Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I think that if someone has such confidence, it is more likely associated not with a commitment to scientific methods of cognition, but with some completely different, inherent, personal characteristics.
Those who are engaged in science, know the history of science, usually just perfectly understand how current scientific views can then turn out to be partially correct, or even completely wrong. This is rather a characteristic feature of the scientific process! I'm not even talking about Popper's falsifiability criteria, I'm talking about facts.
Despite the fact that medicine belongs to the evidence-based field of knowledge and practice, approaches change to POLAR ones, despite the fact that both are supported at their stage by research, statistics, and publications.�
People who are “self-confident” because of some kind of scientific involvement are usually more likely to show the same superstitious thinking. And then it doesn't matter: I have a cross – so I know the truth, or I'm “for science” – so I know the truth, or I read the horoscope – so I know the truth…
In science, in any profession – a layman, an amateur is usually under the complete illusion that everything is clear to him, except for “small splashes”. And the deeper you dive, the more fully and seriously you realize how much “you don't know anything”, and how much uncertainty there is in the subject itself. “Yeah, the Dunning-Kruger effect)
They are NOT like that at all.
A scientific approach is when something is true, if there is consistent evidence, and there is no evidence to the contrary. So, strictly speaking, the worldview of any scientist always hangs in the balance.
Because science is based on research and facts that can be proven. And if a fact is proven, it is already very difficult to challenge it. Why not be sure about objective things?
UPD not only supporters of science can be confident in their correctness, as Dmitry noted, it depends more on the person. A person who firmly believes in something can be as self-confident in their judgments as any scientist.