[rantanplan]

What the hell are you talking about?

Scientists do not believe in parallel universes, dark matter and all the other stuff you mentioned. They hypothesize about them, then they try to formulate theories and then they try to test these theories, by means of experiments.

When they do get to perform comprehensive experiments then, depending on the results, finally know what the truth is.

Not so much the same as with the beardy invisible man living in the sky now is it?

[robotresearcher]

> finally know what the truth is.

Not quite. The current substantiated hypothesis is always provisional until a better idea or contrary evidence turns up. That's not what most people call truth, and certainly not the kind of truth religious people have in mind.

[rantanplan]

You obviously didn't read about the comprehensive experiments I mentioned.

Sometimes I wonder why I spend time to respond to people. No one reads anything. People just want to disagree to pass the time.

[robotresearcher]

On the contrary, I mentioned 'substantiated hypothesis'. Comprehensive experiments are how a hypothesis becomes substantiated. There's no other way. And you rudely accuse me of not reading.

Even with an enormous and indefinite number of validating experiments, a theory is still provisional. There is no forever truth. For example consider Newtonian physics. For the 200 years until relativity and quantum mechanics were invented it was the best game in town. 200 years of experiment is pretty comprehensive. We can do experiments today that support Newtonian physics. But it was never 'true', because if you look very, very carefully you can find examples where it doesn't work.

You can not prove things true in science (unlike math), you can only disprove them. Things that resist disproof are held as provisionally true until we know better.

So: there is no moment when you "finally know what the truth is". Hence my disagreement with your post.

Scientists know what the truth isn't. There's a T-shirt slogan for you.

[rantanplan]

Sorry I didn't mean to insult you.

On the other hand what does all this have to do with the belief(as in faith) and the belief of scientists in various phenomena, theories etc?

You picked a word("truth") from my post and wrote an irrelevant(but kinda interesting) comment.

We were talking about the absurdity of believing in something(like god) rather than believing that something might hold true.

And then, you're just playing with words, you're not actually making a point.

If one would want to be concise they would say that everything can be true or false, for specific values of truthiness or falsiness under a particular context.

Case in point: Newtonian physics is true under a macroscopic context.

PS. I don't wear T-shirts that bear aphorisms.

[robotresearcher]

You asserted:

> When [scientists] perform comprehensive experiments then, depending on the results, [they] finally know what the truth is.

and contrasted that with the beliefs of religious people. Your assertion isn't quite true, and I explained why.

Then you told me off for (a) not reading your fine comment; (b) irrelevance; and (c) having poor apparel recommendations.

I concede the last point gracefully. Have a great weekend.

[rantanplan]

a) That was an honest mistake. I really didn't get your point in your first comment.

b) Compared to the greater point, which was the dishonesty of equating "believe-in" to "believe-that", it was a bit irrelevant. Yet, as I said, interesting. Also I explained why this kind of nitpicking doesn't offer much(IMHO), by giving the example of how far we can go by playing with truthiness/falsiness values.

c) Hey, there's no accounting for taste! Also, I didn't judge. I just said that I don't wear them.

Have an even greater weekend

[stefantalpalaru]

> beardy invisible man living in the sky

The only things actually pertinent to monotheistic doctrines are "invisible" and "living".

> Scientists do not believe in parallel universes, dark matter and all the other stuff you mentioned.

Of course they do. They create models and then try to interpret them using what looks more like philosophy than hard science. What they get sometimes is nothing short of unsubstantiated belief in absurd things. But as long as they don't try to pass that as the scientific truth, we don't mind. Crazy beliefs might lead to new discoveries, specially in that nebulous phase of hypothesis formulation.

[rantanplan]

No they don't. You are simply confused.

Read the definition from wikipedia: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty"

The reason why you're confused is simple; you conflate casual speech with literal definitions. When you hear scientists say "I believe that... blah blah" is a figure of speech. In the same way I used "what the hell" but I really don't believe in hell :)

What they mean actually is "I hypothesize that ... blah blah". That's why you won't see any scientific papers saying "I believe that the number must be something around... 42".

And by the way, even if they believed in the sense that you said, any evidence contrary to their beliefs would make them adjust their beliefs ;)

[engi_nerd]

Scientists are perfectly capable of holding beliefs that they cannot prove.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Pro...

There's a whole book with responses from real scientists regarding this.