xkcd is one of the best comics on the web, and definitely the best science-related one. Although this one got me a little depressed about our government’s current state of affairs…
This would be a great line for a bumper sticker:
“Science doesn’t ask for your faith. Only your eyes.”
Ahcuahsays
This illustrates one of my pet peeves about news articles. They very often include in the story, “scientists believe . . .” The trouble with those words is that the belief of scientists really is distinguishable from religious belief, but the ambiguity of the phrase makes the religious think that the nature of the belief is like religious belief (and hence, e.g., “Darwinism” is just another religion).
In reality, when a scientists says “I believe . . .”, it is really shorthand for “I provisionally accept based upon a slew of data and analysis . . .”, not “I have a religious faith that . . .”.
George Cauldronsays
This illustrates one of my pet peeves about news articles. They very often include in the story, “scientists believe . . .”
The problem is that there’s no other convenient verb in English that one can plug in there.
Millimeter Wavesays
The problem is that there’s no other convenient verb in English that one can plug in there.
Oh, I don’t know. The word “believe” does tend to be the most natural choice if the journalists aren’t used to thinking about what it means, but any of these would work:
Personally, I would rather use the word “trust,” rather than “believe.”
quorksays
This illustrates one of my pet peeves about news articles. They very often include in the story, “scientists believe . . .”
“Believe” mean to hold to be true, so that usage is correct. The problem only comes in when belief based on faith is incorrectly considered to be the equivalent of belief based on evidence.
Juliasays
“The trouble with those words is that the belief of scientists really is distinguishable from religious belief, but the ambiguity of the phrase makes the religious think that the nature of the belief is like religious belief”
I think you’re correct here. The word “believe” in common use doesn’t strongly imply that the belief is based on anything science would include as evidence. The result is that very many hearers/readers interpret the phrase “scientists believe” to have the same sort of meaning as “Catholics believe.” The word is not inaccurate in “scientists believe,” but it is easily misunderstood. “Scientists think” or “Scientific evidence indicates” would be much clearer to the general public. Of course, if one isn’t much interested in attempting to be clear to the general public, then I suppose the wording wouldn’t matter.
Craig O.says
When people learn that I do not believe in any gods, they will sometimes ask what I do believe. My answer is “the evidence.”
Scott Hatfieldsays
When I debated creationists last February in Fresno, one of my lines that got the strongest response from the audience (it was in a church), was that “science doesn’t care what we believe. It’s interested in claims that can actually be tested.”
BTW, it was an almost overwhelmingly positive response.
SH
Owlmirrorsays
Nitpick: While the image link above is correct, the text link incorrectly has “title=” rather than “href=” before the URL.
“Deduced” is good as far as it goes, but most of science is not pure deduction–the process of hypothesis generation, for example, is inductive. So it seems a little too specialized for this purpose.
DPsays
So, “inferring” or “deducing” or “concluding” or “believing” are OK if you’re a scientist but not a Christian?
Unbelievable that so many can’t recognize their own preconceptions that lead to their conclusions. Sounds like a religion to me.
DPsays
Science doesn’t ask for faith? Now that’s rich.
Lord Zerosays
Im so going to post it in my blog !! ^^
I like the scientific cartoonist too, great
biology related jokes inside, jeje.
Stuart Coleman says
xkcd is one of the best comics on the web, and definitely the best science-related one. Although this one got me a little depressed about our government’s current state of affairs…
anonymous says
POIFECT! Love it, thanks!
Minnesotachuck says
This would be a great line for a bumper sticker:
“Science doesn’t ask for your faith. Only your eyes.”
Ahcuah says
This illustrates one of my pet peeves about news articles. They very often include in the story, “scientists believe . . .” The trouble with those words is that the belief of scientists really is distinguishable from religious belief, but the ambiguity of the phrase makes the religious think that the nature of the belief is like religious belief (and hence, e.g., “Darwinism” is just another religion).
In reality, when a scientists says “I believe . . .”, it is really shorthand for “I provisionally accept based upon a slew of data and analysis . . .”, not “I have a religious faith that . . .”.
George Cauldron says
This illustrates one of my pet peeves about news articles. They very often include in the story, “scientists believe . . .”
The problem is that there’s no other convenient verb in English that one can plug in there.
Millimeter Wave says
Oh, I don’t know. The word “believe” does tend to be the most natural choice if the journalists aren’t used to thinking about what it means, but any of these would work:
think
conclude
infer
I’m sure there’s a few others
Steve Sutton says
Personally, I would rather use the word “trust,” rather than “believe.”
quork says
“Believe” mean to hold to be true, so that usage is correct. The problem only comes in when belief based on faith is incorrectly considered to be the equivalent of belief based on evidence.
Julia says
“The trouble with those words is that the belief of scientists really is distinguishable from religious belief, but the ambiguity of the phrase makes the religious think that the nature of the belief is like religious belief”
I think you’re correct here. The word “believe” in common use doesn’t strongly imply that the belief is based on anything science would include as evidence. The result is that very many hearers/readers interpret the phrase “scientists believe” to have the same sort of meaning as “Catholics believe.” The word is not inaccurate in “scientists believe,” but it is easily misunderstood. “Scientists think” or “Scientific evidence indicates” would be much clearer to the general public. Of course, if one isn’t much interested in attempting to be clear to the general public, then I suppose the wording wouldn’t matter.
Craig O. says
When people learn that I do not believe in any gods, they will sometimes ask what I do believe. My answer is “the evidence.”
Scott Hatfield says
When I debated creationists last February in Fresno, one of my lines that got the strongest response from the audience (it was in a church), was that “science doesn’t care what we believe. It’s interested in claims that can actually be tested.”
BTW, it was an almost overwhelmingly positive response.
SH
Owlmirror says
Nitpick: While the image link above is correct, the text link incorrectly has “title=” rather than “href=” before the URL.
Sorry. Nerd moment, there.
Keith Douglas says
Fine as far as a comic goes, but it is important to stress the rationalistic aspect of science, not just empirical stuff (i.e., one’s eyes).
Jeff Stubbs says
Good one. When I read the last panel, lil ricky santorum came into my mind. What a loon.
Jillian says
There’s a wonderful quote which I have often seen attributed to one of the more interesting SF authors, Phillip K. Dick:
“Reality is that which remains after you stop believing in it.”
SEF says
The two versions of “believe”:
Scientists have worked out that …
vs
Religionists have made up that …
Lynn says
Did anyone else notice that the people in the comic don’t HAVE eyes?? Just thought that was odd
grendelkhan says
I heart xkcd. This one made me get up and dance around the living room with my sweetie, for no reason other than that I could.
Aesmael says
That’s because they have given their eyes to science.
truth machine says
This illustrates one of my pet peeves about news articles. They very often include in the story, “scientists believe . . .”
The problem is that there’s no other convenient verb in English that one can plug in there.
Yes, there is: “infer”.
MarchDancer says
What about, “I’ve deduced…”?
RavenT says
“Deduced” is good as far as it goes, but most of science is not pure deduction–the process of hypothesis generation, for example, is inductive. So it seems a little too specialized for this purpose.
DP says
So, “inferring” or “deducing” or “concluding” or “believing” are OK if you’re a scientist but not a Christian?
Unbelievable that so many can’t recognize their own preconceptions that lead to their conclusions. Sounds like a religion to me.
DP says
Science doesn’t ask for faith? Now that’s rich.
Lord Zero says
Im so going to post it in my blog !! ^^
I like the scientific cartoonist too, great
biology related jokes inside, jeje.