What factors contribute to individuals holding onto their personal beliefs despite scientific evidence contradicting them?

[Alvin_255]

If scientific laws and theory can be proven and disproven then
What about Laws which can not be proven or disproven like Murphy's Law should we call it scientific laws, philosophical laws or religious laws

As far as I know, there’s no scientific basis far Murphy’s law. So that makes it false from a scientific point of view. There are 2 types of bias that we associate with Murphy’s law that maintains it’s ‘law’ status. The first is the confirmation bias, where we already have the idea of Murphy’s law, so that when something does in fact go wrong, we attribute it to Murphy’s law. Second is the selection bias, where we tend to remember the ‘bad stuff’, together with the confirmation bias, we just have a much stronger recall towards Murphy’s law.

Personally, if something goes wrong, I really don’t like that, so whether or not it’s Murphy’s law it doesn’t matter. I prefer to see Murphy’s law as a preemptive warning and a good reason to double or even triple check my work.

 

[dosho12]

Personally, if something goes wrong, I really don’t like that, so whether or not it’s Murphy’s law it doesn’t matter. I prefer to see Murphy’s law as a preemptive warning and a good reason to double or even triple check my work.

As for me in that law i don't like the idea that you cant do anything and just wait for it to go wrong

 

[Mbaga Jr]

Inasikitisha sana

 

[Fortilo]

I asked a Japanese friend's of mine and he said

Before we were born, we did not get asked if we want to live. Our life just happened without our approval. Our life is not our own making. Life is a gift. So, in a way, we do not own our own lives; it was gifted to us.

If you believe in God, then God created your life. You owe your existence to God, and you have a mission to know Him and find out what He wants to do with your life.

If you don’t believe in a God, then you are created by chance. You owe your existence to nothing and no one. You were lucky you were born. You can live as you please without any sort of framework or guideline.

It’s a flip of a coin. Some live for very long periods; others die on the day they were born. There is no rhyme or reason to the circumstances of life and death.

Thank you,

So this is not science, and for your information science doesnt care what you believe in.

The point of the matter is, understanding why people dont follow the science despite lots of facts been so evident.....

Your Japanese friend was on alcohol or some confusion on what to say about his existence and decided to use Philosophy to get rid of the tough question.

Science has proved over time that, we exist over chance and one of the most human improvement and success is passing the genes to the next generation after him.....

I hope you get the point .

Happy Sunday

 

[Alvin_255]

Thank you,

So this is not science, and for your information science doesnt care what you believe in.

The point of the matter is, understanding why people dont follow the science despite lots of facts been so evident.....

Your Japanese friend was on alcohol or some confusion on what to say about his existence and decided to use Philosophy to get rid of the tough question.

Science has proved over time that, we exist over chance and one of the most human improvement and success is passing the genes to the next generation after him.....

I hope you got the point .

Happy Sunday

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of (human) nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” ― Max Planck, pioneer of quantum physics

If only! What science can do is explore and discover practical and material objects and phenomena. It can describe them, measure them, investigate, and experiment on them. It then proceeds to attempt, sometimes convincingly and often not, to explain them. Those attempts at explanations are called theories. They are the end-product of science.

What science can neither discover nor explain are blind beliefs, myths and legends, faith-based ideologies, and a million philosophical questions such as those concerned with deities, free will, reasons, origins and purposes.

 

[dosho12]

What science can neither discover nor explain are blind beliefs, myths and legends, faith-based ideologies, and a million philosophical questions such as those concerned with deities, free will, reasons, origins and purposes.

So scientist can say there is mystery force that cause the universe expansion and call it dark energy accepted even though it has not been detected
but they can not accept myths and faith arent they the same thing

 

[Makanyaga]

There are many factors and reasons that lead a person to hold onto their beliefs and personal opinions, even when they contradict certain facts and scientific theories. The most prominent of these factors and reasons can be summarized as follows:

1. Cognitive Frameworks that Underpin Beliefs and Opinions: When individuals rely on a metaphysical or ideological framework for their convictions and beliefs, rooted in emotional psychological influences and specific logical constructs, they often find that the central roots of their religious or ideological beliefs are based on emotional ties rather than rational reasoning. This emotional connection provides them with a sense of security and psychological stability, allowing them to reject any scientific theory or fact that contradicts their beliefs.

2. Personal Existential Concepts: Sometimes, when a person believes in a particular view of consciousness and existence, this perspective serves as a criterion for evaluating and judging various cognitive and scientific outputs. For example, if someone believes that existence is merely an illusion and that individual consciousness is also an individual illusion claiming to know the truths, it becomes easy for that person to reject any scientific product, regardless of its significance or evidence.

3. Incorrect Scientific Concepts: If an individual possesses incorrect scientific concepts, such as a misunderstanding of the scientific theory and its distinction from scientific truth, they may consider any scientific theory as merely a non-fixed possibility, regardless of the evidence supporting it. They might assert that scientific truth is only absolute and cannot be denied or refuted, which allows them to dismiss any credible scientific theory that contradicts their personal beliefs.

4. Ignorance of Scientific Methodologies and Rational Knowledge: When a person is unable to understand the epistemology of sciences, its methodologies, verification methods, and other aspects related to scientific thinking, along with ignorance of reasoning tools, types of logic, forms of evidence, and methods of judgment and preference, it becomes easy for them to reject any scientific or cognitive product that conflicts with their personal beliefs.

Emperical Science (ES) + Spritual Science (SS)=Confused mind!

Hizi ni sayansi mbili tofauti na kila moja inajitegemea kwa maana kuwa ES ina tools zake ambazo haziwezi ku-explain phenomena muhimu zilizoko kwenye Scincezingine ikiwemo Spritual Science; na halikadhalika SS pia nayo ina tools zake zinaj zinzzojiregemea
Pale inapotokea coincidence kwamba utendaji wa tools hizi ume-overlap, hiyo inakuwa ni bahati nzuri, lakini siyo granted kwamba hizi toolls lazima sifanye kazi kwa kwa kufanana

Rudi kwenye definition ya Scnece, ( Sayansi ni nini? ) kabla hujaendelea na mjadala huu na pia ujiulize maswali yafuatao
Jiulize maswali yafuatayo
ES inatumia tool zipi?
Je ES imesema kuwa ina uwezo wa ku-explain phenomeana zote zilizoko kwenye scince zingine pia ikiwemo SS?
Je, ES imesema kuwa yenyewe ndiyo science kuu na hivyo scinece zingine zote lazima zi-aalign na ES

Hili ni tatizo la mtu kusoma Science halafu akashindwa kuielewa Science na asijue kuwa hajaiielewa

 

[Empedocles]

Upon my opinion in attempt to elucidate the proposer,insufficient scientific knowledge contributes a lot toward rejecting facts.For instance,citing to organic evolution theory Doct.Charles R.Darwin proposed that 'man is a descendant of apes'.On the time the Darwin buldozers made prominence of the theory and became a scientific fact.Since then, opponents questioned on the missing link between man and ape and this continues till today as a result the fact remained skeptic.Today the scientific fact is 'man and ape descended from common ancestor'.As long as the modern theory is not yet made prominence by buldozers then ignorance guides people to reject the fact.

 

[Alvin_255]

Upon my opinion in attempt to elucidate the proposer,insufficient scientific knowledge contributes a lot toward rejecting facts.For instance,citing to organic evolution theory Doct.Charles R.Darwin proposed that 'man is a descendant of apes'.On the time the Darwin buldozers made prominence of the theory and became a scientific fact.Since then, opponents questioned on the missing link between man and ape and this continues till today as a result the fact remained skeptic.Today the scientific fact is 'man and ape descended from common ancestor'.As long as the modern theory is not yet made prominence by buldozers then ignorance guides people to reject the fact.

Despite popular misconception, hardly anybody actually rejects science. The vast majority of people, even the most religious fundamentalists, acknowledge that science is a valid method for obtaining knowledge and make full use of all the wonderful things that science has provided us, including modern medicine, computers, GPS systems, air travel, television, lightweight fabrics that are also warm, smart phones, etc.

Except, of course, when the same exact scientific method that has produced all these wonderful things that they enjoy in every aspect of their daily lives contradicts some cherished belief or another, whether it be that God specially created humanity some 6000 years ago in the Garden of Eden or that God would never let us destroy our biosphere by burning too much fossil fuels or what have you. And then, suddenly, the scientific method is wholly unreliable, all scientists are just godless atheists with an agenda to destroy religion, they all base their work on unfounded assumptions that they refuse to question, etc., etc., etc.

All scientific claims are subject to being modified and even rejected as new evidence is discovered and we should not accept any scientific claim as 100% certain. But to reject entire fields of scientific inquiry simply because they contradict your cherished beliefs — despite all supporting evidence — is just being irrational.

 

[Alvin_255]

Emperical Science (ES) + Spritual Science (SS)=Confused mind!

Hizi ni sayansi mbili tofauti na kila moja inajitegemea kwa maana kuwa ES ina tools zake ambazo haziwezi ku-explain phenomena muhimu zilizoko kwenye Scincezingine ikiwemo Spritual Science; na halikadhalika SS pia nayo ina tools zake zinaj zinzzojiregemea
Pale inapotokea coincidence kwamba utendaji wa tools hizi ume-overlap, hiyo inakuwa ni bahati nzuri, lakini siyo granted kwamba hizi toolls lazima sifanye kazi kwa kwa kufanana

Rudi kwenye definition ya Scnece, ( Sayansi ni nini? ) kabla hujaendelea na mjadala huu na pia ujiulize maswali yafuatao
Jiulize maswali yafuatayo
ES inatumia tool zipi?
Je ES imesema kuwa ina uwezo wa ku-explain phenomeana zote zilizoko kwenye scince zingine pia ikiwemo SS?
Je, ES imesema kuwa yenyewe ndiyo science kuu na hivyo scinece zingine zote lazima zi-aalign na ES

Hili ni tatizo la mtu kusoma Science halafu akashindwa kuielewa Science na asijue kuwa hajaiielewa

“Do you agree or disagree with this, "spiritual sciences explain how the standard materialist model of reality developed, and turned into a belief system that can only function by denying a whole range of phenomena that are part of human experience"?”

“Materialist model of reality” in this context is derogatory terminology used by religionists to elevate their own, highly conjectural model of undetectable extra-materialism into a tangible reality! It is not a “science!”

Science…specifically cognitive science…being honest…does not yet have a good working definition of the concept of consciousness. Individual scientists…some not in the field of cognitive science…including some physicists…have ventured personal opinions which do not have any consensus among cognitive scientists and are thus not official science findings.

That said, in it’s intensive and ongoing investigations of consciousness, cognitive science is not studying rocks, atoms, planets, galaxies or the cosmos. Cognitive science is studying fleshly beings with neural networks (nervous systems), brains and (where applicable) possessing fleshly methods of interaction and communication.

 

[Makanyaga]

“Do you agree or disagree with this, "spiritual sciences explain how the standard materialist model of reality developed, and turned into a belief system that can only function by denying a whole range of phenomena that are part of human experience"?”

“Materialist model of reality” in this context is derogatory terminology used by religionists to elevate their own, highly conjectural model of undetectable extra-materialism into a tangible reality! It is not a “science!”

Science…specifically cognitive science…being honest…does not yet have a good working definition of the concept of consciousness. Individual scientists…some not in the field of cognitive science…including some physicists…have ventured personal opinions which do not have any consensus among cognitive scientists and are thus not official science findings.

That said, in it’s intensive and ongoing investigations of consciousness, cognitive science is not studying rocks, atoms, planets, galaxies or the cosmos. Cognitive science is studying fleshly beings with neural networks (nervous systems), brains and (where applicable) possessing fleshly methods of interaction and communication.

Science hasa BILA kujali category, ni NINI? Hatuongelei cognitive science hapa, na sisemi kwamba science haina flaws; ni kwa sababu haijawahi kuelezea kila phenomenon.

What is science?

 

[Alvin_255]

Science hasa BILA kujali category, ni NINI? Hatuongelei cognitive science hapa, na sisemi kwamba science haina flaws; ni kwa sababu haijawahi kuelezea kila phenomenon.

What is science?

Science is a methodical approach to understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It involves formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments to test these hypotheses, and using evidence to draw conclusions. The goal of science is to uncover fundamental truths about the universe and to develop theories that can explain and predict phenomena. It is characterized by its reliance on empirical evidence, skepticism, and the willingness to revise theories in light of new evidence.

 

[Kiranga]

And what happen when the theory get debunked or have some contradiction foristance science say nothing can go faster than the speed of light, tachyons are particles which is said they can move faster than light, or as i said about the bing bang theory and the stead theory if both have some facts then they may be both wrong because they cant both right

When a scientific theory is disproved or improved with newly found facts, science simply accepts the newly found facts and acknowledge mistakes/misconceptions.

This has hapenned before. This is how science works. This is how the scientific process self corrects science and makes it better.

This is the difference between science and other models, example religion.

Religion claims to have universal and timeless truth from God. This is a weakness, because when it is found to have mistakes and misconceotions, it is hard to acknowledge God made mistakes or allowed misconceptions in his holy book.

Science does not have this problem, because it does not claim to have universal truth from God.

That is the beauty of science.

 

[dosho12]

When a scientific theory is disproved or improved with newly found facts, science simply accepts the newly found facts and acknowledge mistakes/misconceptions.

This has hapenned before. This is how science works.

This is the difference between science and other models, example religion.

Religion claims to have universal and timeless truth from God. This is a weakness, because when it is found to have mistakes and misconceotions, it is hard to acknowledge God made mistakes or allowed misconceptions in his holy book.

Science does not have this problem, because it does not claim to have universal truth from God.

That is the beauty of science.

Read comment #26 then let's hear what you're going to say

 

[Kiranga]

So scientist can say there is mystery force that cause the universe expansion and call it dark energy accepted even though it has not been detected
but they can not accept myths and faith arent they the same thing

First things first, science is not what scientists say. Science is a process.

That process involves verification.

And if scientists are wrong in one way, perhaps by accepting dark energy without evidence, that does not mean they should accept myths and faith without evidence.

If indeed they have accepted dark energy without evidence, then they should find the evidence for that and verify that. This is happening now in science.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

But above all, dark energy is a placeholder. It is like saying "2 + y = 10" without knowing what y is. We know y has a value because it adds with 2 to make 10, but we do not know what it is, that is the mystery. This is a mystery that can be computed mathematically, it can be quantified.

That mystery is not the same as the mystery if myths and faith which cannot even be computed.

 

[dosho12]

First things first, science is not what scientists say. Science is a process.

That process involves verification.

And if scientists are wrong in one way, perhaps by accepting dark energy without evidence, that does not mean they should accept myths and faith without evidence.

If indeed they have accepted dark energy without evidence, then they should find the evidence for that and verify that. This is happening now in science.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

But above all, dark energy is a placeholder. It is like saying "2 + y = 10" without knowing what y is. We know y has a value because it adds with 2 to make 10, but we do not know what it is, that is the mystery. This is a mystery that can be computed mathematically, it can be quantified.

That mystery is not the same as the mystery if myths and faith which cannot even be computed.

Ok these two statements
1. Mystery force that causes the expansion of the universe
2. Mystery force which create the universe
One is said to be scientificly and the other is said to be religion why
Cause to me their both lead by a mystery force

 

[Alvin_255]

I’m part of never ending cycles of life: I’m born out of the connection of two living beings who were born out of the connection of other beings who are the product of million of years of evolutional progress. I live, die and my body will give possibility for new life to grow: grass, trees, worms and such. I get recycled in this extremely complex ecosystem that has been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, and hopefully will be here for several hundreds of millions more. I AM part of something bigger than me. I feel spiritual.

—-
“Every atom you possess has almost certainly passed through several stars and been part of millions of organisms on its way to becoming you. We are each so atomically numerous and so vigorously recycled at death that a significant number of our atoms-- up to a billion for each of us, it has been suggested-- probably once belonged to Shakespeare.”

 

[Kiranga]

Ok these two statements
1. Mystery force that causes the expansion of the universe
2. Mystery force which create the universe
One is said to be scientificly and the other is said to be religion why
Cause to me their both lead by a mystery force

In 1 replaces "mysterious" with "unknown".

This is a known unknown as Donald Rumsfeld said.

It is an unknown like the y in "2 + y = 10"

In 2, we do not even know that the univwrse was created, so how can we know that thwre is a mystery force that created it?

How do you know the universe was created and it has not always existed?

 

[dosho12]

I’m part of never ending cycles of life: I’m born out of the connection of two living beings who were born out of the connection of other beings who are the product of million of years of evolutional progress. I live, die and my body will give possibility for new life to grow: grass, trees, worms and such. I get recycled in this extremely complex ecosystem that has been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, and hopefully will be here for several hundreds of millions more. I AM part of something bigger than me. I feel spiritual.

—-
“Every atom you possess has almost certainly passed through several stars and been part of millions of organisms on its way to becoming you. We are each so atomically numerous and so vigorously recycled at death that a significant number of our atoms-- up to a billion for each of us, it has been suggested-- probably once belonged to Shakespeare.”

The genius who didn't study physcis

 

[dosho12]

In 1 replaces "mysterious" with "unknown".

This is a known unknown as Donald Rumsfeld said.

It is an unknown like the y in "2 + y = 10"

In 2, we do not even know that the univwrse was created, so how can we know that thwre is a mystery force that created it?

How do you know the universe was created and it has not always existed?

To me I think science would be far if it could consider some of the quotes from the holy books, let me ask you this
Are you an open minded person ?