Good question!

Actually, this was the main question asked by the trio of sense skeptics: Locke, Berkeley and Hume. The skepticism stems from the fact that our senses are faulty and give us imperfect information about what we observe.

But Boolean reasoning comes to the rescue in evaluating what we observe. That is, if we have a mathematical representation of a physical phenomenon, we require that the representation is testable and that experimental results confirm that the representation is correct.

Good question!

Actually, this was the main question asked by the trio of sense skeptics: Locke, Berkeley and Hume. The skepticism stems from the fact that our senses are faulty and give us imperfect information about what we observe.

But Boolean reasoning comes to the rescue in evaluating what we observe. That is, if we have a mathematical representation of a physical phenomenon, we require that the representation is testable and that experimental results confirm that the representation is correct.

Dear Hemanta, thank u so much for the question.

There is a proverb probably Turkish that says: Who's the wiser? The one who studies hard the world or the one who traveling more and know the world? I think that both the study based on the experiences of others is important as experience the places, the knowledge is too. But I have no doubt that the knowledge imparted is always the interpretation of the speaker, while that knowledge lived, experienced, back beyond the reading conveys the human senses, see, smell, taste, touch ... This experience may be unique.

Difficult question to answer. Nice answers already posted.

If you take matters reg. court evidence is must and should, let it be any form, oral or documentary, basing on that judgment will be delivered, there may be some false evidence that is different story.

Take Physics all laws are proved, eg. Einstein’s theory of relativity, Kepler's planetary motion etc.etc. Science says it should be proved otherwise science does not believe things.

Once you watch personally you have to believe. No doubt for that. If come to moon expedition technology developed a lot. Even India launching "Chandrayaan" then we can confirm whether Neil Armstrong and others landed there or not. We are watching practically people going to Space station, eg. Sunita Williams, spoke from there. Everybody watched the live telecast of that.

If you take Indian epic stories there are evidences excavations at Dwaraka, Sethu (Adam’s bridge) at Rameswaram you have to believe. Or may be people’s belief that depends and varies from person to person.

Some aspects we have to consider ESP too (extra sensory perception).

Well, if you go to believe, then you do not need evidences or understanding just faith (whatever kind of faith: religion, faith in an authoritative senior scientific leader, politicians, your family, your friends)...

Look at the merriam-webster:

intransitive verb

1

a : to have a firm religious faith

b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real

2

: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something

3

: to hold an opinion : think

transitive verb

1

a : to consider to be true or honest

b : to accept the word or evidence of

2

: to hold as an opinion : suppose

So IMHO, seeing and believing simply not related.

Completing James Peters: Locke, Berkeley and Hume were sense skeptics. But in general scientist must keep continuously in mind that scientific truths are only conventional, and they hold true only until they proof be wrong!

So ultimately Locke, Berkeley and Hume were right, since even what we perceive and demonstrate (at least outside Mathematics and Computer sciences) as true, is rigirously wrong and it will be finally rejected by new science (and this iterates ad infinitum).

Of course, I must admit that it is much easier to accept (and "believe" in) something if one can perceive/comprehend it (be it with our senses or with our understanding).

Existence is one of the fundamental questions we humans want to answer in all endeavors from theology, philosophy to physics and mathematics, etc. Besides existence, equally important is uniqueness in some cases. Existence in mathematics is a search of an object in a mathematical structure that satisfies sets of conditions that obey the axioms and rules of that structure. Existence may be verified by a mere observable physical presence or non observable but effect presence. Physical existence is observable or detectable by one of our sense organs, like seeing through our eyes or feeling a heat, but not every sense detected phenomena does exist. Also there are non-observable things that occupy space and their existence is proved by their effects. For instance, electrons exist and their existence is proven by their effects we see on television screen, or from daily electronic communications we make. Black holes exist out in the universe and we prove their existence by the effects they produce on moving objects such as light around them.

It's just my opinion: a materialist would not believe things that cannot be seen or touched.

I don't see the wind, but I see the effects of it. So I believe it's there. So, I can believe in things unseen. I think many people are like this. Otherwise, many would be atheists.

Hi Everyone,

This is a very good question indeed. Whatever is perceived through the senses and conceived through the mind and intellect must be granted to have come into existence for the particular observer (perceiver or conceiver). Sensory perception as well as mental/intellectual conception are both facets of the same "seeing". But the question of believing comes in regard to other observers. If all subjects "see" the same thing, or at least, agree that they all "see" the same thing, then we call it objective fact to be believed in, which may however be proved to be of limited validity subsequently, as always happens with theories and experiments in science and also in mathematical structures. This is on account of the limitations inherent in the constitution of the human sense organs as well as of the mind and intellect.

Thus nothing in science, including mathematics, should be thought of as deserving to be believed in as of unlimited validity, although we often err and do just the opposite and get lost in the currents of vociferous propaganda of the protagonists or the antagonists.

Therefore, What is "seen" need not be believed in and what is not "seen" need not be disbelieved in. We habitually do both these mistakes.

Regards and best wishes for the new year ahead,

Rajat

Good many explanations have already been added (so, could be repetitive); but...

1."seeing (as scientific observation)" of-course leads to "believing (scientifically derived 'Conclusion')", but that "seeing", as in research-terms, is subjective.

2. In the general understanding of that (universal?) philosophy, "all" cannot get chance/ opportunity to "see" "everything", so as to " believe"/ accept it. Acceptable-conclusions are the "wonder-contributions" of "literature", which the researchers refer or review.

Yes We should believe with what you do not seee because for example in any research several tests indicate the presence of a new compound from analysis Actually you dont see the compound but you see the proofs for its presence.

Hemanta,

If you don't mind the answer to your question is the dual nature of Physics line Light because all the properties of physical world is only due to the invisible world i.e. the atoms or the molecules.

Hemanta, I want to add some comments to the good explanations and points of view, I already read.

I think you expected the resistance and opposition of atomar and nuclear physicists as well as from mircrobiology.

One of the first things I learned in my studies was: Never believe even if you mean to see! A typical example is the misinterpretation of some geometric figures like spirals and parallel lines, where the impression depends from the surrounding.

No one has ever seen a free electron, a neutrino or a black hole etc. So we have to invent some apparatus and machinery which widens our senses. If the apparatus works well, just distress - somebody comes and checks it again. No believe. Then we accept, that the aparatus sees for us, we have prooved the new sense.

So if you expand the term "see" for the natural sciences to my version "see with the help of an apparatus" , I want to agree to your statement.

So you see, don´t believe what not can be "seen".

Believing instead of seeing, understanding or proofing is a kind of omitting the mind.

In my opinion, science/scientists should definitely avoid accepting the facts on the principle of "believe". "Believe" in science is equivalent to knock out at the hands of the weapon allowing to effectively conduct research.

Science is proofed by mathematics or experiments as well as by logical approximations and deductions. Belief is a faith basis understanding philosophy 'example religions, where people could believe or disbelieve in them following their knowledge and understanding basis'.

Hi Everyone,

It seems there is some confusion.

When you have experimental facts, then it does matter whether you believe or not.

Facts will remain facts even if we do not believe.

The problem is that all the scientific facts keep changing. And the change is always in the direction of more and more subtle "invisibles" ! For example, falling of apple explained by gravity, gravity explained by curvature and so on ... Similarly the downward hierarchy: matter --> molecules --- >atoms-- neucleus + electrons --> Protons + neutrons ---> quarks + gluons ---> GUT particles ---> SUSY particles --> Strings and so on.

Our very scientific explanations for visible phenomena are all thoroughly grounded on "invisibles" like forces, energies, quanta, fields etc.

It seems that the greatest lesson of science is that "the invisibles are always more real (than the visibles) since they are the causes and the visibles are the effects."

That which is visible (sensorily perceivable, even with the aid of the most sophisticated instruments) forms only a very miniscule subset of the entirety of phenomena in the universe.

We are into deeper waters already and it is deepening still with the invisible dark matter and dark energy components of the universe coming to the forefront of cosmological investigations as the determinants of the ultimate fate of the universe.

Regards one and all,

Rajat

Rajat, I agree if you change the expression "believe" (irrational) to "trust" (convinced).

Regards

Dear Hanno,

Even the conviction (trust) fails us eventually and reduces to an " irrational belief" when we look back after a few years or decades or centuries, as the history of science bears clear testimony to this fact. For axiomatic theoretical structures using mathematics the same fate is assured by Godel's incompleteness theorems.

All our scientific convictions are purely temporary, and are subject to change sooner or later.

Regards

Rajat

Exactly Hanno,

In the context of your summary statement the text posted by Rajat, you have made in the last post, I have the remark that perhaps it is too strongly rooted in our belief, that "believe" and "trust" are the synonyms, which is a large overinterpretation. Maybe for this reason some misunderstandings arise in discussions of a similar to that which we have here.

Dear Rajat, scientist are not infallible. The can make errors, search the wrong way or solution, they must accept revisions of their theories and interpretations. But they must use the intelligence and the contemporary techniques and the know how of their epoch.

So far as they work within the state of science, they can get convinced. If they stop to doubt, they begin to belief without rational reasons. I´m afraid of it. Regards Hanno

Hanno and Andrzej,

It may be better to interpret our belief in what cannot be seen in terms of our confidence in our views about the unseen. Put this another way, the degree of confidence we have in our views of the unseen can be interpreted as the degree of trust-worthiness of our views. For a scientist, a view concerning the unseen is held as long as it not refuted either by experimental or theoretical results.

Dear James,

contradiction!

You can´t invent some strange ideas, invent that they are right and accept them to be right until someone proofs that they are vaid! That´s a very strong principle of natural science.

That does not mean, that you shouldn´t do some appropriate research.

Dear all,

I have been reading through the comments and answers made regarding this question with interest. It is a really good question that requires deep thought. I am not a Philosopher but can say a word for now and will be adding on later. To begin with sight is not our only sense that we depend on although we really love to see things. We also experiences our environment and the world around us through various senses and means. As a matter of fact we sometimes see things but not as accurately as we should so even those things that we are capable of seeing, we might need to use extra (other) senses as we usually do to just be sure what we see is what it is etc. A good saying from my local tribe in Africa says that our 'eyes' are actually in our hands.

One thing I have observed in my experience of living is that the most important things in life are actually invisible (not seen). I will be adding on from here as promised.

Hano, you write: You can´t invent some strange ideas, invent that they are right and accept them to be right until someone proofs that they are vaid!

Notice that I mentioned nothing about "some strange ideas". In refuting your use of the term "invent", notice that I wrote "Put this another way, the degree of confidence we have in our views of the unseen can be interpreted as the degree of trust-worthiness of our views. For a scientist, a view concerning the unseen is held as long as it not refuted either by experimental or theoretical results".

I now add "our well-founded" views of the unseen. In any case, it is unclear (to me) how you extract "invent" (invented views) from what I wrote. That is okay. We are not the same page. To be clear, I am thinking of well-founded views of the unseen. Here is an example to tie things down.

From what we know about of a tiny portion of the natural numbers, we can observe that, for any natural number n, there is a natural number n+1, ad infinitum. So, unless you can prove otherwise, a well-founded view of the natural numbers is that there is an unbounded number of natural numbers.

Dear Hanno,

Ideas however strange, even to the point of being self-contradictory, can very well be accommodated in science and philosophy. Complementarity and Fuzzy logic are examples. Boolean algebra and logic seemed extremely strange at the time they were proposed by G. Boole. But, later on you know what happened. Please do not be so intolerant of invented strange ideas. The later discoveries will always prove stranger than the inventions ! Examples galore.

What James has said is the right scientific attitude. But most of us are also camp-followers in some form or the other, and we always fail to be as broad-minded as science demands. Just take a look at the referee's reports or reviewers comments to any new non-strange, philosophically, logically and even mathematically sound idea proposed for publication in some "reputed" journal and you will understand what James means. It happens every day. New ideas are rejected on the grounds that they do not tally with established ideas. This way we will always have to bide our time for revolutionary thinking to come to the rescue of human civilization.

Read some of the works by Jeans, Eddington and Feynman. You will see how the balloon of science bursts.But these are very deep matters.

I have made amply clear in my previous posts that unseen are the causes behind the seen. what do you choose to call more fundamental : The causes or the effects ?

Science consists in investigating the invisible causes behind the visible effects, through empirico-rational processes (experiments and theory). Thus science, to say the least, tilts more towards belief in the invisibles rather than towards belief in the visible as the real. The answer to HEMANTA'S question is therefore a big YES !

As you rightly mentioned in one of your earlier posts that scientists are not infallible. This is the reason why science which is what is done by scientists is not infallible and hence is falsifiable and amendable and even discard-able.

So to claim on the basis of science that the unseen is not to be believed is really indefensible.

Regards,

Rajat

Dear James and dear Rajat, you are right with your statements.

I apologize for the misinterpretation and the misuse of the term "view" in the last sentence of James post as "fact".

Regards

Hanno

Well, I will throw a spanner into the works a bit. Seeing and believing is not related. They are not the same. Seeing, feeling, smelling etc. is purely a means of providing sensory input to the brain. Then we have to perceive this data, so it is organized and interpreted (which depends to some extent on our skills to do this), which leads to an understanding (but not necessarily 'believing') of what we have perceived. To believe is a further process, which involves going a bit further than insight, recognition of things and our intuition. Believing can probably be seen as the brain's way of acknowledging that it is happy with the process of perception, it has come to a conclusion and has made up it's "mind". That is why people can believe while not seeing, can hear while not listening and can feel without touching.

Hi Ludwig,

That makes perfect sense and I could not agree more. It is the logical way of 'seeing' things. To the Question should we not believe what cannot be seen? I just wish to add a stright answer NO.

In my earlier contribution I said it was only a curtain raiser, I now want to add that the most important things in life are not visible( cannot be seen in the context of our question) but are only perceived or believed to exist.. we cannot even give them shape colour but do appreciate them, We talk of things (emotions) that drive us crazy like love, hate, character (good or bad) and once we get engrosed into these values, we act as real as though we have seen or even touched them. We perceive these values and would like to say we believe them and do serach for signs of their existence so we can respond according to how we choose.. TBC

@Ludwig. True and so is the corollary. People believe DESPITE their observations sometimes. It is a facet of human nature to maintain beliefs, even in the face of negative results. This is even true in Science, though fortunately ameliorated by the scientific process at some point.

We believe things every day for which there is NO scientific proof. For example, it's POSSIBLE that the past is an illusion, and the Universe arose a millisecond ago, complete with misleading evidence of a past, such as fossils, geological layers, weathering of rocks, etc. Of course, we choose to believe that the past exists.

Dear All,

This answer of mine from another thread is surely of interest and importance on this string also:

A hierarchy of invisibilities is present and we have to pause and think deeply on which ones we really have to and do believe and which not.

The direct invisibility of electrons, microbes etc does not in any way lessen their existence. Let's call this dimensional invisibility the "invisibility of the first kind".

However, we may now move on to invisibilities of second and third kinds and so on !For example ordinary "gravitational field"or "curvature of space" in General Relativity is invisible. The electric field is also invisible. All fields and forces, energies and momenta etc. which are properties of objects used in Physics may be bracketed in the category of "invisibles of the second kind".

Similarly "Invisibles of the third kind" may include those which have purely conceptual existence e.g. meanings of words, daemons/fairies in stories etc.

"Invisibles of a fourth kind" may be those that are real subjective experiences like pain and thirst etc.

Invisibles of the fifth kind will be our own "minds", without which nothing would be possible on RG or elsewhere!

Invisibles of a still higher kind may be ghosts/dis-embodied spirits etc.which are proposed to exist but vehemently denied existence by mainstream science, since mainstream scientists cannot explain phenomena relating to them. They are bracketed in paranormal category !

Still higher in the hierarchy of invisibles would be "angels/gods" etc postulated to exist in mythologies all of them having to perform their respective invisible tasks.

TIME is one of the greatest invisibles !

And finally, The SUPREME INVISIBLE is GOD Himself, which surpasses all our empirico-rational attempts at conceptualization and /or logical appreciation etc !

Such is the hierarchy of invisibles lying ahead of mainstream science to be tackled sooner or later !

Unfortunately science today is tottering at the very lowest rungs in the hierarchy of invisibles.

We must all strive hard to crack this knotty problem of understanding this hierarchy of invisibles till we reach the highest point.

Are we prepared ?

Thank you all on this thread.

I beg pardon from those who already had read it in another thread.

Regards,

Rajat