AnthonyL wrote:
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".

Debating or discussing with each other -- the loaded "arguing" is
rarely the appropriate word -- is quite a good way of finding out
what the differences really are, whether or not one's position
needs adjustment, or what steps might be taken to clarify or
prove the thing one way or another.

I not infrequently disagree with my colleagues, since we not only
have different backgrounds, different expertise, and often different
intuitions; the resulting debate is not only instructive but productive.


#Paul