Yes, the semantics can get very ugly very fast. As scientists, I'd say we "believe" that a world-view should be based things that have been empirically demonstrated or that logically must be true based on what has been empirically demonstrated.
If we were to ask biblical literalists what they know to be true, though, most of them would probably say that, if it's in the Bible, it's true. Anything else, including things that empirically or logically seem to be true, might be illusory. They believe that a world-view should be based on what the Bible says. What we think we know is based on our criteria for separating what is true from what is false and what is uncertain. I'd say that our criteria for truth are a matter of belief or faith. We scientists believe in the power of experience (or evidence, if you prefer) and logic to identify truth, and if the Bible says something in conflict with experience and logic, we "know" it to be wrong. Biblical literalists believe in the power of the Bible to identify truth, and if experience and logic conflict with something the Bible says, they "know" experience and logic to be wrong. I say that the criteria for identifying truth are matters of "belief" or "faith" because I don't think you can logically prove that evidence and logic are the right tools to identify the truth. After all, before logic can compel you to accept the claim that logic is a valid way to identify truth, you must first accept that logic is a valid way to identify the truth or falsehood of that claim. Thus, as scientists, we have to begin by assuming, based on no evidence or logic, that evidence and logic are valid tools for identifying truth, and everything else we think we know flows from that assumption. Based on my semantics, I guess the pollsters should be asking if people "think" evolution by natural selection occurs, not if they "believe" it. If they "think" Darwin was essentially right, they probably "believe" that logic and evidence are the right way to identify what is true. Ironically, I'm really not a fan of semantic debates. I wish everyone just understood what I meant so we could discuss what I meant instead of whether I said it right! Jim On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Raffel, Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I should have stayed out of the semantic discussion. Warren, I > think we're using the word "belief" in different ways. Everyone has > beliefs (e.g., "the world is round"). I agree that world-views should > be based on knowledge. Similarly, beliefs should informed by knowledge, > and not the other way around. > > To me, "knowledge" implies stronger adherence to a particular concept > than "belief". I think we should use "knowledge" with caution, > particularly in reference to scientific concepts, which are > (theoretically) supposed to be open for revision rather than rigidly > held. Though it's probably fair to say that we "know" (for example) > that vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor, and in that case > "believe" might be too weak (despite still being accurate). > > I agree with Elmer that "think" can be used in much the same way as > "believe", and it seems less emotionally charged. If Gallup asked > people "do you think complex organisms like humans evolved from simpler > life forms" (or something to that effect), would this wording offend > fewer scientists? This could be followed up with questions about > evidence for evolution. > > Tom Raffel
