Why are the sciences so well trusted, while other subjects are not?

More specifically, why are sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering, et al) so well-trusted while other subjects (sociology, economics, politics) tend to be less trusted?

What is asked would require a book chapter or even an entire book. What I’ll give is an answer furnished by the philosophers, but rarely applies to philosophy itself. It is the notion of Justified True Belief,* or JTB. This means you can justify your assertion (i.e. prove it based on accepted knowledge and logic), you establish it is true (thus not refutable), and you believe it. This is not quite how it is discussed in philosophy discussions. In most, one begins with the belief, then proves it’s true by some justification, which has a broad interpretation. What we have presented is how JTB works in the classroom. There we are presented with the truth (e.g. proposition), followed by its justification (e.g. proof, experiment), and finally, the student believes it. In scientific research, the process often begins with a “What if” type of question, and this leads to JTB in some but no specific order. Co-equal with JTB is the consensus of the foundations of the subject (in math called axiom) and methods of justification. For example, if a biologist justifies a truth using postmodern reasoning, it is likely given less credence than another, who uses strictly rigorous biological techniques.

Most of the sciences are built upon Justified True Belief. This gives them credibility, sustainability, and longevity. Yet, all these theories are subject to falsifiability, an event or argument that demonstrates incorrect foundations or spurious logic. All scientific theories have had “revolutions of falsification” over the centuries**. All scientists accept that current science is only temporary. This puts sciences in a permanent state of suspense. Remarkably, science as a whole accepts this, though substantial groups of scientists become wedded to their particular JTBs.

Beware of anyone who claims this science or that is closed, as in permanent and immutable. This is dead wrong.

On the other hand subjects such as politics, sociology, and economics do not have such conclusions, unless you accept what is given knowledge, agree on the structure of argumentation, and believe the conclusions. It is so, for instance, that economics pretends to be a science with rigorous arguments, but the foundation of any particular economic theory is a set of premises that less than a plurality agrees on. (BTW, there are at least 50 viable economic theories.)

Sociology and politics are similar. There is no firmament of foundations for either, each with multiple alternatives. Therefore, while you may have a justified true belief in any particular alternative, only a minority will agree. Consensus has proved impossible to achieve. Specifically, social-political-based consensus and justifications seem to have limited longevity.

This is a brief and incomplete explanation, but it furnishes a starting point to make distinctions.

*Justified true belief was once the lingua franca of new knowledge, but this has been recently demonstrated as incorrect. Check out the Gettier problem, as formulated by philosopher Edmund Gettier in 1963. More is available at https://medium.com/confusions-and-elucidations/justified-true-belief-fda233d35de1 and countless other sources.

** Well, maybe some laws such as Archimedes' Laws of The Lever and Buonancy have survived.

UNCERTAINTY IS CERTAIN

Uncertainty is Certain G. Donald Allen 12/12/2024 1. Introduction . This short essay is about uncertainty in people from both secular and nonsecular viewpoints. One point that will emerge is that randomly based uncertainty can be a driver for religious structure. Many groups facing uncertainty about their future are deeply religious or rely on faith as a source of comfort, resilience, and guidance. The intersection of uncertainty and religiosity often stems from the human need to find meaning, hope, and stability in the face of unpredictable or challenging circumstances. We first take up the connections of uncertainty to religion for the first real profession, farming, noting that hunting has many similar uncertainties. Below are groups that commonly lean on religious beliefs amidst uncertainty. This short essay is a follow-up to a previous piece on certainty (https://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2024/12/certainty-is-also-emotion.html). U...

CERTAINTY IS ALSO AN EMOTION

Certainty is also a Feeling Certainty is often viewed as a mental state tied to knowledge and confidence, but it also functions as a feeling with distinct emotional and physiological components. While it arises from cognitive processes, certainty also has a subjective and emotional quality that makes it more than just a rational judgment. It provides a sense of assurance and security that shapes human experience in profound ways. Emotional Dimension . At its core, certainty evokes emotions that influence how we perceive and interact with the world. When someone feels certain, they often experience relief, comfort, or empowerment. These emotions are particularly strong when uncertainty or doubt is resolved, offering a sense of closure. For example, solving a complex problem or having a belief validated by evidence brings not just intellectual satisfaction but also emotional reassurance. Subjectivity. Certainty is inherently personal and subjective. It depends on individual...

Lies, Deceit, and the National Agenda

The world you grew up in is no more. The world of reasonable honesty and reasonable lies has been replaced by abject dishonesty and blatant lies. Lies. Yes. People have always told them. You have told them; so have I. We need lies; they are a foundational structure of social living. They both deceive and protect. Children tell them to their parents to avoid consequences, like punishment. Adults tell them to their bosses, to enhance their position and/or avoid consequences of poor performance. Our bosses tell them to their boards to suggest business is good, the project is on target, or the detractors are wrong. The boards tell them to shareholders to protect their own credibility and most importantly, stock values. Our politicians tell lies to their constituents, though sometimes innocently with them not actually knowing much more than they've been told. They enhance their positio...

First Blog

Search This Blog