| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
It seems to me that some of us are missing Cliff's point, which is that as scientists we don't (or shouldn't) "belive in" any theory or concept. That phrase implies an element of faith in the concept that goes beyond the structure of science, and which, I believe, most of us reject in the context of science. We can say "we believe that evolution (quantum mechanics, GR--fill in your favorite theory) represents a model of that part of reality to which it applies that agrees to a large degree with observation" (a long-winded sentence that is often shortened considerably, frequently to the detriment of the understanding of its meaning by non-scientists). But this belief is not one of faith, but one that represents the high degree of success these models have had of describing our observations and predicting new ones. When we reach a stage where we no longer have that confidence in the observations and predictions made in the context of these models, then we abandon them for better ones. This is not faith, but provisional acceptance based on observation and the willingness to abandon the idea when it stops working.
In the context of this list, "belief" as it is taught to science students would have to include a discussion of the criteria for successful theories. Once that is covered, I don't see much problem with teaching what theories may be "believed in" based on available evidence, etc. Of course, as the sophistication of the students advances, more and more details may be investigated (the _basis_ for the beliefs).