![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The depth of science is so great that no one brain can even grasp the whole of a single subfield, so we trust our colleagues — at least, we trust them as far as they demonstrate cooperation with the tacit rules of the institution of science, which safeguard to some extent the reliability of a scientific claim. The relevant scientists say the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and they are all willing to show their work, so I'll provisionally accept it until I see a reliable source provide cantrary evidence." *
This. This is what it means to "trust" science. It is not faith, it is not dogmatic, it is not the Argument From Authority.
It means that no one can know everything, so we provisionally take scientists at their word who have demonstrated the ability to comply with the rules of science, which include the Scientific Method, falsifying information, and peer review, among other things - those things that are specifically designed to reduce human fallibility - and we maintain the null hypothesis which, in this case, means we go with that answer until something better comes along.
It does not mean we believe any guy with a lab coat unconditionally, unprovisionally, automatically, faithfully, in the face of contrary evidence, because the Almighty Has Spoken. It doesn't even mean we believe specific guys in lab coats who happen to have Spoken the Truth in the past. It means, if you show your work, and others who have the background to understand it say it's good, I'll agree with it until someone else comes along with a contrary claim that provides enough evidence to justify contradicting a previously-accepted claim.
This is the difference between science and religion. This is the difference between skepticism and denialism. This is the difference between critical thinking and faith.
*(quote from PZ Myers![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
pharyngula )
This. This is what it means to "trust" science. It is not faith, it is not dogmatic, it is not the Argument From Authority.
It means that no one can know everything, so we provisionally take scientists at their word who have demonstrated the ability to comply with the rules of science, which include the Scientific Method, falsifying information, and peer review, among other things - those things that are specifically designed to reduce human fallibility - and we maintain the null hypothesis which, in this case, means we go with that answer until something better comes along.
It does not mean we believe any guy with a lab coat unconditionally, unprovisionally, automatically, faithfully, in the face of contrary evidence, because the Almighty Has Spoken. It doesn't even mean we believe specific guys in lab coats who happen to have Spoken the Truth in the past. It means, if you show your work, and others who have the background to understand it say it's good, I'll agree with it until someone else comes along with a contrary claim that provides enough evidence to justify contradicting a previously-accepted claim.
This is the difference between science and religion. This is the difference between skepticism and denialism. This is the difference between critical thinking and faith.
*(quote from PZ Myers
pharyngula )
Hoping to get involved
Date: 4/13/11 07:13 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)