当科学发现了一个情况否定了它的预测, 它感到欣喜, 因为它认识了一个新的东西,
科学最关心的是真相, 不在乎自己喜欢不喜欢,
别的几条,我想我还是有不少话要说,但觉的再说下去就有一点离主题远了。
第3条应该是围绕着主题的,
你说科学假说的建立根本不需要信心。不。需。要。
那么你认为科学研究(科学假说的推导当然也在其中)需不需要信心,
信心的定义是什么。
信心这个词是兄台在2773楼引进来的,在我们沟通我理解是按照一般的定义来理解的。新华字典有四个解释。在我们沟通的背景下,我认为你说这个词的时候意境靠近第二个解释。
在这个语境下,我认为科学研究也不需要信心。需要的是事实,逻辑,假设和验证。
http://xh.5156edu.com/html5/69543.html
信心
基本解释:
1.诚心。
2.虔诚信仰宗教之心。
3.随心,任意。
4.相信自己的理想﹑愿望或预见一定能够实现的心理。
我看更靠近第四个,
4.相信自己的理想﹑愿望或预见一定能够实现的心理。
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be truefishyyy你选择2虔诚信仰宗教之心, 明显是对我的话的遐想。
先看看维基的定义,我的定义接近于这个,
我们先把定义统一了,再走下一步。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/信念
对对, richard 是最讲理的,又一次验证你是戴有色眼镜看人。
chris 只是坚持真理,说些真话,被你说成不讲理。
养猪胡搅蛮缠,丑态百出,你可能会认为他是讲理的吧?
有目共睹的事。
fishyyy你选择2虔诚信仰宗教之心, 明显是对我的话的遐想。
先看看维基的定义,我的定义接近于这个,
我们先把定义统一了,再走下一步。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/信念
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.htmlSir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.
Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].
In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.
Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists.
Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.
Repeating Leuba's methods presented challenges. For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS). We used the current edition. In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the "great scientists" among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his "greater" scientists [1,2]. The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our "greater" scientists members of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as "great scientists" in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.
For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS "great scientists". It asked about the respondent's belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question [1]. Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses.
Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 "biological and physical scientists", with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers [1]. Because of the relatively small size of NAS membership, we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplines. Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70% in 1914 and more than 75% in 1933 whereas our returns stood at about 60% for the 1996 survey and slightly over 50% from NAS members [1,2].
As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"[5]. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.
Edward J. Larson
Department of History, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USA
[FONT=Verdana, Arial]e-mail:edlarson@uga.edu[/FONT]
Larry Witham
3816 Lansdale Court, Burtonsville,
Maryland 20866, USA
References
- Leuba, J. H. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (Sherman, French & Co., Boston, 1916).
- Leuba, J. H. Harper's Magazine 169, 291-300 (1934).
- Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).
- Highfield, R. The Daily Telegraph 3 April, p. 4 (1997).
- National Academy of Sciences Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Natl Acad. Press, Washington DC, 1998).
好吧。以前的是是非非就不提了。为证明我的观察错误请
1)亮出你的信仰并为之辩护;
2)把你自认为最得意最犀利的问题提出来,并承诺不跑题,我们好好讨论一下。
好。
1)我的信仰就是, 你坐稳了, 我的信仰就是只拜父母,不拜鬼神,虽然有可能有神,但跟我没关系。反对一切自我标榜“最高指示,最佳人生,唯一真理,唯一出路” 的任何言行。
2)我有100个问题,都是圣经上的漏洞,没有最滥,只有更滥。随便说几个你就不行了。 比如说,上帝知道前因后果,他知道人类最终会吃禁果,为什么不阻止? 还要罚人类必死, 怎么都是必死,何必找借口?
胆小鬼Chris真的就这样逃走了?
这正是我参加讨论的原因,本来基督教帖子适合基督徒,慕道友和有兴趣的朋友交流分享,不同信仰和不感兴趣的人可以不必参与,就像我从来不进佛教的帖子。
Leading scientists still reject God
[FONT=Arial, Verdana]Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.[/FONT]
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html