.

 

[Kumar]

Scientists as "believers"--only on DNA test, others believers--just believe.

 

[wollery]

Which may explain the astonishing amount of Junk Science being published these days.

Agreed. However, what about the numerous examples that scientific fraud and junk science in more mainstream areas of science. Aren't these things driven by an "a priori" belief in a particular hypothosis. Things like the EPA's meta-analysis that concluded that environmental tobacco smoke causes cancer. This conclusion was only reached after deliberately ignoring studies that gave results contrary to the "desired" result and then manipulting the numbers. There are thousands of examples, aren't such dubious scientific endeavours driven by a pre-existing belief in the hypothesis that is being tested?

Are we saying that a pre-existing belief cannot affect the results of science? Every mindless health scare that appears virtually every day, backed up with scientific epidemiolgical study is driven by such prejudicial thinking, IMHO.

Which isn't a problem if the ravens are actually based in the football fields. You will be wasting as much time looking in parks if there are no ravens there but you believe that there is.

It doesn't matter what the a priori beliefs are, a hypothesis is a hypothesis is a hypothesis. The problems only occur when the scientist is so invested in their hypothesis that they refuse to trust the results of experimentation or observation.

A good scientist will accept that their hypothesis was wrong and try to work out where to go from that point.

Einstein added the cosmological constant to his equations, largely because he didn't like the idea of an expanding Universe. When Hubble discovered the expansion of the Universe Einstein accepted that he was wrong and the cosmological constant was removed from the equations. Einstein put forward an idea which was perfectly consistent with the available evidence. When new evidence appeared that contradicted his position he didn't fiddle the results or try to fit the new data into his position, he just admitted that he had been wrong.
That's good science.

Fred Hoyle, however, denied the expansion of the Universe until his dying day, decades after everyone else had accepted it as hard fact. Faced with evidence that contradicted his position he just refused to believe it.
That's bad science.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Aren't these things driven by an "a priori" belief in a particular hypothosis. Things like the EPA's meta-analysis that concluded that environmental tobacco smoke causes cancer. This conclusion was only reached after deliberately ignoring studies that gave results contrary to the "desired" result and then manipulting the numbers. There are thousands of examples, aren't such dubious scientific endeavours driven by a pre-existing belief in the hypothesis that is being tested?

IMO, this will happen until a shift in the used paradigm is reached, often after a cascade of data which doesnt "fit" in the old paradigm.

The sad part is that one can only make science from the current (old) paradigm (in any field) and this make things go "slow" in general. Humans are "naturally reluctant" to change.