Why the word Believe can be used regarding science

[cali]

This thought springs from the evolution thread wherein an argument arose about using the word believe in a scientific context. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, it can so be used.

"To have a firm conviction about someting; to accept as fact."

O.E.D. also supports this usage.

Science and belief are not incompatible.

Having said that, I sure the heck wish I'd framed my initial post in another way.

[cavanaghjam]

1. I must disagree with Merriam.

For there to be belief there must be doubt. If one has no doubt one does not "believe", one "knows".

[cali]

4. Sheesh--

You said: "For there to be belief there must be doubt. If one has no doubt one does not "believe", one "knows".

OK, you don't trust Merriam Webster. How about the O.E.D?

"Accept the truth or reality of a proposition. Hold as true, be of
the opinion that, think that it is, was, etc. Give credence to.
Hold as true the existence of. "

Not fond of the O.E.D.? How about my Great Grandmother's Practical Standard Dictionary? Definition for Belief:

"Probable knowledge; intellectual conviction; acceptance of
something as true.

From the same source: Believe

"To accept as true on testimony or authority; be convinced of
as the result of study or reasoning."

If you're going to make a statement such as the one I quoted, at least back it up.

[cavanaghjam]

15. How does one back up

a truth that is self-evident? Believing does not equate to knowing. Probable knowledge is not knowledge, in fact it necessitates doubt; small doubt perhaps, but doubt nonetheless. I stand by my original statement, but upon further consideration I do not disagree with Merriam's. My problem with that definition had to do with the phrase "accept as fact". It sounded a bit too certain, but I now see that I was mistaken.

[BOSSHOG]

2. I believe that semantics may be used to

justify using "beliefs" relative to science. No apologies to lurkers who can't figure out what I just posted.

[Bat Boy]

3. It's a matter of the amount of proof required by the "believer"

Properly applied, scientific method requires a bit more proof than religious faith.


"Belief" may be applied to both, sure.

"Faith", blind or not, only applies to one.

[cali]

5. Precisely.

Faith and belief are not interchangeable.

[RubyDuby in GA]

6. From ZooTV

beLIEve

'nuff said.

[indigobusiness]

7. That's how Literalism rears its ugly head.

Lawdy, that's Fundamentalism.

[cali]

8. Care to explain what you mean? n/t

[indigobusiness]

9. Using words literally to suit a particular agenda or point,

rather than striving to understand the overarching meaning.

Fundamentalist *ahem* logic.

[cali]

10. That, my friend, is just plain illogical.

Using words with precision is hardly a fundamentalist trait. It is, in truth, a rather good habit. Your accusation that I was using a word to grind an axe is simply untrue. I was pointing out that the word can indeed be used-and often is- within a scientific context. Correct usage does not necessarily denote "a particular agenda". But seeing as you think I have one, do let me know what it is.

[indigobusiness]

11. That, my friend, is a definition.

I didn't make it up.

[cali]

13. Care to answer my question?

What is my agenda? In what way am I guilty of literalism? Does pointing out common usage of a word automatically make one guilty of literalism?

[indigobusiness]

14. No accusation was made.

I merely pointed out that rationalizing a point of view is not critical thinking.

[MsAnthropy]

12. Why would you want to?

They're two separate concepts and you're just muddingly the water.