# Personal beliefs based on an appeal to authority . . . in science? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639 "2009-07-29T04:31:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/81 "2009-07-31T20:05:43Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > That would be a perfectly relevant example, if this were the nineteenth century and the periodic table was cutting edge science. But unless you’ve got the training and the funds to understand and run your own supercollider, how does this translate into an appropriate analogy to confirm what you’ve been hearing about quantum mechanics? The true test of a theory depends not on how well it explains what is known, but on how well it predicts what is unknown. So, to check the validity of a theory, go back and read the predictions, and then look at the experiments done later and see if they came out the way the predictions said they would. If they didn’t, like ether, the theory gets discarded. If they do, the way lumps in cosmic background radiation were predicted by inflation, then you have a lot more confidence in the theory. You pretty much have to go back in time, because almost any theory well supported today has survived this survival of the fittest theory process. This is a pretty gross measure, but it is one which doesn’t require deep knowledge of the details. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/82 "2009-08-01T02:42:39Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The true test of a theory depends not on how well it explains what is known, but on how well it predicts what is unknown. So, to check the validity of a theory, go back and read the predictions, and then look at the experiments done later and see if they came out the way the predictions said they would. If they didn’t, like ether, the theory gets discarded. If they do, the way lumps in cosmic background radiation were predicted by inflation, then you have a lot more confidence in the theory. You pretty much have to go back in time, because almost any theory well supported today has survived this survival of the fittest theory process. > > This is a pretty gross measure, but it is one which doesn’t require deep knowledge of the details. Sorry, but once again I think you’re by default adopting the perspective of the scientist, while I’m talking about the perspective of the layman who accepts what the scientist says is true. If you plop a bunch of readings from a radio telescope in front of Joe Schmoe and ask him to figure out whether they demonstrate lumps in cosmic background radiation, what’s he gonna say? ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/83 "2009-08-01T02:57:20Z")
Missed edit window before: And perhaps to anticipate your response, yes, Joe Schmoe _could_ take a couple of semesters at the local community college and train himself to understand it, but the point is, he _doesn’t_. _Well, that’s his problem,_ I hear you say. Is it only his problem, though? Multiply Joe Schmoe by 200 million and you’ve got a country full of people who listen to Carl Sagan on one channel and Jenny Craig on the other with equal openness of mind. Unless you don’t mind that, then don’t go dismissing Joe Schmoe’s epistemology. ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/84 "2009-08-01T02:58:00Z")
If anybody likes to see for themselves what it is reasonable to believe, they can read the original special relativity paper (in English translation) here: [On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies](http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/). Unfortunately I do think the general relativity theory is much less accessible. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/85 "2009-08-01T07:59:17Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > That would be a perfectly relevant example, if this were the nineteenth century and the periodic table was cutting edge science. But unless you’ve got the training and the funds to understand and run your own supercollider, how does this translate into an appropriate analogy to confirm what you’ve been hearing about quantum mechanics? The point of it was that a test _is_ possible and though not practical for individuals, can be performed in university laboratories. Thus someone who denies quantum mechanics is required to assume some grand conspiracy where all university physics departments are actively lying. Compare this to scripture in which no test is possible or even contemplated. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/86 "2009-08-01T08:10:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The point of it was that a test _is_ possible and though not practical for individuals, can be performed in university laboratories. Thus someone who denies quantum mechanics is required to assume some grand conspiracy where all university physics departments are actively lying. Compare this to scripture in which no test is possible or even contemplated. Did I say anything about _denying_ quantum mechanics? Once again, “the point of it” is something you’re missing entirely: the basis of what the non-scientist knows about science, and whather that basis is different than the one underlying his knowledge of religion or pop psychology or fad diets or whatever. I’m saying that it’s not, and on some topics there’s no way that it _could_ be. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/87 "2009-08-01T09:33:02Z")
Some of you with with good scientific backgrounds seem to be failing to approach the metaphysical aspects of religion with a scientific point of view. What about questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/88 "2009-08-01T10:57:24Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Unless you actually are a physicist and are fully capable of understanding the math involved, I imagine the same more or less holds for you as well. > > So, on a _personal level_, how are such beliefs any different than espousal of (say) transubstantiation, reincarnation or karma? You point out a big difference, believing in science is for the most part appealing to authority of man and taking their word, most of it is untestable by man, and those who can test can only test a small percentage. While belief in the Word of God is provable on a personal level, God will reveal the truth of His Word. It’s not so much as a appeal to a higher authority but a loving father wanting to teach His children the truth. He will if you let Him and are willing to let go of what man has taught you. God means what He says, we are really blinded to His ways till He removed the veil from our eyes and we can see as Jesus sees. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/89 "2009-08-01T11:06:57Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Some of you with with good scientific backgrounds seem to be failing to approach the metaphysical aspects of religion with a scientific point of view. What about questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment? Such questions aren’t answerable by religion, either. Religion has never demonstrated any ability to reveal the truth about anything. “Science can’t answer X, therefore what religion says about X must be true” is not an accurate or rational statement; one does not imply the other. And then there’s the problem that the various religions don’t agree on the answers to the questions they claim to answer, and since they are all evidence free there’s no means to decide which contradictory claim is true, assuming one is. _ **Most** _ religion _ **must** _ be false because the various religions contradict each other this way. And even if science was somehow completely discredited tomorrow, that wouldn’t make religion’s record of being right any better. If you want accurate answers about the world, even tossing a coin is likely to be better than religion. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/90 "2009-08-01T11:10:27Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > You point out a big difference, believing in science is for the most part appealing to authority of man and taking their word, most of it is untestable by man, and those who can test can only test a small percentage. While belief in the Word of God is provable on a personal level, God will reveal the truth of His Word. It’s not so much as a appeal to a higher authority but a loving father wanting to teach His children the truth. He will if you let Him and are willing to let go of what man has taught you. > > God means what He says, we are really blinded to His ways till He removed the veil from our eyes and we can see as Jesus sees. In other words, ignore reality and retreat into self indulgent fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/91 "2009-08-01T11:18:38Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > You point out a big difference, believing in science is for the most part appealing to authority of man and taking their word, most of it is untestable by man, and those who can test can only test a small percentage. While belief in the Word of God is provable on a personal level, God will reveal the truth of His Word. It’s not so much as a appeal to a higher authority but a loving father wanting to teach His children the truth. He will if you let Him and are willing to let go of what man has taught you. > > God means what He says, we are really blinded to His ways till He removed the veil from our eyes and we can see as Jesus sees. I respect your religion, kanicbird, but what you’re posting here is just as utterly irrelevant to the discussion I’m trying start here, as any of Der Trihs’s anti-religious venom. In short, and for the purposes of this discussion, a pox on both your houses! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/92 "2009-08-01T13:15:28Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Did I say anything about _denying_ quantum mechanics? Once again, “the point of it” is something you’re missing entirely: the basis of what the non-scientist knows about science, and whather that basis is different than the one underlying his knowledge of religion or pop psychology or fad diets or whatever. I’m saying that it’s not, and on some topics there’s no way that it _could_ be. No matter how complicated the world gets for Mr. Liberal Arts Major, all he has to do is remember this: If it’s testable, it’s science. If Joe Shmoe doesn’t get that one basic idea after attending college, then I don’t see what _we_ could possibly do. It doesn’t matter how complicated the idea is, if those who put the idea forward aren’t interested in testing said idea to see if it holds up, the idea should be put aside. Quantum Mechanics-it’s being tested, refined, checked and crossed checked all the time, and solid information is being collected supporting it. Heaven-not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/93 "2009-08-01T13:27:28Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Some of you with with good scientific backgrounds seem to be failing to approach the metaphysical aspects of religion with a scientific point of view. What about questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment? This one is the simplest of all to answer. There are few(if any) questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment-but there _are_ questions we haven’t yet figured out how to test. Therefore, the scientific answer to your question is “We don’t know _yet_, be we will keep attempting to find out.” The so-called “unanswerable mysteries of the universe” approach to life leads to stagnation. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/94 "2009-08-01T13:44:49Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Is it only his problem, though? Multiply Joe Schmoe by 200 million and you’ve got a country full of people who listen to Carl Sagan on one channel and Jenny Craig on the other with equal openness of mind. Unless you don’t mind that, then don’t go dismissing Joe Schmoe’s epistemology. In other words you have a normal country. If Joe can’t be bothered to learn then that’s his problem, and he wouldn’t have anything to contribute to science anyway. People who talk about science without knowing what they’re talking about are called crackpots. Is it the guitarist’s problem that many don’t learn to play music, or the poet’s problem that many don’t write? In other words, if someone wants to be intentionally obtuse, and neglect learning the facts needed to participate , then they’re perfectly free to. You can even dispute the facts. If you can make a convincing case against a previously believed scientific fact, such as Newtonian gravity, then science will celebrate your accomplishment. That’s the great thing about science, it isn’t religion. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/95 "2009-08-01T13:51:42Z")
No matter how difficult is is, if you are willing to dig deep enough and apply yourself, the science is available to you. Religion-not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/96 "2009-08-01T14:00:34Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Did I say anything about _denying_ quantum mechanics? Once again, “the point of it” is something you’re missing entirely: the basis of what the non-scientist knows about science, and whather that basis is different than the one underlying his knowledge of religion or pop psychology or fad diets or whatever. I’m saying that it’s not, and on some topics there’s no way that it _could_ be. Well, the basis can be as simple as looking around you and seeing the machines man has built. Even if a layman doesn’t understand quantum mechanics, he should be aware that nuclear reactors do exist and they do produce electricity so quantum mechanics works or some preposterously elaborate fraud is happening that involves constructing huge buildings that do nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/97 "2009-08-01T14:02:02Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > People who talk about science without knowing what they’re talking about are called crackpots. That’s an odd thing to say. I said in the OP that I accept the concepts of an expanding universe, relativity, and quantum mechanics. I don’t dispute them at all, and talk about them quite often. Yet in a very real sense, I don’t know what I’m talking about, because I don’t have the capability to delve into the science papers and confirm the theories and experiments firsthand. So you’re saying I’m a crackpot for talking about relativity? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/98 "2009-08-01T14:07:10Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > That’s an odd thing to say. I said in the OP that I accept the concepts of an expanding universe, relativity, and quantum mechanics. I don’t dispute them at all, and talk about them quite often. Yet in a very real sense, I don’t know what I’m talking about, because I don’t have the capability to delve into the science papers and confirm the theories and experiments firsthand. > > So you’re saying I’m a crackpot for talking about relativity? :dubious: Is there some sort of mystical barrier that prevents you from delving into the science papers and confirm the theories and experiments firsthand, or do you just choose not to? The information is there, is it not? If the information wasn’t there, the method to obtain such information is available, is it not? The education needed to use these methods is available, is it not? ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/99 "2009-08-01T14:13:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, the basis can be as simple as looking around you and seeing the machines man has built. And if I look around at the sky and the birds and the flowers, I see confirmation of the wonderful world that God has created. [That’s sarcasm, by the way.] Wow, the parallels in how a layman can come to appreciate both science and religion are even stronger than I thought! > [@](#): > > Even if a layman doesn’t understand quantum mechanics, he should be aware that nuclear reactors do exist and they do produce electricity so quantum mechanics works or some preposterously elaborate fraud is happening that involves constructing huge buildings that do nothing. Or construction of huge buildings that produce electricity in a way that involves something other than quantum mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/100 "2009-08-01T14:17:03Z")
Koxinga: The nerve your questions has hit is evident by the “religion teh sux00r” answers. Of course, if people had read the OP and understand what you wanted. You’re right that, on the deeply personal level, 90% of the people will either only understand string theory as a simplistic paraphrase or not at all (whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter) . The periodic table example…how can most people really care on understand the importance of misplacing two elements, it has zero impact in their lives, ZERO. I’ve taught the periodic table, and it’s a fantastic thing, but I know that I’ll never experimentally show that the average mass of Chlorine is 35.45. I know I could\* and that it’s been proven to death, that is not the point, but there is some degree of “these really smart guys have done for years and it’s obvious the haven’t been conspiring for centuries just to fool me”, but I get that in a small way it rests - understably, logically, reasonably, not-blind-faith - on accepting other people’s rersults and experience. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639.md?page=6)