Science gets its recognition for being all consistent with external results. But it this consistency certain? How do we make sure that these consistent results are correct? How do we make sure we are gathering knowledge from this technique? We are working with the uncertain limitations of our own minds to obtain knowledge through science. How can we be 100% this is the correct path to knowledge? I feel this is not possible for now, I can only believe in science.
Science isn’t a belief, it’s a methodology. A methodology is neither true nor false, it is judged by the quality of what it produces, and by the variety of situations in which it can be useful.
You’re never sure you’re 100 percent correct. There’s a book called, “the structure of scientific revolutions” that spells it all out nicely.
Repeatability and predictability.
We are gathering something which we use to effectively change the world. Let’s call it knowledge.
We are always working with our minds so our minds will always be a limitation no matter what we are doing.
Nothing is 100% certain and it doesn’t need to be. It collects certain types of knowledge and that is its goal.
Knowing and believing are not the same but similar - because of their common source. Science and religion are not the same but similar - because of their common source.
Knowing and believing can be almost similar within a minimum of variance, or, they can be nearly dissimilar without a maximum of variance, regardless their common source.
Science deals with logical explanation and reason sometimes observable objectivity. Belief deals with dreaming and imagination without evidence needed.
No.
Do you mean “belief” in the sense of “faith” or even of “opinion”? And do you mean “dreaming” in the sense of “fantasising”?
Yes.
Belief hardly ever deals with facts. It is imagination. Thinking without knowing. You know, an idea?
Facts are indisputable and do not ever change. Belief changes all the time.
Here’s the Kantian perspective in addressing 'Is Science a Belief?;
Note the following continuum;
- Opinion = 1-25% Subjectivity : 1-10% Objectivity (% roughly estimated relatively)
- Beliefs = 75-99% subjectivity : 1-25 Objectivity
- Knowledge = 80-99.9% subjectivity : 90-99.9% Objectivity
Scientific theories [not specifically-theoretical] are knowledge not belief because they have the following;
80-99.9% subjectivity : 95-99.9% Objectivity
Speculative scientific theories which have yet to be tested and verified empirically are beliefs because they have’
Beliefs = 75-99% subjectivity : 1-25 Objectivity
As one will note Kant’s approach is very systematic and the above sub-system will fit tightly and justifiable within a total framework.
Are you autistic, or on the Asperger spectrum?
This has nothing to do with Kant.
lev you still haven’t learned about psychiatric disorders…there is presently autism spectrum disorder…asperger is listed under this spectrum…dsm5
Where did those numbers come from?
There was a short lived time when Science was science and the phrase “Nullius in Verba” actually meant something.
Today, Science has become nothing more than another religion, preached with dogma for the masses and a basis for condemnation - the national religion of the USA, China, and many other socialist and communist nations.
And just as the other religions, Science is based upon its particular ontology. The ontology shifts in the same way that Judaism shifted its ancient stories to suit the newer generation’s outlook and Islam shifts its own today. Science’s Vatican is called the “Scientific Community”, populated with priests, clerics, and monks in lab coats funded by socialist corporations when they preach and evangelize properly.
If you are not familiar with Kant, suggest you don’t talk shit. Looks like you have very obvious lack of impulse control and low EQ.
The details are discussed within the paragraphs that followed.
As mentioned they are relative estimates based on what is stated in the text.
In science, there is no “knowing” other than, “your hypothesis can’t be true”.
In other words, you fabricated the numbers.
Posts which contain numbers are impressive, because there is the suggestion that objective research was done to get the numbers. 
How do you call then the rleigious “belief”? “Faith”? Or both “belief” and “faith”?
The religious or scientific “belief” (“faith”) does not change so often.
Plaease explain the difference between “belief” and “faith” and especially their duration aspect to somebody whose first language is not English.
Religion stories always change. How do you think we have 1,000’s of different versions with similarities. It’s just preference. People want their preferences so they can be comfortable. Some people aren’t comfortable with reality or how it really is which Science does it’s best on exploring and explaining.
Belief is buying into something without having to know. It’s the acceptance of something, regardless of evidence or knowing.
Faith is trust. Belief needs faith, otherwise you will always be second guessing what you believe in.
You can accept something and not have trust in it. You can accept something and have trust in it. All without evidence. But I prefer to stick with the side of evidence, testing, observable facts and indisputable facts. Facts never change, but belief of what is a fact does.