Why do people subscribe to science?

Question

Repeating things from school which are called "facts" gleaned from experts isn't any different from quoting a bible. If someone were to grow up being told that blue is red, they would think that blue is red. If someone reads a science article, they're just repeating the words, much like religion.

Answer 1

Do you go to a doctor or a faith healer? Modern medicine cannot exist without scientific research. Did post your question on an electronic device? Electronic devices could not exist without science. There is no war between science and religion.; Many people who belong to a religion fear science will somehow discredit religious beliefs but such thoughts have nothing to do with the reality or purpose of science. Science exists to increase human knowledge and to help advance human civilization not to discredit anything. So if you are part of modern society and you cannot deny this since you are posting information on an electronic device then you are if not subscribing at least benefiting from advancements in science.

Answer 2

You didn't understand what science is all about. Science states "facts" under the premise "these are the facts we know about, you can prove them wrong or discover other facts that widen our theory". Science is about free thinking and discovery; religion is the contrary. That's why science and religion will NEVER come together. Science leaves room for error; religion doesn't.



The most impressive thing about how science can change is the story of the theory of light.

Back in the middle ages, people seriously thought that light was something that is emitted from your eyes, hits an object, and thus makes the object appear. (We use that principle now in another frequency spectrum and call it radar.)

Turned out to be wrong, the famous Isaac Newton found out: Light is something that is emitted from an object and hits your eye. But why is it so dark at night? Newton found, that the light the objects reflects must be from the sun; but how does that light get to earth? He also found out that light is a wave, but a wave needs a carrier medium, just like the stone you throw in the water: No water, no waves. So he invented an invisible medium called the "ether", the supposed carrier medium for light "waves".

That was believed for centuries, but then Einstein (and others) came along and said, wait, maybe there is no ether, and light has properties our ancestors didn't think about? And they found that, yes, indeed, the ancestors were on the right path, but wrong in their conclusions, and their new discoveries turned the world upside down. And thanks to their discoveries, we now have GPS, mobile phones, flat screens and the internet.



If science were like religion, they'd have said, "c'mon, you can't transmit data by light, it's impossible, carry on herding sheep".

Answer 3

Because it works, and is testable (and willing to be tested!). Science also discards disproven ideas and incorporates new evidence - unlike religion, which is determined to hold to the same beliefs at any cost regardless of what the evidence may show. Science can grow, change, and learn - religion cannot, because of its very nature, which involves asserting something as truth for all time. So when religion get something wrong, it must deny that that is the case, or pretend that it never held the disproven belief (i.e. that the Earth is flat and the Sun orbits it, or that slavery is morally acceptable, etc.) Science doesn't have that problem.

Answer 4

Because it works, and is testable (and willing to be tested!). Science also discards disproven ideas and incorporates new evidence - unlike religion, which is determined to hold to the same beliefs at any cost regardless of what the evidence may show. Science can grow, change, and learn - religion cannot, because of its very nature, which involves asserting something as truth for all time. So when religion get something wrong, it must deny that that is the case, or pretend that it never held the disproven belief (i.e. that the Earth is flat and the Sun orbits it, or that slavery is morally acceptable, etc.) Science doesn't have that problem.

Answer 5

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark



“Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”

― Carl Sagan



Scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”

― Carl Sagan

Answer 6

Science makes predictions that can be verified by doing experiments. In school, hopefully you did science or saw science being done rather than just learned facts



New findings in science are peer-reviewed by other scientists who are experts in that field. It would need to be a massive conspiracy that meant they were all lying.



By the way, a good scientist rejects scientific fact, rather provisionally accepting scientific ideas for as long as they are not shown to be wrong or incomplete by experiment. They have open minds and will change their mind if experiment and data show their ideas ro be wrong

Answer 7

Wow - remarkable how much ignorance there is in these replies about both science & religion. Science is (ideally) dispassionate and selfless observation followed by some attempt to explain the observations based upon existing accepted postulates (notions accepted to be obviously true but without rigorous proof), theories, and paradigms. But in reality those observations are themselves biased by those paradigms, postulates, theories, and the hypothesis that the scientist has in mind. So-called physical 'laws' aren't laws in the sense that natural processes obey them. They are instead mathematical representations of observations that seem to fit pretty well most or all of the time. Newton's 'law' of universal gravitation is nothing more than an empirical equation that quantifies the gravitational attraction between two bodies. On the other hand, there is confusion over religion vs. how the religion is practiced or 'dogma'. The intransigence of so-called Christians is entirely a manifestation of their selfish desire to be "right" and righteous. But scientists are also selfish. There's money, power, and fame to be had in the science business just as there is in the church business. In science if you don't publish you don't get tenure and you lose your plumb teaching job. You don't get published unless your 'findings' and conclusions agree with accepted paradigms. In some instances, the editorial boards of journal will even reject manuscripts if they (a) don't reference the papers published by the editors (which increases their citation tally) and (b) disagrees with or contradicts conclusions published in papers by those referees. Indeed, science is much like religion in that much has to be taken on faith. A scientist will simply accept someone else's published data and findings simply because he/she doesn't want to take the time or expense to go and conduct the investigation for themselves. They'll instead take their word for it because, after all, the paper was reviewed by an independent editorial board, right? And then of course there's the whole selfish-based battle of words and arrogance that goes on and on between members of the two communities of science and religion.

Answer 8

Do you know what it takes to publish a scientific article!? No, you don't! You need 20+ references of scientists in other fields including your own, and you cite their work which has been published in a scientific journal, and if the Editor or one of the members of about 5 experts on the Review Panel notices falsification, you suffer a penalty which may even ban you from publishing in their journal. If another guy says his synthesis is better than the first guys, he has to prove it using statistical methods, and list the procedure in such deep detail that it puts you to sleep so that someone else can replicate the experiment. You also have to provide a summary of the scope of your research, what has already been done, and what you are adding to it.

Answer 9

Yes and no. A GCSE level you will learn by rote. You are not expected to question some of the facts or formula. However, you are taught to experiment and you get to play with dangerous chemicals etc. and see for yourself what happens when you mix A with B. At more advanced levels you get to test the formula and look at the proofs of why an equation works. But at its core science is about asking questions and discovery. Testing and re-testing established beliefs are everyday bread and butter for science.



Quite the opposite of religion where you are expected not to question and rely on belief alone.



Uh Huh. And you wonder why you are losing members?



Luck

Answer 10

Science is based upon repeatable experiments that give consistent results, ie the story is tested. The bible and other religious texts are hearsay and cannot be tested for their accuracy or content. You have to either accept or reject religion as no evidence can be provided, it's a simple matter of faith. Facts in science can be proven to be correct or false by testing them, no faith here just cold proof.

Answer 11

Science works.

Answer 12

No, they're not.



Moreover, they can duplicate the results (and they do) often, and can examine the data for themselves.



Science is transparent, does not rely upon individual experience, and is falsifiable. None of which is true of religion.



Face it, slick - religion is fiction. It's myth and legend, and there's no credible evidence to support its stories. If you are unable to grasp this critical difference, I'd like to meet with you about some ocean front property in Arizona.

Answer 13

The word ' science ' means ' knowledge ' Of course we need knowledge.Often what is called science is not science at all it is based on suppositions .If someone tells you a rock is 100,000,000 years old he has no proof for it and no one can prove it.It is only what he has been taught and supposes to be true.

Answer 14

You aren't using any logic. . . .science and religion are entirely different and based on different ideas. Science is a process that proves what is said. Religion just states whatever it wants without any facts. If you were taught that the Bible is truth, then you havent learned to question what people tell you.

Answer 15

Scientific claims are extensively reviewed, processed, and studied before proposing it as a fact. A large majority of science originates from solid facts and evidence. If humanity ultimately relied on intuitive reasoning for everything, life would be much different

Answer 16

I believe that pouring vinegar on to baking soda will cause carbon dioxide to bubble forth.



If you wish to pour vinegar on to baking soda, and pray that hydrogen bubbles forth, go right ahead and do so.



Do let me know how well that works.



If you had a finger cut off in an accident, would you rather have a team of trained medical providers (some of whom MIGHT be atheists) reattach it, using the best methods science has devised?

Or would you prefer to pray that it regenerate, the way starfish arms and some lizard tails do?

Answer 17

Difference is this: If people are taught blue is red - they can see the color. It's there to look at, no matter what it's called.

If you never ever get to see blue or red, you just have to take it on faith that there's such a thing as a color.

It's whatever you wrap your mind around...



(BTW: I'm thankful for the scientific community, altho I am faith-based. There can be a happy medium of mutual respect.)

Answer 18

Why? Because science invites challenge, even demands it. The more people who challenge scientific findings the more fine-tuned our knowledge becomes. It's how science works.



Your question implies there is something wrong with this, and furthermore, it implies you prefer to accept on faith what religion tells you. Challenging faith can end badly, as witnessed by the violence that arises because of opposing faiths. Or, it can lead to the abandonment of one's own faith, which is a scary proposition to a lot of people, so most avoid that challenge.

Answer 19

Because it works.





Because before those words go into a text book the experiments are repeated and confirmed multiple times.





This is why science classes are held in labs - - the stuff that can be practically done in school are repeated by students every year - - and they get the same results, over and over again. When you get to university you get to repeat bigger and more complex stuff. And again, you get the same results over and over.



Pretty much everything around you is there because of science. It Works.

Answer 20

Why do people subscribe to science?



--- Facts don't come from scientists. Facts are just fundamental features of the universe.



That's why people believe facts. Because facts are.

Answer 21

"Why do people subscribe to science?"well first off science has brought the world many things,like the computer you are typing on advanced medical science has saved millions of lives,instead of saying a demon has possed someone science proves otherwise..science is peer review you bible has never been peer review..so ya you have that.

Answer 22

No. The difference is that you can actually go back and prove or reprove exactly what the science articles are stating. It is done countless times by people in the scientific and mathematics fields as was done for the initial findings. You don't really need to prove what they say, but technically you could if you wanted to. E=Mc2 is true because it has been proven and re-proven, not just because Einstein said so. Can't do that with bible claims, my friend.

Answer 23

The difference between science and the bible is EVIDENCE. Evidence that comes from using the scientific method! (Asking a question, making hypothesis, researching, experimentation, testing, reviews from other scientists..etc).



The bible had NO evidence to support it's claims and science has proven it wrong many times.



If you want to knock on science and compare it to something as archaic and barbaric as the bible, then don't bother using computers, cars, cell phones, or modern medicine.

Answer 24

You can easily find out if it is true. You can't prove that the Bible is true, (and much of it is proven false) you can't prove there is a magic guy floating on a cloud judging people, but you can prove there is gravity, as science tells us. Don't believe me? Drop a rock. It'll hit the ground. SCIENCE

Answer 25

Thank you for this question, these are discussions which need to be had. I have been pondering educational conformity for awhile now and have come to the conclusion that most students don't have the time or motivation to discover this; nor the organizational skills (which would require wisdom as high as a senior citizen at this point it's gotten so bad) to reverse or correct it. Again, thank you for asking this question.

Answer 26

The difference being that the theory in that article woould have been thoroughly explored, tested and retested to establish its accuracy. If people were to wuestion that theiry the person who developed it would be able to bavk up their claims with soolid credible evidence,not just opinion. QUite the opposite happens in religion where we are given a dated book which CLAIMS to be the word of god, but lacks evidence of being such. SCience can be backed up with solid proof, religion cant.. Its that simple

Answer 27

well, if you drive or ride in a vehicle, use a computer, communicate on a phone, seek medical care, watch tv and use electric appliances to cook, then you can't say you don't 'subscribe' to the benefits of science.

Answer 28

It's absolutely different.. Science says Gravity is the force that pulls everything together.. it predicts that if you let go of a suspended object it will fall.. you can test this.. hold up a pen and let go.. it will drop every time no matter how many times you try it..



The bible says faith can move mountains.. It predicts that if you have faith but of a mustard seed.. you can move a mountain.. Let me know how that test works out for you!!

Answer 29

Because facts from science can be tested and proven. Religion cannot. There is a major difference.

Answer 30

So during the 13 years I spent as a chemist in the coal industry, I was just repeating words I heard in high school.



You, sir or madam, are a first class imbecile. No wonder you wear the anonymous badge of shame.

Answer 31

Science took us to the moon

Science makes medicine

Science finds cures for cancer

Answer 32

1st: people aren't as stupid as you think they are.

2nd: once a scientific FACT has been proven, there's very little debate on it's actuality until careful scrutiny proves it otherwise.

3rd: Stories, messages, proverbs, required behaviors based on redacted scriptures from many sources, object lessons, parables, methodical and "logical" argumentation are all written by humans to gain a foothold on the vast financial and emotional power structure that exists in the religious hierarchy.



4th: Throughout the course of the last 2500 years the "books" have been cooked so many times to try to keep updated with current morality and norms, it's almost laughable to compare the bible with science.

5th: Jesus didn't come to CREATE a religion, He came to fix the one He believed in.

6th: Look where that got Him!

7th: People who claim to follow Jesus within this modernity, more and more resemble the people who were trying to get rid of Him when He was alive!

8th:Personally, my faith is based on FACTS concerning the Life and Times of Jesus [Issa ibn Miriam]

9th: said facts were accumulated over a 20 year period that saw the changing of many rules and dogma that proves to discredit ANY church on this planet as ANY sort of representation of "the ONE TRUE RIGHTEOUS GOD"!!

Answer 33

If you only learn to parrot what you are told, then you haven't really learnt anything at all.



When I was taught science I learnt how to investigate claims and test them.

Answer 34

facts are things that are proven and can be tested and retested, religion can not be tested, there is no proof of a god (but there is no proof against a god ether), some people like the idea of something that is real and it true. the bible and other religions are not fact because most of the stories are like: my dad said he heard of a guy who overheard two people that were talking about a big flood or something, there is just no proof in it.

Answer 35

Because science explains how the world works

Answer 36

it's like this, which is more accurate;



a book of stories written on a sunny Sunday afternoon in the Arabic desert (bible)?,

or a book whose contents is the result of millions of man-hours of research by tens of thousands of people (science text book)?

Answer 37

That is why we have LABS in science classes.



People can tell you that something is a fact but,

technically, until you have done the lab and seen it for yourself, it is just hearsay or maybe "expert testimony" if the person who says it has done the lab him/herself.



THE ESSENCE OF SCIENCE IS DOUBT!

Answer 38

Science has helped our society advance, but religion hasn't.

Answer 39

You've pinpointed the problem of regurgitating scientific fact without understanding and appreciating the scientific method, because as we both know, the scientific method is entirely NOT dogmatic or superstitious in the way religion is.

Answer 40

Repeating things from school which are called "facts" gleaned from experts isn't any different from quoting a bible



- You could not be more ignorant if you took lessons, as you type on a "sciencie thing" that people simply repeated in school.

Answer 41

Well if they hadn't sunshine, you wouldn't be sitting at your laptop or whatever asking daft questions. You wouldn't have electricity, cars, decent housing, cell phones.......need I go on? Silly child. Mo Univ Lec Atheist

Answer 42

Because they are dumb. They want to believe in something, so it's either God or Science. Both are bullshit. Believe in beer, because you know it's real.

Answer 43

It's a great magazine and worth the high subscription fee. Unfortunately my local library does no carry it.

Answer 44

Science gave us people who could design aeroplanes.

Religion gave us people who flew them into buildings.

Answer 45

You really do not understand how science works.

Answer 46

"Science" means knowledge. So you are against knowledge?



Science and faith in God are not mutually exclusive nor polar opposites.

Answer 47

well? science can be trusted if people were honest and not devil worshipers or atheists that control peer review

Faith can be proven, Jolene!

science and peer review can be proven to be anti christ and anti faith and conspiratorial against the truth.

evolution does not prove there is not a God! but science can prove there is a God IF people were allowed to publish regardless of devil worshipers

Answer 48

Don't go to the doctor ever again. Pray for your retardation to be miraculously lifted.

Answer 49

All you are doing is condoning ignorance to protect your intellectually debilitating 'belief infection'!

Answer 50

I would rather read a science book from 2015 than the bible " science " from the year 500 .

Thanks to modern science, we have all the things we own.

Answer 51

Because unlike the Bible science is reliable.

Answer 52

Fill a bucket up with pickle brine, stick your head in there, and just let it soak for a while.

Answer 53

◆ (Psalm 146:3) Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.

Human leaders (Even Scientist) are mortal. They can save neither themselves nor those trusting in them. Thus, confidence in human leadership (Or Scientist) is undermined by the eventuality of death. But “happy is the one whose hope is in God.” (Psalm 146:5, 6) The psalmist saw the need for guidance superior to what humans themselves can give.



Not everyone deserves our confidence, as the example of Adam and Eve illustrates. How can we know who does and who does not deserve our confidence? Psalm 146:3 advises us: “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.” And at Jeremiah 17:5-7, we read: “Cursed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in earthling man and actually makes flesh his arm, and whose heart turns away from God himself.” On the other hand, “blessed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in God, and whose confidence God has become.” Granted, putting confidence in humans is not always wrong. Those texts are simply making the point that confidence in God is never misplaced, but putting confidence in imperfect humans can at times lead to disaster. For example, people who trust humans to achieve what only God can do—provide salvation and bring full peace with security—are headed for disappointment.—Psalm 46:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:3. Actually, humans and human institutions merit confidence only to the degree that they act in harmony with God’s purposes and demonstrate godly principles. Thus, if we are to inspire others to have confidence in us, we must speak the truth, being honest and reliable. (Proverbs 12:19; Ephesians 4:25; Hebrews 13:18) Only by conducting ourselves in agreement with Bible principles will the trust others place in us be justified and prove to be a source of mutual strength and encouragement.

Answer 54

Because they or rather other scientist test their theories, show evidence and crucially change their ideas if their theories are disproved. Theories explain the evidence and are tested.

Answer 55

Troll smarter not harder



2/10

Answer 56

God says natural laws exist the problem is when man in his arrogance thinks that natural laws are greater than God

Answer 57

There are many things science can prove. Name one thing the bible can prove.

Answer 58

It's proven. Go see for yourself.

Answer 59

It is different. Those little quotes can be tested over and over to prove or disprove them, unlike your bible.

Answer 60

because you can test science

Answer 61

some of us are actually curious on how the world works,,, yet we're all still clueless

Answer 62

Look below

Answer 63

Your question: "Why do people subscribe to science?"



Your term "subscribe to" is undefined.



sub·scribe

verb

1. To arrange to receive something regularly, typically a publication, by paying in advance.

2. To express or feel agreement with (an idea or proposal).



I suppose you using the second definition below, which is about how some people think, not about science.



Your attempt to generalize from sparse data to all human beings who read science texts:



"Repeating things from school which are called "facts" gleaned from experts isn't any different from quoting a bible. If someone were to grow up being told that blue is red, they would think that blue is red. If someone reads a science article, they're just repeating the words, much like religion."



Sorry, but I cannot help you on that one. I am sure that there must be some readers like that, but it is not reasonable to assume all readers are like that. It is your fantasy, not reality.



You are mistaken to believe that science is like religion at all, regardless of how some readers allegedly think.



sci·ence

noun

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.



re·li·gion

noun

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.



As you can see, the two things are not even related. Unlike religion, science claims are dynamic. Knowledge changes due to new technology, new data, and new ideas about how to analyze phenomena. Religion is static, typically claiming to be the source of all relevant, unalterable truth.



What you really want to know is why some people believe without question what they read. The answer varies from person to person, and can also change due to improvement in critical thinking, knowledge, and experience. To be able to evaluate claims of any sort requires some background knowledge relevant to the subject at issue. That does not come naturally. People are born ignorant. They do not get any smarter just by growing older, and the knowledge and thinking skills they acquire is often limited by their cultural environment.



Science claims cover a broad array of information and knowledge, often quite accurate, and sometimes fraudulent or just plain stupid. Relatively few people are educated enough to make evaluations of a broad range of claims that are not common and obvious. And not all scientists or people posing as scientists are sufficiently educated to make any significant evaluation of science claims.



Being a scientist of some sort, even a scientist who is an absolute expert on some subject, does not make the person any more knowledgeable about things outside their specialty. There is so much to study and so much knowledge accumulated that no one person can know it all.



People really ought to question what they believe and why they believe it. There are entire industries--hugely profitable--built on pseudoscience. The medical marijuana industry and the psychiatric industry are two prime examples.



But that is not what you are asking about.



With those things in mind, in answer to your question:



It is our natural inclination to acquire behaviors including cognitive and perceptual schemas by doing what we observe others doing, even from what we can construct mentally as models of what others might do. There is a neural basis for this, but even though such behavior is observable, until quite recently it was not known why such behavior occurs.



Neuropsychology | Mirror Neuron System:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mirror...



Social Psychology | Conformity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_confor...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_exp...



Cognitive Psychology | Schemas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies



Cognitive Behavioral Psychology | Observational Learning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_learning



In the philosophy of science, people want to determine if what they believe is true, and if not, revise their claims. Some things remain unknown, and all knowledge is open to critical review.



How to Think vs. What to Think: A good thing to know when considering the broader implications of human history, popular culture, infotainment, and various political appeals.



• Critical thinking (sometimes called critical reasoning) is the set of skills and knowledge required to determine if claims are true, false, or indeterminate possibly due to insufficient data.



o One half of critical thinking is a broad range of relevant knowledge.



o The other half of critical thinking is formal logic, which by itself sans relevant knowledge is worse than useless except for math and games, perhaps. (That is because logic is not necessarily based on the real world and unreal claims can be logically analyzed just as readily as realistic claims.)



The limitations of knowledge or the fallibility of one’s own mind is not at all obvious to many of us, I am sure. It is extremely difficult to evaluate culturally acquired claims sans rational cognitive schemas. Those sorts of schemas do not naturally develop in one’s mind simply by growing older and are not commonly taught in public education.



Critical thinking can only develop by learning underlying principles, acquiring a broad array of relevant knowledge, and by practice applying critique to claims.



• Haskins, Greg R.

A Practical Guide to Critical Thinking

http://skepdic.com/essays/Haskins.html



• List of Fallacies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Answer 64

not everyone will fully commit themselves to science if it counters their worldview

.

Answer 65

In other words, we're all idiots. . . except for you, (inexplicably) right?

Answer 66

thats what school actually teaches you .. to regurgitate information from a singular endorsed view .. not actually think for yourself ..

Answer 67

OH, you are trying to lie for you Jesus. Soy little child.

Answer 68

to widen our knowledge.

Answer 69

its interesting

Answer 70

why shouldnt they

Answer 71

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk

kkk