I think I'd say I believe "X" because there is evidence that supports it implies that the evidence supports "X" is true. — Moliere

Which is still not what he says, he says "X" is true because evidence supports "X", not that he believes "X" is true.

But then I'd ask again: Is it scientism to believe that a scientific theory is true because the evidence is convincing? — Moliere

No I wouldn't say that. However if you start saying that a scientific theory is true because the evidence is convincing, or you start saying that the evidence only supports that theory, or that if it's not scientific then it can't be true or real, or that a scientific consensus is truth or the closest thing to truth, or that something is true because scientists say it, or that if scientists have refuted or falsified something then it's false, or that knowledge can only be gained through the scientific method, or that there are no beliefs in science, I would say it's scientism.

Sure, all scientific knowledge is fallible and not all scientific inquiry is conducted in the laboratory, obviously. As I said we have very good reason to believe that evolution has occurred and my point about testability was aimed specifically at the idea that mutation is random.

So, I would say that propositions in science are on a spectrum from more to less testable. So, for example, how exactly evolution happened is not directly observable being in the past, whereas the proposition that water boils at 100 degrees at sea level can be tested by direct observation in the present using a thermometer.

No I wouldn't say that. However if you start saying that a scientific theory is true because the evidence is convincing, or you start saying that the evidence only supports that theory, or that if it's not scientific then it can't be true or real, or that a scientific consensus is truth or the closest thing to truth, or that something is true because scientists say it, or that if scientists have refuted or falsified something then it's false, or that knowledge can only be gained through the scientific method, or that there are no beliefs in science, I would say it's scientism. — leo

Those all seem very different to me. I would agree that if we say something is true just because a scientist says it's true that that seems to be a solid example of scientism in the pejorative sense, as something to be avoided. But I don't see how saying that a scientific theory is true because the evidence is convincing is an example -- I also don't see what removing "belief" from the statement changes. In the sentence I gave I am referring to my relationship to a statement, but if I do believe such and such a statement it's not like I have a problem simply stating that the statement is true too.

So I believe my keys are on the desk. "My keys are on the desk" is true.

I believe evolution is true. Evolution is true.

What's the difference?

OK, I understand you better now.

What does this notion of testability do for our understanding of scientism? Or is it more a matter of evaluating the truth of theories? Or what?

In the sentence I gave I am referring to my relationship to a statement, but if I do believe such and such a statement it's not like I have a problem simply stating that the statement is true too.

So I believe my keys are on the desk. "My keys are on the desk" is true.

I believe evolution is true. Evolution is true.

What's the difference? — Moliere

If that's your relationship with truth then okay. But plenty of people do not equate "I believe X is true" with "X is true". In "X is true" there is implicit idea that X is infaillible, that it cannot possibly be false, that it is something that applies to everyone even if they don't believe in it, whereas in "I believe X is true" one at least acknowledges a belief and presumably the idea that X is possibly faillible.

whereas in "I believe X is true" one at least acknowledges a belief and presumably the idea that X is possibly faillible. — leo

Which is why belief in any scientific model should explicitly say, “I believe X is true.” It’s not the same as “I believe my keys are on the table” when one is looking at the table and sees keys on it. There’s no need for “I believe” in this latter case because it is evident. Scientific models are not evident. So, yes, I agree with you.

BUT... when it comes to man-made global warming or the theory of evolution, saying “I believe they are true” gives license to the ignorant and the disinformation machines to say “We believe they are not true” when there is overwhelming evidence for them to be true. So, yeah. There’s that.

People just look like hairless apes.

Sorry for my stream of consciousness, here and elsewhere. I like to debate myself.

But that's not what he said. He said "X" is true because there is evidence that supports it: — leo

I'm guessing you're reading "belief" in a sense that it often appears in Internet religion debates, where you'll run into atheists who want to say that they don't believe anything, because they're taking belief to only refer to faith (where that's being separated from empirical evidence, logic, etc.), and they want to claim to not buy anything on faith.

That's not how belief is used in epistemology when we talk about knowledge being justified true belief.

BUT... when it comes to man-made global warming or the theory of evolution, saying “I believe they are true” gives license to the ignorant and the disinformation machines to say “We believe they are not true” when there is overwhelming evidence for them to be true. So, yeah. There’s that. — Noah Te Stroete

And then you make a breakthrough when you realize that many of the people who criticize man-made global warming or the theory of evolution are not ignorant and that the evidence is not overwhelming, it's rather the people pushing them who are overwhelming :wink:

I'm more concerned about the destruction of fauna and flora. it is said that humanity has wiped out 60% of vertebrate animals since 1970, insect populations are in great decline, we're polluting the environment, that's much more certain than man-made global warming for which there are alternative explanations in which the human impact is small. However it's pretty clear we're destroying the ecosystem.

I'm guessing you're reading "belief" in a sense that it often appears in Internet religion debates, where you'll run into atheists who want to say that they don't believe anything, because they're taking belief to only refer to faith (where that's being separated from empirical evidence, logic, etc.), and they want to claim to not buy anything on faith.

That's not how belief is used in epistemology when we talk about knowledge being justified true belief. — Terrapin Station

I don't see a fundamental difference between belief and faith, dictionaries define belief as "acceptance that something is true", and faith as "something that is believed with strong conviction", so there is only a difference of degree between the two.

Faith could be said to be a belief that is hard to change. However I'm not sure anything could make Dawkins change his belief, it's easy to interpret all evidence in a way that it fits one's own beliefs.

I don't see a fundamental difference between belief and faith — leo

As I just wrote " faith (where that's being separated from empirical evidence, logic, etc.), "

And belief is also separated from empirical evidence and logic to some extent, saying "theory X is true" basically ignores the problem of induction. An observation can be seen as evidence for many different theories, it's a matter of belief (or faith) to pick one theory as the true one.

And belief is also separated from empirical evidence and logic to some extent, — leo

Not in epistemology when we're talking about knowledge in terms of justified true belief for example.

So it turns out that you are using the sense of belief that I suggested. But that's not the sense that I'd use or that Moliere was using.

In the common epistemic sense, it's incoherent for anyone to assert something like, "2 + 2 = 4 is true" while also asserting, "I do not believe that 2 + 2 = 4." In the common Internet religion debate sense, you'll often run into atheists who'll say "2 + 2 = 4 is true, but I don't believe that 2 + 2 = 4, I know that 2 + 2 = 4," where among other things, they're obviously ignorant of the jtb characterization of knowledge.

Not in epistemology when we're talking about knowledge in terms of justified true belief for example. — Terrapin Station

How do you define belief then, if not by "acceptance that something is true"?

If you believe that the Sun is going to rise tomorrow, you might say it's based solely on empirical evidence and logic, but it's also based on faith, because of the problem of induction.

How do you define belief then, if not by "acceptance that something is true"? — leo

The issue isn't that. The issue is that the common Internet religion discussion sense of belief (at least as promoted by some atheists) is that belief necessarily is faith-oriented.

The common epistemological sense of belief is NOT that belief is necessarily faith-oriented. Belief is often empirical evidence, logic, etc. oriented.

The dichotomy here doesn't allow that something can be BOTH empirical evidence-based and faith-based.

The common Interneet religion debate sense of belief has it that faith only pertains when there is NO empirical evidence or logic to back something up.

The issue isn't that. The issue is that the common Internet religion discussion sense of belief (at least as promoted by some atheists) is that belief necessarily is faith-oriented.

The common epistemological sense of belief is NOT that belief is necessarily faith-oriented. Belief is often empirical evidence, logic, etc. oriented.

The dichotomy here doesn't allow that something can be BOTH empirical evidence-based and faith-based.

The common Interneet religion debate sense of belief has it that faith only pertains when there is NO empirical evidence or logic to back something up. — Terrapin Station

But I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. For instance, someone can claim their faith in God is based on experiences they have had or on some argument for the existence of God, which can be construed as based on empirical evidence or logic.

I'm not claiming that belief is not based on empirical evidence or logic, but that empirical evidence and logic are not enough to prove that a theory is true, so even if it is rooted in empirical evidence or logic I don't see it as stating something more certain than faith.

But I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. — leo

Well, the "if I know something I don't believe it" sense of "believe" is just stupid, yeah. So I don't think it's very useful, either, aside from understanding some stupid stuff that some people say. I'm not endorsing the distinction. I'm pointing out that some people make it, and you appeared to be using it.

Empirical claims are not provable, by the way. Anyone who took Science Methodology 101 should know this. This doesn't imply that we don't know anything, or that we can't know things with conviction, etc.

Ok I understand you agree that knowing something is at least partly believing it. But when we say "X is true" we're not even saying "I know X is true", so it could be interpreted as saying "X is proven to be true" and that can be prone to confusion. And when Dawkins says "evolution is true" I doubt he says "I believe evolution is true", and if he says "I know evolution is true" I doubt he means "I believe evolution is true".

many of the people who criticize man-made global warming or the theory of evolution are not ignorant and that the evidence is not overwhelming, it's rather the people pushing them who are overwhelming :wink: — leo

Those who have investigated the matter, as thoroughly as human scientists are able, are convinced that global warming is real, is happening, and is the direct result of human activity (i.e. burning fossil fuels). 99% of scientists agree with this. Proof it ain't, but convincing? Yes, it is.

The ("overwhelming") people who are pushing are frightened. They see it's almost too late for our species. So they push those who don't seem to want to help; those who don't seem to care. :chin:

This isn't a matter for objective certainty, and nothing less will do, because the consequences are so serious. A mere 99% convincing-rate among scientists should be enough for us all to think very carefully about what to do, and then do it.

Are people frightened because they have analyzed the evidence and the assumptions behind the predictive models used and concluded that there is very little doubt that man is responsible and the consequences will be disastrous, or because they are told to be frightened because they are told to believe in the scientific consensus and because they are told that the scientific consensus is right?

As I said there is a lot more room for errors in their models than they would admit, there are plausible alternative explanations which are not properly considered, there is a lot of groupthink going on. Maybe it is right that man is mostly responsible, but what's more certain is that man is responsible for the destruction of the ecosystem regardless of global warming, and we continue destroying it while everyone is getting alarmed over global warming. And that destruction is mostly not due to global warming.

what's more certain is that man is responsible for the destruction of the ecosystem regardless of global warming, and we continue destroying it while everyone is getting alarmed over global warming. — leo

In this case, divide-and-conquer is a recipe for disaster. All human damage to our environment is connected, and mainly down to the burning of fossil fuels and other pollution. We need to address it all, not neglect one thing (global warming) in favour of another (e.g. plastic pollution). All of them will kill us, but perhaps global warming will do it the fastest? :chin:

If only we could address even one thing. It's not just plastic pollution or air pollution, it's our ever-growing consumption and destruction of natural habitats, going for clean energy won't change that, we see ourselves as the masters of the world, the Earth is our toy, we have become disconnected from nature, we spend so much energy and resources to protect ourselves from one another and to be more powerful than the other, we spend so much energy and resources going to jobs whose purpose is to make people addicted to what we sell so that they will spend a lot of energy and resources to get it no matter the costs to everything else, we make people enslaved to money and debt which destroy human relationships, we educate our children to perpetuate this system, the whole thing is rotten to the core, yea we would have to address all of that and I really don't see how. Maybe it's all a consequence of materialism becoming widespread, we focus on the appearences, everything becomes a tool to use and we become disconnected from other life, and then we destroy it and we don't even notice.

In "X is true" there is implicit idea that X is infaillible, that it cannot possibly be false, that it is something that applies to everyone even if they don't believe in it, whereas in "I believe X is true" one at least acknowledges a belief and presumably the idea that X is possibly faillible. — leo

Alright so you're just saying if someone states that a scientific theory is infallible then that is an example of scientism.

I don't think Dawkins made that claim about evolution in your quote. Not that I'm a big fan of Dawkins, but he's talking about how evolution is very well supported -- not that it's proven and infallible. And it is very well supported. So well supported that calling it a fact is warranted.

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips…continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. — leo

Here he is talking about common descent, one of the novel predictions of evolution. Now it could be the case that we discover, say, two or three or five or whatever common ancestors -- that the tree of life does not come down to a single point. That would be a modification to the original prediction, but we'd still be related to chimpanzees. And it would be a fact. This would be a warranted statement because of the evidence we have now to make that inference.

Now, in accord with the problems of induction, naturally we could be wrong about all this. Science is fallabalistic, by my lights, always open to revision -- does Dawkins believe that? I don't know. He honestly doesn't say in these quotes, though it would surprise me if he, when pressed, said that evolution is infallible. Biology gets a lot more blowback than, say, chemistry and its theory of the atom, so I can understand frustration when others are given respect but you're always in the spotlight. But, then again, I think that biology is better for it -- I can just understand feeling frustrated.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that the whole thing reduces down to our uncontrollable, still-increasing, consumption. :scream:

And then you make a breakthrough when you realize that many of the people who criticize man-made global warming or the theory of evolution are not ignorant and that the evidence is not overwhelming, it's rather the people pushing them who are overwhelming :wink: — leo

What is a better explanation for global warming than the one I’ve given? I might want to debate this. Also, what is a better explanation for the variety of life on the planet than evolution? I might want to debate this as well.

To me, belief is a decision to affirm or deny. One can also not hold a belief if they withhold judgment or if one hasn’t been exposed to the subject. Belief is based on justification, the driving force of the determination to affirm, deny, or withhold judgment (when there is no justification). Justification is coherency which includes consistency (consistency doesn’t include coherency necessarily, but that’s getting off topic). The foundation of justification for science is observation of the physical world. The foundation for justification in religion is usually scripture. I owe that one to @Hanover

A thought I had today: What if scientism is more how one comes to believe a scientific proposition? Rather than just classifying what is or isn't science with a criterion, or stating something about one's character -- we could say scientism is coming to believe a scientific proposition by poor means, like "Scientist so and so said this is true, therefore it is true"?

So we could have the same belief -- that evolution is true -- but one person does so simply because a scientist said it was so, and another does so because they had a look at the argument and found it persuasive?

I agree. Scientism seems to rest on how one justifies a belief. That said, I still think a lot of people fall for the consumer products sold by self-interested capitalists that say “science shows.” That is another insidious form of scientism.