Why do people doubt things based on limited knowledge?
No actual evidence to suggest against, only limited knowledge.
I could argue the same point in the opposite direction. Why do people accept things as safe with limited scientific knowledge (people who think sciences can explain everything are more coockoo than religious fanatics), and limited long term knowledge and understanding?
Basically there are too many people doubting and believing based on limited knowledge.
The alternative is close examination of all the facts, and understanding and accepting what we don't know. I am so tired of scientists telling me something is "safe" based on their limited knowledge. I'm tired of atheists telling me God doesn't exist because of their limited knowledge.
Riot - I could give you 100 examples (easy) and "evidence" to support what I am saying, but apparently it would be wasted here.
"Limited scientific knowledge...that's kind of confusing. Since nearly every modern scientific theory has overwhelming evidence to support it, which makes accepting it quite logical."
Funny that even the most accepted scientific theories can be and are proved wrong?
"Most accepted scientific theories can be proved wrong"
Very nice twisting of my words and misquoting me.
What I actually said was "even the most accepted scientific theories can be and are proved wrong"
Here is one example.
Well you did misquote me because that quote without the word before it made it appear out of context, which is a sly technique journalists and politicians use.
I agree, I love facts to be proven and I accept them without a doubt. I believe in evolution, I believe in most if not all scientific theories. What bothers me is when a pharmaceutical company and scientists say a drug is safe, when it has only just been created this year. How can anyone know the long term effects on the health, the brain etc?
Also about technologies like radiation, what if, BIG IF there was a certain type of radiation we are not currently aware of, that would make a lot of things radiating **** a lot more dangerous than what we think, based on scientific facts. This is what I am talking about when I talk about things scientist think are "safe".
- Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer
"No actual evidence to suggest against, only limited knowledge."
Regardless of the subject, that is not the case. As it goes, a proof can be supported with logic, reason, and evidence. Evidence must be given scientific review before it can be used. If there is evidence, it is FOR the existence of something.
There can never be evidence for the non-existence of something. Non-possible existence can only be determined by logic and reason. This is how a hypothesis is analyzed. If a new idea is really not logically possible, no one is going to fund any scientific experiments to collect data to analyze and use as evidence. If someone wanted to fund a scientific expedition to find and study "circular triangles", it would be laughed at - because circular triangles cannot exist - based on logic alone.
It all begins with defining what we are talking about. In fact it all revolves around defining what we are talking about.
As for limited knowledge...so what? It's not like all-knowledge is possible anyway. It's the omniscience paradox, and it does not possibly exist. There comes a time when enough specific knowledge is enough. I know my name, and this is also based on limited knowledge.
- Anonymous8 years ago
"People that think science can explain everything are more coockoo than religious fanatics"...false.
Those people think that there is a logical explanation for most things and that it can be relayed into a fashion that is understandable to human beings.
Having limited knowledge is not necessarily room for doubt, but rather suspended conclusion. Until more knowledge is gained. Don't think that's an issue with "atheists."
Limited scientific knowledge...that's kind of confusing. Since nearly every modern scientific theory has overwhelming evidence to support it, which makes accepting it quite logical.
I think you have it all wrong. People doubt because of lack of evidence, and people believe DUE to limited knowledge. You're making assumptions that fall apart when you dissect them.
Edit: Another empty assumption if you're going to give evidence then give it, and don't make assumptions about my personality based on short paragraphs. I practically exist for analyzing information in an objective manner. Prove evolution wrong, prove the big bang theory wrong, you can't be serious with that. "Most accepted scientific theories can be proved wrong" and they HAVE been proved wrong? Let's see it.
Yes the particle exceeding the speed of light that's too early to talk about? That has to still be studied, experimented upon, and scrutinized? You'd be guilty of this "limited knowledge" you keep referring to.
Lets directly quote you:
(Funny that even the most accepted scientific theories can be and are proved wrong?
13 minutes ago
"Most accepted scientific theories can be proved wrong")
Virtually exactly what you said minus a few words, no misquoting there.
I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore. Scientific knowledge is anything but limited knowledge being that were no longer in the bronze age, and obviously having absolute knowledge is impossible. Basing decisions and beliefs off of experimentation and observation as opposed to FAITH is a much better decision, agree?
- TroposLv 78 years ago
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If you can't accept that, your position has no convincing power.
If you are making a claim you need to support it with evidence before you can expect people to accept it. Doubt is just the default position regarding all unsubstantiated claims. If you care that your beliefs are true.
Doubt and a critical critique of claims doesn't imply a negation of any possibility that the claim is true. You seem to be under the misconception that absolute certainty must be claimed in the opposite direction in order to reject a claim based on its current lack of evidence.
"Why do people accept things as safe with limited scientific knowledge"
Demonstrated reliability through independent verifying lines of evidence. Resulting in models that have the ability to predict. Through enough demonstration of a models ability to predict, it shows itself to be more and more accurate/reliable. Science isn't about claiming absolute certainly, it's about our understanding of reality becoming less incorrect. Sadly the Abrahamic religions have no such mechanism, they sit in a primitive age and mentality. Yet they base themselves around claiming absolute certainty.
"Funny that even the most accepted scientific theories can be and are proved wrong?"
It's funny that science isn't dogma? Based on a static premise of our ancestors? It's great. You don't seem to understand what science is. If a model of our understanding is corrected by evidence that's the expectation of science. It's growing more and more correct, not rejecting the evidence based on a dogmatic premise.
- Master ChiefLv 78 years ago
The scientific method of proof is
Repeatability of experiments and results.
The religious method of proof is
Sounds good to me
Feels about right
Somebody else told me so and I believe them because they know more about it than I do.
Im scared to be wrong.
There is no scientific or mathematical symbol to represent "and then a miracle happened" in a equation for a good reason.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous8 years ago
What's the alternative? Believe in anything because it can't be proven not to exist?