Why not? From the OED:
believe, v.
(bɪˈliːv)
I.I intr.
1.I.1 To have confidence or faith in (a person), and consequently to rely upon, trust to.
2 Likes
Believe is a weak word when it comes to the area of science and the facts and strong evidence that underpins it.
You may well believe something to be true or exist, but there is no requirement definitionally for that belief to be supported by facts or strong evidence.
Eg. Some scientists believe that there may be, or have been, life on Mars. There is not a single shred of evidence to support that belief, so it is just an opinion based on the supposed presence (yet to be actually confirmed), of some form of water on the planet. A requirement for life as we know it on Earth. So the possibility is there. But nowhere near fact. Not yet established science.
Many words in English have several shades of meaning. You have decided “believe” must always carry one in particular. You are entitled to that view even if others don’t share it.
Enough semantic quibbles, I doubt this diversion is important to being mislead in scientific matters unless you run into rabid post modernist. If that happens I recommend scotch instead of a dictionary.
2 Likes
Just my sceptic mindset showing @syncretic. I require a higher level of evidence and facts when it comes to scientific reporting than others it seems.
I have no problem with that, and I would encourage interested people to look beyond the simple 5 ways that are the subject of this topic to more general sceptical and critical thinking and running reporting through things like Sagan’s baloney detection principles.
What ever the level, don’t you at some point need to place your trust in someone or body?
I will try to follow content that is new or novel back to source. EG a University or published research papers. The credentials of those providing the work and other details are relevant.
In reading the supporting or related material is there also the need to be able to understand the content? IE does the reader know their spangles from their widgets or what a dog bone is used for.
Nothing to do with sub-atomic particles or string theory, but relevant to a particular topic.
Hence at some point the enquiring mind needs to give over to trusting the source, or forever be the ultimate non believer. There is some evidence the earth exists, otherwise we’d all fall through to the other side. Gravity however remains an observation, inferred to exist because we aren’t all drifting off into space. Until such time as we learn to turn it off. 
Appreciate your response pjturner.Other’s obviously don’t agree.They have done so much testing with the vaccine as they would with any other vaccine to be put out in the public.All the money put into it allowed them to find a vaccine quickly and rapid testing all around the world.To me it appears you just don’t like the idea of getting a jab plain and simple.There is a heap of evidence that is very effective you only have to see the data
1 Like
Since I cannot be an expert in every field this is trivially true. You can take steps such as checking with other workers or reviewers in the field to see what they think. Should there be a watertight conspiracy (which is virtually impossible in practice) and all reviewers said the same thing I would be deceived.
Before anybody says ‘yes I told you so, it’s all a big lie…’ that is what the peer review system is all about. It is in the interest of the reviewer to pick up errors or lies. There is kudos for showing showing others are wrong and this happens regardless of the reputation of the proponent.
Take the case of our own William McBride who was lionised when he showed thalidomide caused birth defects and who was struck off and shunned when he committed fraud over debendox. Or Linus Pauling who has the unique distinction of having won two Nobel prizes in his own right (Chemistry and Peace). In his later years he espoused all kinds of doubtful stuff including megadoses of vitamins. That didn’t stop anybody from saying he was wrong. Today he is still regarded as a great man for his good work but his silly work is dismissed with a rueful smile. Sir Isaac Newton produced superb work in physics and mathematics. He was also studied the occult and believed in alchemy.
4 Likes
Fred Hoyle is another. His best work was brilliant and influential, but he was also a combative champion of fringe conjectures and seems to have been completely unable to abandon a wrong idea.
1 Like
I think you have gotten the wrong end of the stick. I will be rolling up my sleeve for the vaccine when it becomes available to me. Millions of doses have been administered all around the World with very very few adverse reactions. My 91 year old mother was vaccinated last Monday with NO problems. Again I trust in the science.
Scratch the surface of “climate deniers” and you will usually find a person who is in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry.
I’m 100% with you just referring to other’s who have posted a different view
Should have said appears they,not appears you sorry for the confusion
