I don't believe in science
Category: Humor • Science
Posted on: September 9, 2006 10:33 AM, by PZ Myers
A new xkcd comic hits the right note: science isn't about belief. Read the whole thing.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search this blog
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply insecure and fearful people. This is done by justifying a way of life with all of its defining prejudices. It thereby provides an appropriate and legitimate outlet for one's anger. The authority of an inerrant Bible that can be readily quoted to buttress this point of view becomes an essential ingredient to such a life. When that Bible is challenged, or relativized, the resulting anger proves the point categorically.
Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (San Fransisco: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 5.
Recent Posts
- Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- How McCain will win the youth vote
- Everything you need to know about ID
- I'm on Skeptics' Guide to the Universe!
- So…where are the octopus language lessons?
- This poll cannot stand
- Short takes from the mailbag
- On my way to Missouri
- Friday Cephalopod: Beautiful body plan
- Another review of the Origins conference
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)Evolution of Hormone Signaling
Patterning the nervous system with Bmp
Regulatory evolution of the Hox1 gene
Recent Comments
- SC on I'm on Skeptics' Guide to the Universe!
- Phoenix Woman on Everything you need to know about ID
- Nibien on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Kel on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- The Blind Watchmaker on I'm on Skeptics' Guide to the Universe!
- Eric Atkinson on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- eric williams on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Notkieran on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
- Gregory Kusnick on Everything you need to know about ID
- Kel on Brunswick school district: the patient may be getting better
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)Other Information
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Pandas are bad mamas | Main | Ken Miller, creationist »
TrackBacks
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
xkcd is one of the best comics on the web, and definitely the best science-related one. Although this one got me a little depressed about our government's current state of affairs...
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | September 9, 2006 10:46 AM
POIFECT! Love it, thanks!
Posted by: anonymous | September 9, 2006 11:06 AM
This would be a great line for a bumper sticker:
"Science doesn't ask for your faith. Only your eyes."
Posted by: Minnesotachuck | September 9, 2006 11:07 AM
This illustrates one of my pet peeves about news articles. They very often include in the story, "scientists believe . . ." The trouble with those words is that the belief of scientists really is distinguishable from religious belief, but the ambiguity of the phrase makes the religious think that the nature of the belief is like religious belief (and hence, e.g., "Darwinism" is just another religion).
In reality, when a scientists says "I believe . . .", it is really shorthand for "I provisionally accept based upon a slew of data and analysis . . .", not "I have a religious faith that . . .".
Posted by: Ahcuah | September 9, 2006 11:31 AM
This illustrates one of my pet peeves about news articles. They very often include in the story, "scientists believe . . ."
The problem is that there's no other convenient verb in English that one can plug in there.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 11:46 AM
Oh, I don't know. The word "believe" does tend to be the most natural choice if the journalists aren't used to thinking about what it means, but any of these would work:
think
conclude
infer
I'm sure there's a few others
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | September 9, 2006 12:04 PM
Personally, I would rather use the word "trust," rather than "believe."
Posted by: Steve Sutton | September 9, 2006 12:05 PM
Posted by: quork | September 9, 2006 12:08 PM
"The trouble with those words is that the belief of scientists really is distinguishable from religious belief, but the ambiguity of the phrase makes the religious think that the nature of the belief is like religious belief"
I think you're correct here. The word "believe" in common use doesn't strongly imply that the belief is based on anything science would include as evidence. The result is that very many hearers/readers interpret the phrase "scientists believe" to have the same sort of meaning as "Catholics believe." The word is not inaccurate in "scientists believe," but it is easily misunderstood. "Scientists think" or "Scientific evidence indicates" would be much clearer to the general public. Of course, if one isn't much interested in attempting to be clear to the general public, then I suppose the wording wouldn't matter.
Posted by: Julia | September 9, 2006 12:35 PM
When people learn that I do not believe in any gods, they will sometimes ask what I do believe. My answer is "the evidence."
Posted by: Craig O. | September 9, 2006 2:08 PM
When I debated creationists last February in Fresno, one of my lines that got the strongest response from the audience (it was in a church), was that "science doesn't care what we believe. It's interested in claims that can actually be tested."
BTW, it was an almost overwhelmingly positive response.
SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | September 9, 2006 3:15 PM
Nitpick: While the image link above is correct, the text link incorrectly has "title=" rather than "href=" before the URL.
Sorry. Nerd moment, there.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 9, 2006 4:04 PM
Fine as far as a comic goes, but it is important to stress the rationalistic aspect of science, not just empirical stuff (i.e., one's eyes).
Posted by: Keith Douglas | September 9, 2006 6:05 PM
Good one. When I read the last panel, lil ricky santorum came into my mind. What a loon.
Posted by: Jeff Stubbs | September 9, 2006 7:17 PM
There's a wonderful quote which I have often seen attributed to one of the more interesting SF authors, Phillip K. Dick:
"Reality is that which remains after you stop believing in it."
Posted by: Jillian | September 9, 2006 7:41 PM
The two versions of "believe":
Scientists have worked out that ...
vs
Religionists have made up that ...
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2006 8:46 PM
Did anyone else notice that the people in the comic don't HAVE eyes?? Just thought that was odd
Posted by: Lynn | September 9, 2006 10:19 PM
I heart xkcd. This one made me get up and dance around the living room with my sweetie, for no reason other than that I could.
Posted by: grendelkhan | September 9, 2006 11:05 PM
That's because they have given their eyes to science.
Posted by: Aesmael | September 9, 2006 11:36 PM
This illustrates one of my pet peeves about news articles. They very often include in the story, "scientists believe . . ."
The problem is that there's no other convenient verb in English that one can plug in there.
Yes, there is: "infer".
Posted by: truth machine | September 11, 2006 6:31 AM
What about, "I've deduced..."?
Posted by: MarchDancer | September 12, 2006 2:21 PM
"Deduced" is good as far as it goes, but most of science is not pure deduction--the process of hypothesis generation, for example, is inductive. So it seems a little too specialized for this purpose.
Posted by: RavenT | September 12, 2006 2:39 PM
So, "inferring" or "deducing" or "concluding" or "believing" are OK if you're a scientist but not a Christian?
Unbelievable that so many can't recognize their own preconceptions that lead to their conclusions. Sounds like a religion to me.
Posted by: DP | September 13, 2006 10:30 AM
Science doesn't ask for faith? Now that's rich.
Posted by: DP | September 13, 2006 10:32 AM
Im so going to post it in my blog !! ^^
I like the scientific cartoonist too, great
biology related jokes inside, jeje.
Posted by: Lord Zero | May 8, 2008 5:46 PM