Exposing PseudoAstronomy

September 28, 2010

Do Scientists Believe?

Filed under: terminology — Stuart Robbins @ 10:47 am
Tags: , , , ,


This is an interesting question, and one really of diction and intent. It’s one that I’ve personally had to catch myself on several times, and I try to be very careful about distinguishing between the two words “believe” and “think.” In our everyday lives, I don’t think most people actually pay attention to it, and the two terms have almost decayed to mean something other than their original intent.

What Does it Mean to “Believe?”

According to the dictionary widget on my Mac, the first definition of “think” is: “accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.” The first two examples are, “The superintendent believe Lancaster’s story,” and “Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead.”

To me, however, I think the second example is the only one that really captures the real, perhaps original, meaning of the word, “believe.” I use the term to indicate when I accept something without any real evidence.

But, the term is often used today to describe when someone wants to placate another person by “softening” their stance. I’ll get to that later.

What Does it Mean to “Think?”

Again going to my trusty easy dictionary, “think” means “have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something,” or “direct one’s mind toward someone or something, use one’s mind to actively form connected ideas.”

In this case, it’s the second half of the second definition that I think captures the real meaning, and the real difference between these two as they should be used in language. If you use the first definition then it is actually nearly the same as the definition of “believe,” where “belief” is even in the definition.

Use of “Belief” when “Think” Should Be Used

I’ve been working on a paper lately about age-dating the last major volcanic events on Mars. In the process of peer review, you have to defend your paper to one or more reviewers because they are the ones you have to convince of your results so it can be accepted in t he journal.

You also have justify your conclusions within the paper for the broader audience who is not going to contact you personally to get clarification. When doing this, the difference between “think” and “believe” will hopefully become more important:

When I write my conclusions, I have them backed up by the data presented in the paper. Should I say, then, that I “believe” them? Or would it be more accurate to say I “trust” them and “think” they are accurate?

But then when a reviewer disagrees with me and points out, for example, that I should cite a paper that I don’t think I should, it sounds nicer if I say, “I don’t believe that would benefit the paper” versus “I don’t think that will benefit the paper.” “Believe” sounds, as I mentioned above, softer and more like.

For another example, I sat in the theater today at Meteor Crater (outside of Flagstaff, AZ, USA). The purpose of the 10-minute show was to talk about the importance of impact events in shaping the solar system and Earth. I had only two major issues with it, but then I heard the line, “Most scientists believe a giant asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs.”

There’s that word “believe” again. It makes it sound as though scientists take this on faith. And maybe if they were raised in a different school, they would believe something else. Should the word “believe” be used in this instance when roughly 98% of scientists who study this subject THINK the impact killed the dinosaurs (as in have examined the evidence and have come to a conclusion based on that evidence)?

Final Thoughts

You may think – or believe – that I am really splitting hairs here, writing about minutia. You may think or believe that the difference doesn’t matter.

However, I think it does. When a reporter states that “scientists believe [something],” it makes it sound as though they sat down in the lotus position, meditated for an hour, and then came to their conclusion via divine providence. In my opinion, using the word “believe” to describe a conclusion reached by examination of evidence is bad thinking.

September 3, 2008

Terminology – Wrong By Association

Filed under: logical fallacy,terminology — Stuart Robbins @ 8:30 pm
Tags: , , , ,

This post is meant to discuss some of the very subtle ways that – often religious people – go about biasing their audience against evidence-based astronomy:  Association Fallacy.  This is a logical fallacy where the purveyor of the information introduces a hasty generalization or red herring about people who argue against them in an effort to make you think that they are wrong simply due to that association.

For example, let’s say that Spock is a Vulcan. Spock is also a vegetarian. The Associaiton Fallacy would then be that Dr. McCoy would assume all vegetarians are Vulcans. In this particular case, and as used below, this is a form of the ad hominem fallacy: A is both B and C, therefore B is C.

Okay, that’s a very contrived example, but it’s a decent illustration of how this fallacy works.  I’ve encountered this from two main groups of people who hold pseudo-astronomic concepts:  Intelligent Design proponents, and Creationists.

Intelligent Design proponents (IDers) claim, “Certain features of the Universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process,” and so an “intelligent designer” had some sort of hand in making, designing, or guiding it.  Whenever IDers try to point out an argument against them, they claim that it comes from a “Darwinist.”  That word implies that someone worships Darwin, or believes everything they say.  Since ID’s audience is generally people who don’t agree with Darwin’s theory of Evolution, then using the term “Darwinist” makes them wrong simply by being termed as such. They also add an “ist” or an “ism” to the end of “Darwin” to make it sound more like a belief system than science (after all, when talking about gravity we don’t say we’re following Newtonism, or that all scientists are Newtonists).

Similarly, Creationists do this to their critics by terming them, “Evolutionists,” or “Secular Scientists.”  There are two associations there, the former is discussed in the previous paragraph.  The latter is an attempt to say that anyone who argues against Creationism is godless.  And since the creationism audience is generally very religious, then making the association that anyone who is against their arguments does not believe in a god, and hence is amoral and not to be trusted.

I point these out because I think it’s humorous to listen to IDers or Creationists make their arguments and then say, “But the DARWINISTS will tell you …” or, “SECULAR SCIENTISTS disagree from what the Bible teaches us …”

I am not a “Darwinist.”  Yes, I think that Evolution is the current scientific theory that best explains the data.  I think there are some problems with it in terms of explaining all the mechanisms, etc., but the theory itself of change over time is as established as the Theory of Gravity, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or Atomic Theory, and no other scientific theory has been proposed that better explains the data and is also falsifiable.  But that means that I understand a scientific concept – NOT that I am a “Darwin-worshiper.”

Which begs the question:  What does this have to do with astronomy?  Absolutely nothing, really.  Evolution deals with how new species arise.  It has nothing to do with whether the Earth is flat, or the Sun less then 6000 years old, or if we went to the moon.  But when people make arguments to propagate their own pseudo-astronomy-of-choice, they often try to associate people who are against them with something their audience believes is “bad.”  Darwin for ID, secularism for creationists, or government apologist for hoaxes.

« Previous Page

Blog at WordPress.com.