Asklemmy

43939 readers

561 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

If there were only three laws, which should they be? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by xw33xx@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yetiftw@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

good luck defining where facts end and beliefs begin. ultimately science is a belief, even if it is evidence-based

[–] AsterixTheGoth@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Science is not a belief, nor is it a fact. It's a set of tools for building knowledge by methodically separating models that work from models that don't. Facts can certainly fall out of scientific work, but it's a mistake to pick up any scientific work and label it "Fact". It's a constant work in progress.

Facts aren't that difficult to define, the real problem is finding universally accepted sources to communicate facts. None of us are going to be able to critically examine every single claim made by every single scientific theory, journalist, blogger, podcast host, ChatGPT instance, preacher, prophet, etc. And did that politician mean to say the words that came out of their mouth, or did they actually misspeak and their real intention was something else?

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 3 points 4 weeks ago

I think the argument here is that you are going to have to draw the line somewhere. Instead of replicating every experiment yourself, you’re just going to have to take someone’s word for it.

You may trust a particular scientist, publication, journal, school book or another source. You may believe that what they say is reliable and… well true? Or maybe you believe it’s close enough, or at least it’s the best info we have at the moment, but who knows if it’s actually true or not. Either way, people choose to believe something about these sources, because you have to draw the line somewhere.

[–] yetiftw@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

facts actually are very difficult to define. imagine telling an alien about the fact that people stop at stop signs, when the alien potentially has never seen a road, car, or stop sign

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Science is not a "belief". It's a "deduction"

One is based on logic. The other is based on ~~gut feeling~~ emotion.

edited: I feel like emotion is a better contrast in my analogy.

[–] yetiftw@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

yeah except that logic relies on base assumptions, which are ultimately chosen based on gut feelings

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Logic does not rely on assumptions. It relies on making deductions about what is probable when faced with the current knowledge.

I see what you are meaning, but it's a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Base Assumptions never come into play.

The hypothesis comes from the existing evidence, not the other way around.

For example, Eratosthenes didn't have an "assumption" that the earth was round and then said, "hmmm...how shall we test this?" Rather, he had heard from someone or other that at noon is a certain city, there was no shadow. While in another city, there was a shadow being cast by objects. He started to logically deduce why that could be. He had his evidence, that in one city to the south, no shadow, and in another city, a shadow of 7 degrees at the same time of day. He knew the distance between the two cities and deduced not only that the earth was round, but it's size as well.

No gut assumptions necessary.

[–] yetiftw@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

yes but translation from evidence to what caused the evidence to exist requires assumptions, like the fact that trig works. I'm not saying assumptions are bad, just that they should be acknowledged