
Originally Posted by
Dianeva
The people in this thread who agree with the OP don't have the proper knowledge necessary to understand why the scientific method works. Their ideas surrounding beliefs, logic, truth, facts, science, etc. are distorted. So it won't really work to argue with them as they've never realized the best way to go about understanding something. So I'm going to try to dissect the possibilities a bit and explain some things.
We should try to avoid believing in things that aren't true, because in general our decisions are based on those beliefs. If one of them isn't true, you might try to do something but because you were assuming an incorrect belief, it won't work out how you wanted. A drastic example: Someone believes in unicorns so they dedicate their whole life to hunting them down, and waste their life. In general you want to avoid that kind of thing, so you should strive to know the truth.
You could come up with scenarios in which believing something false doesn't negatively impact your life at all... but doesn't it still bother you? I've never understood people who say it doesn't bother them. For example, if you believe in any sort of afterlife and use that belief to comfort yourself when a loved one dies, isn't that a bit sad, if it really isn't true and the person really is gone in all senses? Wouldn't you rather know? Wouldn't you demand to know? I guess if someone just doesn't naturally care about what's true, then it wouldn't bother them. But since that's one of my primary intuitions, pretty much what drives me at a core level.... those people really do creep me out.
There's also the possibility that you care about the truth but just don't have a grasp on the real world. Perhaps you're a relativist and believe that everyone has their own truths. Or maybe you aren't but you believe everyone's opinion is equally valid, that if we don't know something for sure, then every possibility is equally likely. Well that simply isn't true. Ex: You have a container filled with 1000 blue beads and 50 red beads. You close your eyes and choose one at random. Are you just as likely to be holding a blue bead as a red bead? Of course not. In this case it's obvious. So let's say you're told you have to guess the color of your bead, and if you guess wrong, something really bad will happen. You would guess that you were holding a blue bead, even though you don't know for sure.
This is an analogy for all beliefs that you can hold. What you seem to be saying is that nobody knows what the bead's color is, and people are so closed-minded for assuming it's a blue bead. But really, you're understanding it wrong. I'm sure there are people who just blindly follow science and don't even know why they're doing it, but in general, I for one wouldn't say that we know for sure that you're holding a blue bead. But if you have to make an assumption, you should assume the blue bead because that's what's most likely. Back to science, scientific experiments are all about trying to figure out what these likelihoods are by performing experiments. They aren't saying that their results are definitely true. What they're actually saying is something along the lines of "If the thing we're testing for isn't true, then there would have only been a 5% chance of getting the results we did. So it's probably true."
I don't think there's anything wrong with using intuition for some things. Sometimes we'll sort of 'know' something subconsciously before we realize why we know it. But even these intuitions are also based on reason, on a probability assessment that went on subconsciously. But sometimes intuition is just a feeling you get that really isn't based on anything but random brain firings.
Bookmarks