> First, and trivially, I do think the word "energy" is overused and misunderstood. But it is a scientific definiton that you're using there, and people are free to use other ones if they wish. Even though they may be wrong.

Fair enough. But it's misleading and confusing for all involved. If everyone knew the scientific definition of the word, probably we wouldn't talk about "psychic energy fields" and stuff, which would be nice. It would also be handy if people were aware of the relationship between matter and energy, and of the laws governing their conservation.

> I think that it's wrong to say that a "belief" in science is OK, and a belief in a religion is OK, but a belief in (for example) astrology is bumf. They all revolve around the same basic idea of finding some way to explain what's going on.

I completely disagree with the above paragraph for reasons that shall be spelled out in a moment.

I am, however, going to quote Matthew's post out of order so that my argument flows more logically. This is not an attempt to make Matthew seem foolish, but he addresses some of my basic premises later in his argument.

> Science *is*, in many ways, a belief system.
>
> It's a complex belief system, as it has logic at its heart and so requires everything to explain everything else. Instead of attributing that brilliant flash of light and roaring from the sky to some angry thunder god, it attributes it to the interaction of charges and so on. Neither explanation is inherently more correct than the other, the only difference is in the details and the complexity of the situation. We know all sorts of crazy stuff about charged particles now and can utilise them in exciting ways. Science allows us to take A and B and deduce C, something which other belief systems lack. But how does the universe work? No one knows. We can explain bits of it in various ways, but it's all just an interpretation.

Matthew makes multiple points. First, I disagree that science is a belief system in the same way that religion is a belief system. Science, as I use the term, makes no specific claims about reality, though heavily implied are the assumptions that an objective reality exists and humans are capable of learning about it through observation. If any of that were to be disproved (probably impossible, just as it's probably impossible to prove any of it), science would likely adapt itself.

Science is a system for ordering our observations about the world and drawing probable conclusions based upon those. It's really a process, a method more than an organized system of belief (aside from the basic epistemological beliefs outlined above). Which brings us to my next point:

> The thing to remember about science is that it changes. Quantum physics is a stupid and ridiculous-- oh, what? It kind of works? Damn. Science is always coming up with new ways of explaining things, ways that kick out the old knowledge or add more rules to the book. At one time science said we should drill holes in the head to release evil beings. Nonsense. We should ingest living organisms to kill the beings within us making us ill. Nonsense. We should puncture the skin, allowing stuff to escape... oh.

In your examples, science hasn't changed. That is, science in some recognizable form (I don't know exactly when the scientific method was formalized) has been around for as long as human civilization. Beliefs of specific scientists, however, have. This is to be expected. Since science says we draw our conclusions based on our observations, it stands to reasons our conclusions will change as we refine our observations. Whether this comes from better instruments (quantum mechanics) or better experimentional procedures (modern medicine), the process of science remains almost unaltered.

This is a good thing. It means the system is working as a whole, that we are refining our observations and updating our conclusions accordingly. Following the system corrects our beliefs, leading us more and more toward correct understanding regarding the universe as a whole.

Does anyone know of any specific flaws with the scientific method, which I'm reasonably sure has been formalized since at least the European Enlightenment (I'd bet quite a bit longer than that)? Let me provide everyone with what I consider to be the scientific method:

Hypothesis -- Based on either our own personal observations or the results of other scientists, we formulate some sort of statement regarding the way the universe functions. For instance, "Heavy things fall faster than lighter things," would be a reasonable hypothesis.

Experimentation -- We set up an experiment of some sort that we hope will shed some light on the validity of our hypothesis. We carefully control as much of it as we can, as we want it to be able to be repeated by other scientists. Sometimes this means we can set up an actual test (such as dropping heavy and light things at the same time) or it may mean observing nature under specific conditions (such as observing the same star every night at midnight for a year).

Observations -- We record our observations from our experiment. As much data as we can record, we do. This will be made available to other scientists, so that if they get different results in their experiments, we may have some idea what's causing the discrepancy.

Analysis -- We compare our observations with our hypothesis. Did we get the expected results? Why or why not? At this point we may want to repeat the experiment to make sure it always happens, and we may want to try altering one or two variables in our experiment to see how they alter our results. The cycle now goes back to the hypothesis stage as we look at our results. We also want to give our tentative conclusions to other scientists to examine and attempt to reproduce (if they can't, why not?).

You will notice that nowhere are there any claims about the origin of the universe or the meaning of life. I cannot think of *any* other logical way to begin to understand an objective reality. We are simply trying to isolate cause and effect and from that understand reality.

I'm going to assume nobody has any superior method of understanding reality. As such, science is not a belief because there is no other rational way to look at reality. If you accept logic and the notion of a (at least partially) knowable, objective reality, you pretty much have to accept science as being the valid way to gather reliable information about that reality.

If you assume some other plane of reality that isn't objective and entirely knowable, then science isn't necessarily the only valid method of discovering truth (in fact, it's woefully inadequate). Some religions follows this pattern, but not all do. We will get to that next.

> "I believe that chemicals released from the countless cells in my brain and throughout my body control the way it thinks, acts, responds, and lives overall."
>
> "I believe that my life is affected by God. I also believe the above."
>
> "I believe that my life is affected by the stars. I also believe in that chemical stuff. And God."
>
> None of those seem to me to be particularly WRONG AND EVIL AND IMPAIRING THE VERY EXISTENCE OF CIVILISATION. It all comes down to one thing:
>

No, no, that's an overstatement of my point. First off, I hope I've persuaded everyone that the first example is not representative of science in general. That claim's soundness is independent of science's validity.

As for the second two, the reason they pose problems is because they're non-verifiable. This is largely because the given claims are so inspecific.

When you say the "the stars influence our lives" how am I supposed to prove that wrong? I can't. If you make specific claims about the effect stars have on you, then we can. If we say that all people born on a certain date should have a higher percentage of certain personality traits than people born on other dates, we can test that (and it's not true).

Likewise, specific religious claims can be tested. Most religions, however, are so old as to make testing most of their claims impossible. When newer religions come along, it's pretty easy to disprove the claim that the comet is really an alien spaceship.

The thing that separates religion from a belief in superstition, in my mind, is that religion deals exactly with a higher form of reality in some way. A belief in God requires faith, and is in my mind non-rational (unless anyone has any empirical proof for his existence), but at least it can be internally consistent. I can't disprove it any more than you can prove it; it's something that can't be touched by science.

So much superstition, on the other hand, makes specific claims (like the astrology one above, or the claims of psychics) that wonderfully suit testing. Since controlled tests invariably come up negative for superstitions, I must question anyone who believes in them. You aren't simply engaged in believing a non-verifiable belief, you are now willfully ignoring empirical data that strongly suggests you are wrong. Again, this logic can be applied to claims that are religious in nature: faith healing, miracle working, crying statues, stigmata, etc. But whether or not God exists or whether or not reincarnation takes place, well, I can't answer those.

> On the more sociological side of the post, people that are extreme in any belief are to be worried about. Anyone that attributes their entire life to astrology is frankly dangerous, but so are people that form extreme opinions on religion or those who can say that particle interactions mean there's no such thing as conscious decision-making.

I'll agree with your general point, but allow me to be more specific: anybody who refuses to allow evidence to alter their previously-held notions is dangerous. This is the fundamental beauty of science: it encourages us to constantly re-evaluate our beliefs.

> Someone mentioned feeling sorry for people who believe in magic "because the world would be a boring place without it." I don't feel sorry for people who believe in God for exactly that reason. Do you?

Yes, I do. If your only reason for a belief in God is because you think the world is dull without one, then I feel sorry for you. You need to open your eyes a bit and really look at the wonderful reality around you.

> And going back to my magic/science bit: criticise me, mock me, even shun me if you will. I've had all of those happen already. My life is my own, and if I choose to spend a spare five minutes trying to summon forth a flame, I shall do so. And I shall probably continue to do so until I actually manage it. If I don't, ah well.

Allow me to make a prediction: you will die first. You will not ever be able to summon flame based solely on your mental abilities. If, however, you do and are able to repeat it in controlled circumstances, you'll have my greatest respect.

What you must be careful of, though, is the certainty that you *can* do it without any evidence to suggest that you can. While science encourages persuing notions that may seem foolish, there are probably more productive, fulfilling ways to spend your time.

> I'll be dead in 50-60 years, so it won't matter to me or to anyone what my beliefs were. As long as I accept responsibility for my actions, it really doesn't matter what I thought controlled them.

Fair enough. Though you plan to die a bit young, considering the advances in lifespans lately. :P

Stephen