Language desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 21[edit]

Japanese Chinese text[edit]

I saw this Post-It note written in ~~Japanese~~ Chinese at the Finnish museum of photography. What does it say? JIP | Talk 11:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Chinese text? --Lambiam 13:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. JIP | Talk 14:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly Chinese text. It is silly to write an entire note in Kanji, so it is not Japanese. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So does anyone know what the Chinese text says? JIP | Talk 19:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JIP, Because she's enthusiastic about photography, let us be able to see the society of that time [when the photos were taken] from a different angle. Editorial marks added for clarity. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JIP | Talk 11:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "belief"?[edit]

A comment I saw on another forum criticising the use of the word "belief" in a scientific context: What I want a scientist to say is "As a result of all my thoughts based on the information that is available to me, my provisional conclusion is that the Earth goes round the Sun and not the opposite." I don't want the scientist to say "I believe the Earth goes round the Sun." Where did this notion come from that the word "belief" means (and only means) some sort of blind acceptance without reason or evidence (and is therefore inappropriate to use in a scientific context)? I'm pretty sure that in normal usage, "belief" just means to think something is true, and dictionaries I've checked have included that as a meaning (even if they've also included a meaning of "without evidence"). Iapetus (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at Credo quia absurdum. Lawyers sometimes use the phrase "to the best of my knowledge and belief"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Language is messy, and sometimes, in some contexts, words need to take slightly different meanings than in other contexts. In this specific context, one is seeking a word that draws a distinction between "drawing a conclusion based on best available evidence" and "drawing a conclusion based on a whim", and the word "belief", which often has a connection to religiousity rather than science, is being pressed into service to mean the latter to the exclusion of the former. That doesn't prevent it from, in some contexts, being legitimately used for the former, but the speaker is trying to let people know that, in this context, they intend to use it to only mean the latter. Human language is, by necessity, always messy and sloppy and imprecise in this way, and meanings of words are rarely universally unambiguous, and often times the context in which a word is used adds shades of meaning that can be missed when the context is unknown or misunderstood. See also Ambiguity#Linguistic forms and polysemy (which directly applies in this case to the continuum of meaning attached to a word like "belief".--Jayron 32 12:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested replacement text is woefully absolute. Since we cannot be certain of our memories, a scientist should make no pronouncements about all their thoughts. They may have entertained thoughts they do not momentarily remember. Also, "the information that is available to me", what does that mean? There may be information that is readily available to them but that they are not aware of. And again, they may have forgotten what they consulted, and they may have repressed or misinterpreted information that did not mesh with their belief system. So a true scientist should say, "At the moment I have the impression, based on what I now think was my ratiocination on the subject in addition to whatever information I had absorbed, possibly in a distorted form, to a sufficient degree that it appeared to play a role in the process, that ..." Not quite there yet, I admit, but with some more improvements we may start approaching something more befitting the truly humble scientist. At least, that is what I believe. --Lambiam 14:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Law is a mixture of art and science. Nowadays, court forms end with a "Statement of Truth" (less weighty than a Statutory Declaration and much less weighty than an affidavit). The Statement of Truth contains the formula "I believe that the facts and matters contained in this statement are true". Lawyers never say "to the best of my knowledge and belief". The phraseology is "I am informed, and verily believe", etc. 80.194.19.177 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that, when you report what courts and lawyers do or say, it's usually good to specify the jurisdiction, as these things often vary widely. From your IP address, I'm guessing you mean this is the practice in England and Wales. --Trovatore (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

When did you last hear a scientist say they "believe" the earth orbits the sun? Maybe they would have said that in the time of Copernicus, but in modern science they simply state it as fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I scientist would say "I conclude," not "I believe." There is no reason to use a word with less precise meaning. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally you don't say "I conclude" out of the blue; it wants to come at the end of an explanation as to why you conclude this thing. This isn't really practical for communication in general. Scientists, no less than anyone else, have (roughly speaking) Bayesian networks of beliefs in their minds. If they are "good" scientists, they may update these networks less reluctantly and more based on evidence than others, but the networks themselves are of the same kind.

To report a "belief" is to report part of the state of your belief network. This can be useful even without a report of how your network came to be in that state, which is what you need to give if you say "conclude". --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that scientists tend to avoid using "believe" to avoid confusion with other types of belief that are not supported by evidence. And may even be contradicted by evidence. A scientist who states that he "believes" in "The Big Bang", planetary development, and biological evolution runs the risk of having his highly supported conclusions equated to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Or, even worse, the non-scientific and pseudoscientific belief systems the FSM parodies.--Khajidha (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is a cultural issue? In the UK, religion in general is pretty weak, and creationism/ Biblical liberalism is fringe dogma with ineligible influence, whereas in the US its much more influential. And simultaneously, American scientists and science supporters seem to me to be far more aggressive than British ones in opposing the use of phrasing like "we believe" (along with "has evolved to" or anything that could be taken to imply teleology). Iapetus (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite likely. --Khajidha (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this aversion to "believe" from an actual scientist (at least, when speaking as a scientist) in either place. As far as I can tell, it's a pissy little shibboleth, a piece of social signaling in support of confrontational "new atheism" or some such thing. --Trovatore (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is in the preamble. In saying "What I want a scientist to say is..." the speaker is conjuring up a hypothetical "scientist". But scientists are individuals and they aren't barred from using the word "belief". Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A scientist should say, "I believe in science." And if challenged, the scientist can explain why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Belief' necessarily means the absence of evidence (otherwise it would be 'know'), and is therefore incompatible with modern science. Really as simple as that. Fgf10 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's completely wrong. Your beliefs are simply those propositions you hold to be true. Why you hold them to be true is a separate matter (justification). Beliefs that are well justified by evidence, and beliefs that are held without or even contrary to evidence, are equally beliefs. As for "know", knowledge has traditionally been taken to be justified true belief, a formulation that has definite problems (see Gettier problem), but for which there is no agreed replacement (finding one is one of the deepest problems in epistemology). In particular, a belief can be well justified by evidence without being true, and in that case few would want to call it knowledge. --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that's wrong, but that is exactly what the usage in the sciences is. Your statements make no sense in the context of science. When a scientist says "I believe that..." the following statements is at best an informed hunch and will always be qualified with "might be"/"could be". Epistemologic wankery has no place in science. Fgf10 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is exactly what the usage in the sciences is? Of course scientists must be able to make claims about things which they think are true, and for reasons based in evidence, but of which they're less than 100% certain. What word would you use other than "believe"? --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they wouldn't make any claim in that situation. You'd be a pretty damn bad scientist if you did. You'd be discussing possibilities and probably what you'd do to work those out. You seem to be somewhat confused about the scientific method. Fgf10 (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're quite wrong, Fgf10. I understand the scientific method quite well. You on the other hand seem to have some fairly bizarre ideas about it. Scientific assertions are rarely (bordering on never) 100% certainties, but it is still necessary to report preliminary conclusions. These are "beliefs". --Trovatore (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done on saying exactly what I said. You are entirely correct in every respect, other than that even a preliminary conclusion will be based on some verifiable data. And is therefore not a belief. Maybe in mathematics this is different, but this is how it has always been in the sciences. I really struggle to explain this in any simpler terms, so I think I may have to give up trying to explain this to you. Fgf10 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being "based on some verifiable data" does not mean it's not a belief. --Trovatore (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of rational/scientific folk, when confronted by claims of supernatural events like miracles, survival after death etc, pooh-pooh such claims, saying, "I'll believe that when I see it", i.e. when evidence acceptable to science is produced, if ever. For the believers, evidence was never necessary in the first place (Jesus and others say things like "He who has not seen but still believes is greater than he who has seen and believes"); and for the scientists, once evidence is produced, it's no longer about belief but knowledge. So, those who say "I'll believe that when I see it" should really examine their thinking and adjust their language accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I am not convinced that this is what people mean when they use these terms in everyday life. As I then interpret the terms, to believe that ... express a comfortable degree of confidence in the veracity of the following statement, whereas to know that ... indicates a very high degree of confidence, equal or almost equal to certainty – whether justified by evidence or not. If people are more careful, they reserve this for statements that others can verify, but we shouldn't think that people abuse the verb to know when they say, "I know that my Redeemer liveth". --Lambiam 20:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I take your point, but even by this account there's still plenty of room for a scientist to use the word believe, and as far as I can tell no adequate replacement. --Trovatore (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  From time to time a user on a ref desk page will say, "I believe..." following by an assertion of a fact. In that usage, "I believe..." seems like another way of saying, "As I recall..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  That's completely normal; I don't know why it should cause comment. Saying you believe something is simply saying that that's what you think is true. One reason you might think it's true is that that's the way you recall it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...without having evidence for that statement, which is of course exactly the point. Fgf10 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No. Did you read my first response to you? You're absolutely wrong on this point. --Trovatore (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your response, and already told you why you are wrong. You may not like how the words are used in reality, but this is how it is. Fgf10 (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When a scientist in the UK sends an application to a government agency requiring a Statement of Truth, they are required to include the sentence "I believe that the facts and matters contained in this statement are true", or else their application will be denied. According to you, they are then stating: "I have at best an informed hunch that that which is related in this statement might be or could be true facts and matters". --Lambiam 05:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are basing your idea of what scientists mean when they say "believe" on a bit of boilerplate composed by some government flunky and foisted upon them without their consent?--Khajidha (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim this was in reaction to is about what the statement means, not what the utterer of the statement means to say in uttering it. --Lambiam 13:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this phrasing is required by the government means that it must be used whether or not the scientist in question would phrase things that way. To scientists this may just be meaningless red tape.--Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmatism over pedantry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe", spoken by a scientist, can convey "doubt". "Doubt" is different from "blind faith". "Doubt" is in some ways similar to "open-mindedness". Bus stop (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the usefulness of "as far as I know" or "as far as we know". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "belief" covers a lot of ground, hence some ambiguity.[1] And its cousin "credibility".[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]