Trusting Science: Progress vs Probability

[Gary Childress]

Physics has gotten utterly incomprehensible to some of us (including me). If there are "experts" in physics, then they surely know a great deal more than I do about nature and reality and things of that sort. But if I make a choice according to what experts say and they are wrong, then will I be making a bad choice? It's a risk that comes with trusting "authorities" on any subject or any field of knowledge and inquiry. However, the alternative is to go off one's own seemingly ignorant beliefs and do what one thinks for him or herself to be best. That doesn't seem entirely promising either.

Of course, those that have been deemed as "experts" on matters in the past have often been shown to have been misguided or mistaken by subsequent "experts". So my question is: do we laymen trust our current "experts" and heed their advice or do we not? As a layman it seems like an impossible quandary. We, laymen, are doubtless sometimes caught up in power struggles among experts for resources and influence (at least that's the way it has clearly been in the past). Are we to assume that that is not happening now?

I've heard of something called Bayesian logic. I've never studied it but I've heard it deals (perhaps in part) with 'probability' and how to draw logical conclusions in the present from past outcomes.

Are there instances of where scientists have been right about something all along or in the past but misguided later? And if the sciences (or leadership) have always been 'wrong' up until now, according to Bayesian logic ought we to place our bets that they aren't wrong now?

[Agent Smith]

"Physics is cute."

"What makes you say that?"

"It's so babyish, it's ... it's ... like a 2 year old getting up from bed, grinning from ear to ear."

"Physics is many things but definitely not childish. Only a few get to study it and from them but a handful understand it and only one or two, tops, really understand it!"

"That's there, but why does physics make Doyle and me of course, think of children?"

"Come again?! Does physics make Doyle see images of kids?"

"Yes, he told me that yesterday. Well, I only overheard him ... he was on his way out for a walk, muttering "physics, Alice, physics, Alice, ...". You know he had a niece, Alice, died in that boating accident in Holana, poor girl, she was only 15."

"Why didn't you tell me this earlier??!! We have to go, NOW!!"

"Where?! Why?! What's going on!?"

"We need to leave, that's all I know!!"

"Doyle?!"

"Pick him up, he comes with us!"

[alan1000]

For heaven's sake, Gary, all you need to do is to read a little more on the history of science. You'll find plenty of useful material in your local charity bookshop.

[alan1000]

ps Please disregard the replies of Agent Smith. I don't know what he's on, it's obviously some seriously good shit, but his philosophical guidance is (shall we say?) a little questionable...

[Flannel Jesus]

Physics has gotten utterly incomprehensible to some of us (including me). If there are "experts" in physics, then they surely know a great deal more than I do about nature and reality and things of that sort. But if I make a choice according to what experts say and they are wrong, then will I be making a bad choice?

What sorts of choices are you talking about? What choice might Gary make because of what physicists think?

[Gary Childress]

Physics has gotten utterly incomprehensible to some of us (including me). If there are "experts" in physics, then they surely know a great deal more than I do about nature and reality and things of that sort. But if I make a choice according to what experts say and they are wrong, then will I be making a bad choice?

What sorts of choices are you talking about? What choice might Gary make because of what physicists think?

Choices between believing in "heaven" and "hell" versus believing there is such a thing as oblivion after death, choices between believing there is a benevolent God, a malicious God, a more neutral (doesn't care one way or the other) God, a dynamic God who changes his mind and mood, or no God at all, and if there is a God, choices between which book about God or who's version of God is the "correct" one.

[Flannel Jesus]

Physics doesn't directly answer that question. By all accounts physics and chemistry and biology etc are all completely on the fence in the regard, they neither suggest God exists nor deny it.

Most of those scientists these days are non religious and don't believe in a conscious creator, as far as I know (especially biologists, of all types of scientists), but the science itself doesn't necessitate that. At best, it promotes patterns of thought which seem to somewhat reliably create non believers of religion, but these fields of study don't require that conclusion or even strongly suggest that conclusion, imo.

[Gary Childress]

If science is more open to atheists than theists, then perhaps scientists are doing something wrong. Personally, I think agnosticism is the best place for a scientist. Swing in either direction from that and it risks becoming predudicial. Of course anyone is welcome to be a scientist or practice it, just know what your prejudices are and keep them in heathy check for the sake of others. But I'm just a lunatic. Feel free to disregard everything I say. Such is life.

[Gary Childress]

ps Please disregard the replies of Agent Smith. I don't know what he's on, it's obviously some seriously good shit, but his philosophical guidance is (shall we say?) a little questionable...

That's possibly true. However, it doesn't mean he isn't on a road to improvement as much as anyone else is. How long do you wish to impose a moratorium on Agent Smith? Dare I call it "your" moratorium or is it for the betterment of all or some other ideal that you have chosen as the basis for that judgment?

[Flannel Jesus]

If science is more open to atheists than theists, then perhaps scientists are doing something wrong.

I don't know what this means. What does it mean for science to be more open to atheists than theists?

There's no religious tests to gain entry into a university to study STEM, that I know if. They aren't rejecting students who are "too religious". So I'd be curious about your clarification of what you mean by that.

[Gary Childress]

If science is more open to atheists than theists, then perhaps scientists are doing something wrong.

I don't know what this means. What does it mean for science to be more open to atheists than theists?

There's no religious tests to gain entry into a university to study STEM, that I know if. They aren't rejecting students who are "too religious". So I'd be curious about your clarification of what you mean by that.

Look at the roster of those who practice science. Are there more atheists practicing science than theists? If so, then why is that? Or are scientists required to be agnostic and suspend any disposition they may have?

The reason for my response is below:

Most of those scientists these days are non religious and don't believe in a conscious creator,

Those are your words, not mine. Can you explain them or why you make that assessment?

[Flannel Jesus]

Those words don't imply anything about the openness of the science communities around the world. The statistical fact of the lack of belief among scientists is probably a combination of what kinds of people are interested in science self-selecting, as well as a trend away from religiosity as students go further into study. Neither one of those forces is because of any explicit attempt to weed out religious students or deliberate attempts to change their mind.

Scientists aren't required to believe or not believe any religious or supernatural things in particular, the are plenty of effective scientists who believe all sorts of things

[Gary Childress]

Those words don't imply anything about the openness of the science communities around the world. The statistical fact of the lack of belief among scientists is probably a combination of what kinds of people are interested in science self-selecting, as well as a trend away from religiosity as students go further into study. Neither one of those forces is because of any explicit attempt to weed out religious students or deliberate attempts to change their mind.

Scientists aren't required to believe or not believe any religious or supernatural things in particular, the are plenty of effective scientists who believe all sorts of things

If what you say is true, then it sounds like mostly what we can truly blame for your alleged lack of theists among scientists is that perhaps they choose themselves to opt out of science. I'll give you my interpretation of why that is possibly the case:

Most theists in the West currently adhere to the Abrahamic Bible (God as he allegedly has revealed himself to the Hebrews). The Bible requires them to believe in what is stated in the Bible or else go to "hell". Unfortunately, there are many things that the Bible states which form a prejudice toward strict adherence to its tenets. One is therefore left with the choice of either adhering to the tenets of the Bible and going to heaven or else vacating Christianity if the tenets of the Bible come into question and risking going to hell. That's a pretty strict decree on the part of God to condemn unbelievers to hell for no other reason than they refuse to believe that Christ is the one and only true God and that all must believe Christ is "God" and follow Christ or else go to hell.

Personally, I'm agnostic. For all I know I came from oblivion and will return to it. But I could certainly be wrong. Such is life.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Flannel Jesus]

Now that that's established, I'm still looking for an example of this:

Physics has gotten utterly incomprehensible to some of us (including me). If there are "experts" in physics, then they surely know a great deal more than I do about nature and reality and things of that sort. But if I make a choice according to what experts say and they are wrong, then will I be making a bad choice?

What sorts of choices are you talking about? What choice might Gary make because of what physicists think?

What sorts of choices?

[Gary Childress]

Now that that's established, I'm still looking for an example of this:

Physics has gotten utterly incomprehensible to some of us (including me). If there are "experts" in physics, then they surely know a great deal more than I do about nature and reality and things of that sort. But if I make a choice according to what experts say and they are wrong, then will I be making a bad choice?

What sorts of choices are you talking about? What choice might Gary make because of what physicists think?

What sorts of choices?

I already told you. If science can't make anything clear to me regarding the existence or not of God or what happens when or after we die, then I have little interest in science. And I'm not interested in building something that "works" if all the money is going into building things that kill people. And right now, you tell me that the arms industry isn't raking in HUGE profits! Fuck them!