No

Yes, many things are subjective and that’s why measures are taken (protocols exist in other words) to remove inconsistencies.

You can make ad hominem attacks, but it’s just laughable since you have no basis for any of it…

Yes, senses are inherently subjective. Yes, reading a scale with your eyes can throw off the result. There is an accepted protocol on how to read a meniscus in a graduated cylinder for this reason or any scale for that matter.

When you say I believe I turned off the oven, you are subjectively recalling something. You aren’t looking at the oven, you’re remembering it. You aren’t checking that it’s off. You’re saying that to the best of my memory, I turned it off. “I’m pretty sure.” That is subjective.

If I say, “I believe I turned off the oven,” I’m not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I’m saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.

Right, it’s subjective and based on your own experience without concrete evidence. That’s what I’m saying. Science is objective and must rely on evidence.

I’m not insisting that belief necessarily means anything faith-based. It could, but that’s not what we’re focusing on here. Only that it has a different meaning than accept as far as science is concerned.

I figured that was a typo because I wasn’t pointing out that you were supporting your point. I did provide the links you asked for. I didn’t even derail the conversation to point out that you think philosophy is a science. It’s not, in a traditional sense. But it does highlight some fundamentals of why these concepts are difficult for you. You’ll want to see or believe what you want, even if it’s to intentionally miss the point apparently. Like I said, good luck to you.

I did support mine, and never said you’re not supporting yours, just that you misunderstand.

Like I said, I likely won’t be able to change your mind because you’re holding on to a belief of what that word means in regards to scientific acceptance. I don’t expect you to go in search of how you’re wrong because it seems like you’re holding on to ways that make you feel right. Either way, I’ve said all I can. Good luck to you!

Here are some links:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/201810/what-actually-is-belief-and-why-is-it-so-hard-change

https://thisvsthat.io/belief-vs-science

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2254849

I think you’ve missed some of what I’m saying. Vernacular changes through common (popular) use of a word. I’m referring to strict definitions that are found in science.

I never indicated that beliefs are fixed, only that they are subjective and not based on evidence. That is by definition not scientific.

You’re starting to get it in the third paragraph, but you’re holding on to this idea that beliefs and acceptance are the same. Again, nothing in science is based on beliefs.

Good scientists look for ways they are wrong; people holding onto beliefs look for ways to back up why they’re right.

Edit: I should also add that Webster’s adds words every year based on popular usage. That’s vernacular, common usage. That’s why it also lists the word literally as also meaning its antonym, because people commonly use it incorrectly.

Beliefs are subjective. They can be held without evidence.

Scientific acceptance is the opposite.

I likely won’t be able to change your mind because you believe they mean the same thing. I assure you they don’t. You can’t come to a scientific conclusion based on conviction. You have to accept or reject the null hypothesis based on evidence which even then doesn’t necessarily verify your hypothesis. You also have to run everything through statistical analyses to be sure that the results couldn’t occur randomly. Everything can change with new evidence and stronger tests (larger sample sizes, double blinds, etc.) Webster’s won’t teach you that. It records vernacular.

Agreed. There’s definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public.

It’s crazy to me that so much of the general public don’t understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results.

Maybe to you. Scientific terms often include terms that have other connotations elsewhere, for example, significant or correlation.

Nothing in science is based on belief.

One of the first things I learned in bio lab in college is that you never believe anything in science. You accept or reject based on evidence.

I would not think that, no.

Your anecdotal experience doesn’t have anything to do with this if you weren’t traumatized at a young age.

From what I understand, this is how memory works. Every time you remember something, you’re actually remembering the last time you remembered it.

You’re right, that comparison is incongruent. And looking at it again, I can understand the dad’s reaction. It just struck me as funny that he said “almost hit” and then that the kid was two rooms away.

I see your point, it is fucked and if I were him, I’d probably be just as outraged about the risk to my child.

Respectfully, I don’t think that’s how I would react emotionally/psychologically. I’m sure I’m not alone here. I’m a lucky guy, but what’s the chance of space debris hitting my house twice at different times?

“It almost hit my son. He was two rooms over and heard it all,”

I mean, relative to coming from space I guess it almost hit his son. How does he feel about every car he drives past on a two lane road? “Oh shoot! Almost collided with that one too!”

There are things in those books that are demonstrably true, but that doesn’t necessarily prove everything in them just as those things that are demonstrably false don’t necessarily disprove everything in them.

It’s just a matter of not being able to observe, measure, or physically test a god’s existence. From an objective standpoint, believing whether a god exists or not is still just a belief.

I’m only trying to show how a scientific person could compartmentalize their beliefs from their studies and to that end, I think we agree that they aren’t incompatible. What someone chooses to believe after that is up to them, because as you point out, there’s no peer reviewed published evidence one way or another.