On 21/07/2020 12:49, AnthonyL wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:27:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/07/2020 12:36, AnthonyL wrote:
AnthonyL

Why do scientists need to BELIEVE in anything?

Very interesting question: the short answer is they don't, except they
need to at least sort of believe the 'evidence of their senses', and the
basic structure they impose on the Universe -
space-time/matter/energy/causality etc are all useful *assumptions*, but
are metaphysical - unprovable - in nature.



When I hear them arguing and disagreeing with eachother the thought
that immediately comes to me is "You are scientists. If there is not
a proof there that satisfies all then shut up and go seek it".

Actually the main problem is that there is no proof of anything
available, and that's why the philosophy of science is so important. It
stops people looking for 'scientific proof' because it *cannot* exist.
Science consist of a suite of hypothetical entities whose existence
predicts some stuff that seems to happen. That doesn't mean that those
entities are the only, or the correct, explanation, or that they have
any reality outside the human mind.


It somewhat reminds me of what I learnt as an engineer "Safety factor
is simply ignorance factor".

Sounds ******** to me. Safety factor is the margin to known problems.
Says nothing about unknown problems, but how could it?


My lawn is looking better for simply allowing it to grow beyond
baldness. Clover is doing well too.

same here, except I am trying to knock out the clover. I've got a
wildflower meadow down the bottom: what I want is a LAWN



--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey