Why do people think Science supposedly requires belief?

Surprisingly, some people (several on these forums) think people need to believe in Science for science to hold true.

Why is that?

  • Does Science/results “care” about any passion or faith that a Scientist may aim to pour into scientific methodology?

  • Do flat earthers think their belief suddenly impacts or invalidates gravitational theory? Why do people feel belief actually matters?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson PhD Astrophysicist: “Science is true regardless of belief”:

Taken from my 2016 construct: “non-beliefism”.

Please offer your definition of “belief” that will apply to this thread.

1 Like

My apologies. Definitions… were provided in the link at the bottom of the OP, as well as cognitive papers on the matter.


Grow a set and state right here in this forum your personal definition of “belief”.

Right here, stop this dishonest evasion and stop diverting and avoiding.


AND ADVERTISING … if you are saying something on a forum be prepared to interact with people - STOP telling us to read/click/ blah blah blah your shit

1 Like

Could you cite any of these people, as I’ve never heard anyone claim that on here?

See the comment immediately above yours for the definition.

I have repeatedly requested that YOU provide your personal definition of “belief” in this thread, and with your own words, and you fail to understand that myself and others do not play the “clickbait” game.

Stop saying “see above”, or the sole conclusion I can reach is that all you are doing in this forum is self promotion.


Am I missing something here? I provided the definiton of belief, that I had randomly taken from a google search.

What personal definition are you referring to? I am taking the common definition of belief.

Ahhhh, he can’t define the word in his own “words” - describe his concept or use of belief … stick to numbers …

Ironically, you seemed to be advocating for belief’s neccesitation amongst humans, who are science’s actors/communicators, as seen in this response of mine to a comment of yours in this other thread.

I can’t say I am surprised that you were the 1st to inquire about this Op’s question regarding who qualifies.

In what universe is one mandated to paraphrase some definition for a discussion? Maybe in your personal universe. :eyes::eyes:

In the universe of honest and open discussion.

So by your claim, dicussions must entail paraphrased definitions to constitute honesty?

Anybody can find a counterexample to your claim quite quickly on google.

You still have not offered your personal definition of “belief” in this thread.

Evasion. I could explain in my words - where’s yours?


I have never in my life ever claimed people need to believe in Science for science to hold true.

Which is what you said in your OP.

You are either being thoroughly dishonest, or you have an execrable grasp of the English language.

The validity of scientific facts is entirely independent of whether people believe them.

This is from the link you provided…

Sheldon We need beliefs to interact with reality, and as you now admit, scientific and objective facts are accepted by **believing ** they are valid.

I never even remotely claimed " people need to believe in Science for science to hold true..

That’s a gross misrepresentation.

A definition was offered in a comment of mine before yours, as well as in links from the OP.

  1. Which part of the OP supposedly says people need to believe in Science for science to hold true?

The OP points out the precise opposite; that science is true regardless of belief:

  1. Nitpick: I did not say explicitly say you claimed that people need to believe in Science for science to hold true.* I said you claimed that humans (who I said happen to be the actors of science) need belief, as seen in my quote below. I’ve highlighted the target (with “[” “]”) of my comment, since you seemed to have missed this.

It looks like you misread the highlighted portion of my words “…amongst humans [who are science’s actors/communicators]…”. I specifically mentioned that you said humans (who I said happen to be Science’s actors) need to believe, I did not explicitly say you said humans need to believe in Science for it to hold true.

  • Notably though, scientific methodology does constitute interacting with the world.

A snippet of the quote of mine, quoting you, related to your comment:


I did say humans need to form beliefs about the world in order to interact with it, which of course they do.

AT NO POINT DID I REMOTELY CLAIM people need to believe in Science for science to hold true. As you claimed I had, it’s in the opening line of your opening post above, and here it is again:

You lied and you’ve even lied again in that post, offering edited and clipped quotes, to misrepresent my post, pathetic. I challenged you to quote a single poster making THAT CLAIM, and all you did was make up more lies and offer quotes that didn’t remotely say that.

1 Like