Dear Marcel, as a general observation, scientists are not quick to say they believe.  But when good proofs are given, some of us will believe.  Why doubt the words of others if the proof is convincing?  But those who distrust themselves (cannot be trusted?) will not be quick to trust others.  Perhaps, it's better not to trust too quickly and be called "naive, over-trusting, over-trustful, easily deceived, easily taken in, exploitable.."

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/03/6-facts-on-trust-and-gullibility.html#

Perhaps some people are non-believers, whatever the topic they encounter?

Perhaps non-believing is considered to be a social sign of intelligence?

It depends of the reputation of the scientist. Anyone has his/her opinion of other scientists. Sometimes one has arguments which would destroy the work of a life of other. It is necessary be prudent with them. Do not have beliefs makes of the person lacking of wisdom and true culture.

Dear @Mariano,

Thus, you believe that science, whatever the discipline, belongs in practice to the social sciences because the outcome of science results from humans and their feelings and social relationships?

Dear Marcel, as a general observation, scientists are not quick to say they believe.  But when good proofs are given, some of us will believe.  Why doubt the words of others if the proof is convincing?  But those who distrust themselves (cannot be trusted?) will not be quick to trust others.  Perhaps, it's better not to trust too quickly and be called "naive, over-trusting, over-trustful, easily deceived, easily taken in, exploitable.."

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/03/6-facts-on-trust-and-gullibility.html#

Then there is the role of society/democracy? What will be the critical mass of people claiming something required to believe or not to believe the claim of those people? Even if thousands of people might claim spiritual forces or climate change exist, there will always be non-believers for X reasons.....

Dear Marcel,

A science without Christian culture was, for example, the experiments with prisoners of war in the second world war. The charity of a scientific person helps indeed to humanize and to inculture the science.

Dear @Mariano,

I think scientists can have spiritual motivations too. This is also support by the fact that religious leaders call to fight climate change first highlighted by scientists, or not? 

The objective facts, as the thaw of Artic, are evidences for all ones, not only of scientists.

Dear Mr.Marcel M. Lambrechts,

 I think if differences between the definitions of certain concepts as well as the related theory system and differences between the results of solutions to the same problems-------there should be defects somewhere, the mutual disbelieves is a must.

The defects disclosed by the newly discovered Harmonic Series Paradox of “strict mathematical proven” Suspended Zeno’s Paradox in present classical infinite related mathematics is a typical example.

This phenomenon happens very often because our science is a living “organism” metabolized along with us human. Small defects in our science will be solved by diminutive mendings while big defects can only be solved by a revolution.

Yours,

Geng

But what is 'evidence' when all scientists only have empirical access to a tiny part of what people call scientific knowledge? Scientists must in this Framework also be believers what other people (e.g. scientists) tell, or not?

E. g. Only one or two persons are witness of a phenomenon X under study and all the rest of humanity have to believe what these two persons tell they experienced concerning phenomenon X....

For some people (e.g. medium), spiritual phenomena (invisible when the physical senses are used) is more than faith. Why do the most powerful countries and leaders believe in spiritual forces when there would be 'no evidence' at all?

Scientists are not blind believers, they believe in the facts that they are able to check. This is at least the case in my engineering field.

If the proofs are convincing in the known framework of well established results and if the scientist is able to clear all possible doubts or queries of other scientists, then there is no valid reason of not believing. Or otherwise anyone who is questioning it should give some counter theory of not believing it with equally strong reasoning.

Its very often- but it has also something to do with professional jealousy and self-esteeme.

Dear Marcel,

The core of your question is: How often does it happen ....?

I have been working for over 50 years in academia (Earth Sciences).

My personal statistics, my calculus comes to a percentage of approximately 10% unbelievers or ignorant. These ignorant people are or were typically my keenest rival in my field.

How to get it: I am working since 1977 with the genesis of emeralds and have published in my dissertation a new theory (1983). For old colleagues was or is hard to bear, to be of a youth disabused. Their typical response was: "hushing" "ignore" or "consider false". It's always the same old story, for the above-mentioned 10% applies: 'What I do not know does not exist' or 'verify the established hypothesis, I have no time and desire'.

It sounds harsh, but it's exactly that what I've experienced in my career.

Anyone can verify by reading my publications and those of my rival!

Best regards,

Guenter

Thanks Guenter. This % will change across people or research fields, I presume.

Dear @Manuel/All,

If you scientifically claim that the supernatural is not more than an illusion, you imply you worked on the topic for at least how many years? How can scientists make claims about phenomena that exist but that cannot be perceived by scientists? Is this a scientific attitude? Why would citizens have worse empircal-based perception capacities than scientists?

Dear Marcel, dear Colleagues,

Being active in various scientific fields, I observe various levels of belief/trust of scientists and published papers. And, I think, this has reasons. I try to explain that below.

My two end members in this example will be geology and engineering science. (I do not mean that these would be the end members of the distribution, this is just for the example, and in the discussion above these two disciplines have been mentioned in this sense by Guenter and Ljubomir, as well.)

In engineering science I observed many cases during the review that observational part of the papers had been questioned, and additional verification had been required. In my opinion this is because (1) certain settings can be relatively easily checked/disproved (2) those statements that cannot be checked easily and get published have a potentially large impact (others will use or will try to use that), therefore peer reviewers want to keep a high standard of quality control in this sense as well. A double-blind review is also common in this field, so the reputation of author(s) play(s) a less characteristic role in the review.

In geology it is typical that other geologist believe the descriptive/observational part of the papers, whereas the discussion and conclusions are often disputed. For the first glance it seems to be surprising because the discussion and conclusions are the easiest to check, and the observational statements are difficult to confirm. This is a practical approach, as in most of the cases the outcrop, the borehole, the material or the analytic results are not available for other researchers (in hydrocarbon exploration, being a secret, it may last for decades) so they cannot directly check the factual base of the contribution. This is partly compensated by the higher level of the criticism in the implications. Furthermore, established geoscientists have a much higher respect in terms of what they write, and the double-blind review is not common (because it often makes not too much sense). I have seen collapsing statements/theories of former leading professors just after they passed away, or even sometimes a decade later (as their supporters were becoming weaker). If I see that the validity of the contribution is related to the lifetime of the researcher then I have to assume that it is not necessarily good science. But, please note, this is not general, this is just often observable. I took this example for the discussion, and it is not my intent to generalize.

Let me add another, rather personal example. I have got a manuscript to review that dealt with the evaluation of a digital elevation model. The authors created a profile, stating that it had been created out of the digital data. As a coincidence, I knew the place and I was quite sure that the profile could not stem from the digital data, it was rather a conceptual profile  (that is common in geology). Since the line of the profile was very clearly defined in the manuscript and I had access to a similar digital elevation model, as a part of the review, I recreated the profile demonstrating that this could not be the case. (My conclusion was major revision, otherwise the paper was okay.) Eventually, the manuscript has been rejected. I am asking myself what could have happened if a reviewer received the manuscript that (a) did not know the area (b) did not have access to data (c) did not have the time/motivation to recreate the profile?

Again, with all this above, I just wanted to show that the level of trust could be different in various disciplines, and not to blame any group of scientists. Let me close by a motto, well known among geodesist, that I have seen also on the office door of a geodesy students group: "In Gauss we trust". I think this is good motto in this context...

Thanks for the great discussion and kind regards, Balázs

Very interesting question but we do not wish to apply only for the scientist but this may applicable for entire areas of human career development .

Human beings are interested to go for their progressive line & their also interested to know & learn for their co -partner ,for their successive career in their own line .

There is no limit to the knowledge & otherwise the knowledge should be considered only on board line which may go for the progress by the successive line of the members of their development .

In certain cases in every areas it has been observed that because of the narrow outlook ,infinitely complex & the personal nature of jealousy & Envy remain the contribute factors for other to their progress & for their ideas which have been exposed .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4

Dear Mr. Marcel M. Lambrechts，

The typical “disbelieves” in present science theory system have been existing more than 2500 years between the holders of “potential infinite” and “actual infinite” because the biggest trouble in present classical infinite related mathematics is the very much ambiguously definition of “infinite”. Some people insist we can have only one definition of “infinite” in science but others argue that we can have many definitions of “infinite” with different natures in science (at least two: “potential infinite” and “actual infinite”): “Infinite”, “potential infinite”, “actual infinite”, “potential infinitesimal”, “actual infinitesimal”, “potential infinite-big”, “actual infinite-big”, “Infinite related numbers”,…: INFINITE R is more infinite than INFINITE N--------infinite real number set is more endless, more limitless and more infinite than infinite natural number set because it has more elements than infinite natural number set.

In present classical “multi--infinite--definition” related mathematics, when facing “infinite something”, one at lest have two troubles:

1, “potential infinite” or “actual infinite” or “super infinite” or “sub infinite” or “secondary infinite” or…?

2, how much “endless, limitless and infinite” it would be?

(a),When paying equal attention on “potential infinite” and “actual infinite”, we meet the uncompromised logical contradiction and the typical case is the “strict mathematical proven” ancient Zeno’s Paradoxes and modern Paradox of Harmonic Series.

(b), When paying more attention on “potential infinite” and neglect “actual infinite”, we meet all the ideas and theories of “all infinite things are the same endless without any inborn and numerical natures” and the typical cases are all the ideas and theories of the countable infinite sets.

(c), When paying more attention on “actual infinite” and neglect “potential infinite”, we meet all the ideas and theories of “all infinite things are not the same endless, they have inborn and numerical natures” and the typical cases are all the ideas and theories of uncountable infinite sets: more infinite, more more infinite, more more more infinite,…; higher infinite, higher higher infinite, higher higher higher infinite,…; bigger infinite, bigger bigger infinite, bigger bigger bigger infinite,…; super infinite, super super infinite, super super super infinite,…; Continuum Hypothesis,… 

Thank you very much.

Yours,

Geng

Infiniti: How many numbers behind the decimal point do you need before an answer is acceptable by scientists?

Dear Mr. Marcel M. Lambrechts，

Thank you for the most typical “un-agreeable and un-believable” question between scientists: How many numbers behind the decimal point do you need before an answer is acceptable by scientists?!

This question has been an unsolvable argument (topic) for at least 2500 years between the holders of “potential infinite” and “actual infinite” and it will be everlasting in present classical infinite related science theory system because of the defects in the following 3 fields:

1, the classical definition of infinite;

2, the classical infinite related number system;

3, the non-foundational classical limit theory;

“Infinite” is there in our science and the quantitative cognitions is a must for us researchers.

Yours,

Geng

@Marcel concerning required decimals:

It is an exciting question. I believe science is on one hand to understand orders of magnitudes, scales, and the order of errors. If you have this understanding, you can derive the required decimals, if necessary...

I was lucky to study astronomy, geophysics, geology and some geography (mostly geomorphology) and cooperated with such scientists as well. (Though I never studied archaeology, I add archaeologists to the list of whom I worked with, too)

Again, the experience is various. In astronomy if you figure out the order of magnitude of the phenomenon, often the result is already considered precise; the possible scales in astronomy (e.g megaparsec, billion light years) are not for normal human beings. Geophysics is really the science of magnitudes from human understandable scales (say, meters, in engineering geophysics) up to thousands of kilometers; and there is a soft transition to solar-terrestrial science and solar system science where the astronomical unit (AU, ca. 150×10^6 km) is an appropriate unit. But if you want to land on the Moon or on an asteroid, again, meters are your scale unit, regardless how many hundred thousands (to Moon) or millions (to asteroid) of kms the space probe travelled before. Some geologists will not consider too much the scales working in an opencast mine, some do, creating thin sections of rock samples taken from a borehole of 2000 m depth (if the required thickness of the thin section in micrometers is not properly achieved, the colours of the minerals in the microscope are not what you expect). An archaeologist would consider a "hill" of 0.5-1 m elevation difference on a floodplain because this "hill" might have remained unflooded in the neolithic, so there could be a settlement there (here 10 cm difference may play a role). If you survey an archaeological site with magnetic method, the measured values is of 50.000 nT (nanotesla), whereas the anomaly caused by the archaeological features is typically between 0.1 nT and 200 nT. And finally, in geography for many questions the decimals are not really relevant, because some of the observations are not quantitative.

Well, it is really colourful. In some cases the validity of a scientific statement certainly depends on the decimals, and sometimes not, it still can be good science. I do believe this is good so. But you must know which case is which.

Kind regards, Balázs

Dear Mr. Balázs Székely, a very meaningful post.

Your idea is really great and true for applied science (mathematics) but how about theoretical science (mathematics)？

Kind regards,

Geng

Dear Geng,

Marcel asked about required decimals ("How many numbers behind the decimal point do you need before an answer is acceptable by scientists?") and you wish to relate this to the theoretical science. That is how I understand your comment. (I am sorry if I misunderstood you.)

One example comes into my mind that I learned (back then) in celestial mechanics. Our professor, Prof. Bálint Érdi presented a solution for a specific problem, in theoretical form. He said that the presented theoretical solution would provide the accurate values for the problem. The only disadvantage of the solution is that you have to sum up so many values (~2^80) that it would last for millions (now:thousands) of years for one position. So one needs approximating solutions for the problem. 

I do not mean by this example that theorists do their research in vain. I do think that it is worth doing that; theoretical studies may lead to new ideas and finally new applied solutions. Without the studies of French and other mathematicians on prime numbers today our cryptography would not work at all.

I would be happy to read your considerations as well.

Best regards,  Balázs

Of course there are more aspects in your question, Marcel, than it Looks at first sight.

The formal ones: how to get things published, if your Approach is too different from the main stream. - People are afraid of changing paradigms.

The contents: From the more mechanical parts of e.g. statistics, to the functional ones of e.g. psychosomatic till the spiritual ones.

For the latter one, there is a great book in German: Hans Peter Duerr (Ed) (1981) Der Wissenschaftler und das Irrationale. Bd 1 & 2. Frankfurt/M.: Syndicat. 

And one of it s  articles directly addresses this Point in ethnology: Åke Hultkrantz (1981) Ritual und Geheimnis: Über die Kunst der Medizinmänner, oder: Was der Herr Professor verschwieg. 

Hultkrantz states, that the self-controll of your published work is normally already so high (fear of academic loose face) that you prefer to not integrate results which are too challenging for our present world view. - So actually this is then a not scientific Approach to difficult subjects. Marget Mead said something similar by the way.

Dear Marcel,

Scientist are convinced only by proofs, this is how science should be.

Best regards,

'Proof' is not equal to scientific/human consensus (according to historical facts).

Is 'proof' in mathematics mainly based on human consensus what 'proof' should be? 

Sometimes it is difficult to accept the criteria of other scientists when they conflict with their knowledge.

My experience is expressed in the readings of the criteria for evaluators of the journals that have published

Dear Mr. Balázs Székely, thank you very much for your sincere and understandable reply.

I think your professor, Prof. Bálint Érdi is right to the point: the presented theoretical solution would provide the accurate values for the problem.

Our science history has proved that without the scientific fundamental theories, some of our cognitive behaviors produce errors or paradoxes and the newly discovered Harmonic Series Paradox of “strict mathematical proven” Suspended Zeno’s Paradox in present classical infinite related mathematics is a typical example--------we are wrong in doing it although we didn’t know why, just do.

Your examples about celestial mechanics are really great. According to my studies, it is something about “applied infinite”--------we are right in doing it although we didn’t know why, just do.

Yours,

Geng

Proofs work in mathematics but in science they may not be so useful because one must first demonstrate that nature follows the mathematics.

What about predictive power then? If the predictions made by a mathematical relationship hold, and continue to hold into the future, does that then suggest that the relationship is indeed true (or is not false, at least)? 

That is why I prefer Engineering to Science - Because I don't need to worry so much about this sort of thing!    

Dear @Marcel, fine article follows : Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

"We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from climate change to vaccinations—faces furious opposition. Some even have doubts about the moon landing!...

We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative. And there’s so much talk about the trend these days—in books, articles, and academic conferences—that science doubt itself has become a pop-culture meme. In the recent movie Interstellar, set in a futuristic, downtrodden America where NASA has been forced into hiding, school textbooks say the Apollo moon landings were faked..."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

Well, people need to see the evidence for a new theory in order to judge the merits. Then again, one can interpret phenomena in a different way. One may not believe entirely, but can appreciate the differences with one's own beliefs

Agreed scientists generally have the attitude not quickly believe / convinced or very cautious even though there are empirical evidence presented by other scientists / researchers e.g. how reliable & valid the instruments being used, how the data is collected, what kind of analytical tools are used to analyze the data etc.  Similar scenarios when we submit our articles for blind review.  Think the above attitude is acceptable if it is for the purpose of knowledge contribution.  However, there can be incidents whereby some scientists / researchers / scholars don't believe / denounce / reject others' work due to rivalry, disagreement, personal attack etc. which are undesirable.

I think it is very interesting that of nearly 30 answers inspite of Marcels half a dozen questions and comments the example of the spiritual aspects was nearly completely neglected.

But the reality is, at least i suggest this, that all mathematics and engineers (half of the answers) and scientists (other half of the answers) are believers as they believe in the objectivity of things.

Or how can you explain, that light is a wave if you before the experiment think this will be the result and it will be a particle when you are convinced the experiment will come out that way?  

And where is the objectivity in Heisenbergs Unschärfetheorie ( place and speed not determinable at the same time)?

And how come anthropologists, psychologists etc. think it is not worth while to give an answer to this question - may it is too evident for them?

Just some ideas to think about...

Not believing or not accepting any result/outcome of any research/experiment is not uncommon. This process provides scope to reason out/validate through alternate methods which may lead to better outcomes/results....

@Thomas:

You state: "But the reality is, at least i suggest this, that all mathematics and engineers (half of the answers) and scientists (other half of the answers) are believers as they believe in the objectivity of things."

Basically you are right, because all of them were trained to do so at the university.  If a researcher is not self-assured, cannot really work properly. But, I believe :-) , one becomes a real researcher, focusing on existing problems and reading papers that are expected to provide solutions, as one can realize that the expected objectivity is not really there where one may expect.

Actually, I became very modest in creating any model constructs about the real world, as I learned about Gödel's theorem during my university studies... So in this sense I know I am a believer and a skeptic at the same time. I use statistical tests (developed by others, the validity of which I cannot really check) to verify implications based on experiment results. Funny, isn't it? But at least I am aware of that; that is what I tried to express in a previous comment.

I  agree with you that many researchers think that they are objective and not believers, whereas they just strongly believe in the objectivity of some observations or, even some models. The in-depth discussion with such researchers I find very difficult.

Marcel is asking such questions (it is a mental pleasure to read them!) to provoke such discussions that map the boundaries of such beliefs. 

Kind regards, Balázs

Dear Balázs/All,

I presume that the vast majority of the students/researchers use statistical tests with programs of which the 'validity' cannot be personally checked. They use some general text books for advice they can believe or reject. Perhaps this is especially a problem for analysed dynamic processes that cannot be verified by the human eye? 

Indeed very funny

Dear Marcel, dear George,

Yes, most of the commercial statistical packages are sort of black boxes, but to a given extent you can check them by tests using previously validated test data. (Then again, you believe in test data, or you can re-test them manually...) In package R you can check the source code, if you are able to...

But there are other examples of  scientific beliefs. In the nearby building here there is a lab that I visit sometimes. They use high purity chemicals for (chemical) analytic purposes. And these chemicals can be tested via e.g., ICP-MS measurements whether they fulfill the requirements, if the instrument is properly calibrated (that takes days, e.g., to clean the samplers). And how do you calibrate the instrument? Of course using MANY various analytic chemicals. So the probability (go back to step 1 :-)) that the instrument stays calibrated is high, and they re-test it time by time (because there are other skeptic guys there :-)).

@George:

" we trust the machines and those who invented those statistical packages 100%"

Not me. Since I developed some computer code myself and found enough errors, my trust level is never 100%. My trust level varies, depending on one hand on the author/company (also a belief, based on previous experience), on the other hand on when it was created. E.g., I trust much more in a code that was developed in 1975 than in another that was written in 2005. (And there is still the compiler between the code and me that I cannot check at all...)

So I myself do regularly some (maybe too simple) checks, but you cannot spend your time on checks always. I think there is a healthy level of trust/mistrust, as my analytical chemical example above hopefully shows. Je doute donc je suis, so I check the expiry date of the food I buy, anyhow... :-)

Kind regards, Balázs

People belong to networks where people belong to other networks where people belong to other networks, etc...

How to identify the possible 'errors' in multi-network systems? 

How often,RARELY.Miranda answered it right.When what you are selling has no substantial proof or theoretical base,then its authenticity is doubted and others might not buy: unless  proven beyond reasonable doubt.Scientists are not unbelievers unless where proof  is in question.If 1+1=2,is understood,then you generate enough proof that 1+1=3 ans in synergy or  1+1=1 as in compound combining weights.

AS I already wrote, the fools off yesterday (e.g. stating that the Earth is not flat) might be the leaders of tomorrow

Why scientists do not believe model predictions from colleagues?

There are two kind of believes:

Number 1: if you are not able to repeat someone's work- you may say that I do not believe in his or her work- Or first check with the person- if he can help you

Number 2: One can not tolerate the success of other person and create a self-proclaimed non-believer of other person

Reviewers often reject papers or reject grant proposals for some reason of conflict of their work-

At the end of of the day- your citation index can judge upto a great extent if your work to be believed or not- Cheers

In my opinion we tend to believe more than we are ready to admit. If we applied complete skepticism, we would fall into 'infinite' recursion. When we judge with skepticism we are also applying different levels of skepticism. The level of skepticism depends on several factors such as:

*Whether a work is peer reviewed and vetted

*Whether the author has standing

*Whether the results are reasonable in our experience

From a strictly logical point of view even the second point is a logical fallacy of authority.

We also tend to trust in layers due to the complexity of science itself. Do we check the proof of every mathematical formula? No. Should we even be doing it? Maybe, but the truth of the matter is that we would fall into just checking everyone's else work and not doing any work of our own(and probably there is somebody better to do the testing).

Recognizing our limitations and possible pitfalls of our methodology helps us becoming better scientists.

If people took more than a year or a lifetime to develop a (math-based) reasoning, what do you have to expect from editors/reviewers that only have 3 weeks to check every detail of the reasoning?

 The goal is learning.  There are probably two classes of investigators:

1 those who consciously invent description/interpretation that fits personal belief

2 those who unawarely advance interpretion or observation that is likewise slanted in that direction from evolved belief

Most scientists are of class 2.  There is much that is not understood; discussion that broadens and advances knowledge is the goal.

It might not be recognzed that, other than the data itself, the locus of the origin of data supervenenes with  respect  to the accomplishment of goals. Some questions are inately unanswerable, data from the researcher who begins employing spaces in the unknown domain to which he has added his personally established illuminations maybe be indistinguishable from that produced otherwise. The former might trail off into science that invades the domain of the theological.  

This can certainly present a violatile situation.   Distrust, dishonesty, personality conflict; confrontation where discriminating proof is beyond the test of science method, requires philosophical introspection regarding  the means and meaning of results. Some fields are more alergic to the absence of universal theory than others. Though rational investigation has it roots in ego processes it cannot be contested that the human ego can prove to be a great liability, if not the exact tool of ruination.  In a world moving faster and faster, personal spaces being invaded by our own  devices, respect is paramount.  

If scientists would believe other scientists, would there be replicated research or extensive discussions about already published science?

Marcel,

Do we disbelieve the scientist or do we disbelieve the results, experimental setup, literature review completeness ..., or all of the above?

I did not experience it myself, so I do not believe it..... . Is this a mature scientist?

My position is similar to Marcel's. Usually my belief is anchored on my present knowledge and understanding on the matter- and it could be either way, and not on a pre-conceived personal bias.

I think it is concepts and not personalities that grope for space,, suffer oppression .    Groupings that result are the consequences and responsibilities of individuals in approach to one another.

For some situations as if gardens, situations demanding the pullling of weeds the first day and as they are subquently  encountered can result in undesireable percentages of time  spent pulling weeds.  In addition a weed that changes to produce flowers has the greatest accomplishment and contribution. Or possibly a garden can fail if not attended scrupiously from day 1.  Other gardens might require little attention. But at the end what is gained strictly depends on how one spent his time. End as expert weed pullers verses expert scientists if. It is important to identify correctly who/what we are, if so nothing is really lost.    

Are the weeds that are removed symbols for unaccepted manuscripts suppporting or not supporting a school of thinking?

@marcel   The obvious answer to your question is no, the general case "out of scope" from my experience and does not merit a 'banishment' verdict, especially when studies are always open and scopes are never really clearly reflected/can vary by opinion themselves as much as written opinions can vary in manuscripts.The real weeds in my opinion are those "doing one thing in the name of another". looking around the world this is a widespread behavior, room for progress has to exist. 

i also think there is just too much language communication.  The number of journals, professions, amount of print.....vast?  looking in retrospect back in time, there is a new or different idea not every year or ten, or even century......I imagine there is a lot of talk, writing, publication when there might really be nothing to say. A lot of time   and  money is tied up that way so it continues, proliferates personale and product, adding problems, wasteing resources.  

Dear Marcel,

A scientist (Sc1) is right not to believe other scientists (SC2) if they (Sc1) have evidences and/or experiences regarding the results/opinion/morality of Sc2.  I think this matters.  

to add "one thing

to add: discussing 'cause and effect' , 'one thing in the name of another' becomes both cause and effect...self definition that excuses nature as the defining agent.  if suppose nature can be viewed also this way,e.g. "one thing in the name of another" as its modus operandi, either men have gotten to be incoherently bold to challenge nature for top dog or there is top secret knowledge that other than nature, aliens from outspace are planning war and our earthly guidance leads to our preparation.   I dont mind reading scholarship produced by the military, is often very interesting and estute whereas the usual university jounal might classify it "out of scope": pseudo science, or fantasy.......but  there is certainly a great deal of unnecessary world chaos.  

Well said Dr Marvin

Scientist believe in right not in others.  

Replicated research to verify the results of other studies is often done in the framework of education programs where young people learn to conduct science, or not? If research of students is published, this also implies that different publications cover similar topics without necessarily dealing with completely new concepts?

By the way, someone claimed that demonstrating that something (e.g. a hypothesis) is true is very complicated from a scientific/philosophical point of view, or not?

Science is not what scientists believe, but what somebody can prove.

When a scientist believes something, he is working as a believer not as a scientist.

From the science viewpoint, unproven issues must be regarded as working hypotheses, not as scientific truth; hence neither must be assumed nor rejected.

Students are learnt to think very critically, and the consequence is endless discussions......

1978, October : India’s first test tube baby Durga (Kanupriya Agarwal) was born.

The then Medical experts in Kolkata did not believed the claims of Dr. Subhash Mukhopadhyay, the Architect of India’s first (Asia’s first) and world’s second test tube baby.

1978, December : An inquiry by the West Bengal govt denounced his claim.

1980 : Dr. Subhash Mukhopadhyay was denied passport to go to Kyoto to present his paper on IVF. He was then transfered to eye hospital, where he suffered a heart attack.

1981 : Dr. Subhash Mukhopadhyay Committed suicide on June 19.

1981 : His described methods of cryopreservation used in US by Howard Jones.

1996 : T.C. Anand Kumar, leader of the group which produced the first document test tube baby in country in Mumbai 1986, gains access to the notes of Dr. Subhash Mukhopadhyay.

1997 : T.C. Anand Kumar, takes a year to study them and writes first paper on Dr. Subhash Mukhopadhyay achievements.

2002 : Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) appoints a 12 member committee to draft a bill on Assisted Reproductive Technique.

2003 : Committee accepts Dr. Subhash Mukhopadhyay’s claim and History is rewritten.

2004 : IVF specialist across the country challenge the document. A review follows among debates.

2005 : ICMR upholds the claim, honours India’s first test tube baby Durga (Kanupriya Agarwal) in first public meeting in Bangalore.

2007: Dr. Subhas Mukherjee’s life and work was published in the “Dictionary of Medical Biography” by Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL, London England.

April 2008 : Dr. Subhash Mukhopadhyay’s achievement finds official stamp of approval.

The full story is available in the following link.

http://www.scientificindians.com/hall-of-fame/people/the-untold-story-behind-indias-first-test-tube-baby

Dolly. Only one individual to demonstrate that mammal cloning was possible. Some people did not believe it because it was based on the outcome of one cloned individual, but you need only one individual to demonstrate that it is possible, or not? Even after thousands of failures/trials..... something can be realized...

Dear Marcel M. Lambrechts,

I think this happens all the time, right under our nose.

In a sense constructs, and theory to a larger extent, are premised upon beliefs. It is a belief or intuition (about a phenomenon of interest) that leads scientists to formulate/frame a problem in a certain way. That is why we hear of "standard model" in theoretical physics and "stylized facts" in economics. This is also related to Kuhn's argument in his reference to paradigm shifts in science. Of course science progresses on the refutation and falsification of some aspects of these formulations, I don't think your question invites us to deny that. Neither do I think that the question denies the possibility of a reflexive relation between empirics and theory. 

What is interesting is the intuitive sense  that certain scientists have about the underlying truth connected to phenomena. So unshakable are these intuitions that one may call them beliefs. These beliefs in turn affect the strategy of inquiry that in turn is opposed to any "alternative", competing, emerging model. For instance, Einstein's quip that "God does not play dice" is purportedly his reaction to quantum mechanics. This belief led him down a divergent path from others who held to the "belief" of quantum mechanics, though both camps were racing to formulate a universal theory of physics.

If science is guided by intuition also guided by personal experiences, is it truly neutral in its approach?  

There is a difference between mathematicians and other researchers. Mathematicians tend to believe a published mathematical result they hear about, because they know that the proof has been acribically checked by different referees for the publication. But they tend to believe almost nothing if they are told about published results from other disciplines. People from natural sciences tend to not believe mathematical results, but have more understanding with experimental proofs. Also, they tend to believe the experiment but not the theoretical interpretation given by the author. An exception is done by theoretical physicists who tend to not believe anything, including their own published results. Many expermentalists often react very enthousiastically when they are told about new experimental results, but not because they already believed them. They are just inspired and want to do by theirselves other experiments with similar or different paradigms. [Note: I am a pure mathematician and my parents were experimental biologists, so I could follow this phenomena long time in many different disciplines.]

Scientists use all sorts of different reasoning modes at different times — and sometimes at the same time — when analyzing a problem. They also use their creativity to come up with new ideas, explanations, and tests. This isn't an either/or choice between induction and deduction. Being optimistic scientists probe and doubt to verify the reality, that's good for a scientific mission.

Dear Marcel,

Doing replicated research, one can learn various perhaps different aspects of the already klnown phenomenon. The question is, what is the likelihood to find something new?

Dear Andras,

Each environment/study population is physically unique, so you will always find Something new. Do you know two studies that provided exactly same statistical results, let say at 3 numbers after the decimal point?

Dear Andras, as a scientistI believe that we have tendecy to double check almost every result we find. We might not be the most quick believers however, as long as it is scientific, the results of any study is appreciated. Good luck in your studies.  

Best,

Language is obviously a barrier! How can you believe something if you don't have access to it?

I don't think that "beliefs" should have a place in science. In religion perhaps. I favor cold hard facts and proofs, but beliefs? I don't think so.

Dann P

I think even prediction from the hardest science theory deviates from the real- measurement though is not far different so that the subjectivity  of science, involves a facet of personal belief, does not arise to question; todate though there is not a theory of nature, just a means of complexly found description. It is important to realize this so that the mind and imagination remain open....it is well known that man can be overtaken by the constructs he builds,e.g. Orwells1984 or Habermas' thoughts about private and public domains. 

@Marcel "Language is obviously a barrier. How can you believe something if you dont have access to it?"

     If you look at the way celll telephones workn different parts contacted and assembled in different places, programmers and programs using different languages, it is not only claimed that it is impossible for a single human being to trace all the steps involving the internal addresses used, but that aside from a single known code that addresses the phones system, there is necessarily a second code that can be found sometimes in the hands of software contributors.  There is today still a persistent fear of hardware virus.  The lesson is obviously that when going from one language to another there is always more than one possible meaning.The only possible pathology though occurs when two populations are packed together like sardines in one can.I see real problems with high speed communications involving data in the physical/natural sciences, theory and practice.     I recall Einsteins comment about common cause and entanglement "a weird association of somekind occurring". Always thought what lead him to general relativity may have involved an observation that was subsequently reconsidered.I personally think nature arbitrates, i.e. lightening is observed to change direction. the world I see to be sort of amorphous/blob likegelatinous.  But neverending in all directions.Einsteins general theory is not a space and needs to be moved and integrated with the same spaces of special relativity.

Scientists have to deal with phenomena they cannot perceive with their eyes or understand with their ears (e.g. language), and therefore have to believe the proxies used to measure/understand these phenomena.

A bird nest can be observed 'directly' and measured, but not a forest community with all its components or Einstein's general or special theory.

A simple conclusion might be that believe is more required for phenomena that cannot be obsered with the eyes, but on the other hand we do not truly know what the brain is doing with what is observed with the eyes.