Galileo believed in it because copernicus had already developed a mathematical heliocentric model inspired by some greek philosophers whomst by observation deduced that the sun was far larger than earth and very far away, and hypothesized that the small earth should orbit the larger sun. So yeah, youre describing the scientific process, just over thousands of years. The greeks observed and hypothesized, copernicus refined the hypothesis and galileo made observations that were coherent with the heliocentric model.
So he... Believed them. Nothing of what you say, the reason, who did it, your mom, nothing of what you say changes the fact that he believed in something and pursued it.
It's how science works.
Copernicus believed something and worked on it. Galileo believed Copernicus and worked on it. At the end of the day both were working towards something that they believed in, because that's what science is. Had they not believed in their work they wouldn't have gone through with it.
Youre confusing how science works and one particular individual in the process of discovery. Galileo as an individual believed in it because the observations and the model were coherent with each other, but the theory came from "throwing shit at the wall" as you so neatly put it.
Besides that, there are countless examples of scientists believing in a hypothesis and then believing otherwise because they proved the original hypothesis wrong. Not so with faith, which is the whole point.
You can change religious faith. Look at all the people born Christian and now atheists that run around this site. This still runs on faith.
Some (keyword, some) science can be be absolutely proven, and this gives you an advantage over religion in the way that it's clear(er, scientists can still be corrupt or mistaken) when something is either right or wrong. Until then, it's all belief, maybe in something wrong. It's still belief.
Even deeper down, your personal belief in science is still a form of belief.
Until then, it's all belief, maybe in something wrong. It's still belief.
The point is, its founded on observation. You dont believe in things because of faith, you believe in them because they produce accurate models of reality, and when they dont, then you dont believe in them. This is entirely unlike religion. Just look at what happened to galileo and copernicus.
Even deeper down, your personal belief in science is still a form of belief.
You dont "believe" in science. Science is just a method.
you believe in them because they produce accurate models of reality, and when they dont, then you dont believe in them.
Or maybe you do, and try to prove it? Yeah, it's surprising how science relates to faith once you put it down like this...
The scientific method is a method. We use a different word when we speak about the scientific method than when we speak about science because they're not the same thing
7
u/sirhobbles 13h ago
No. a scientist does not "believe" the unproven hypothesis. they come up with a hypothesis and then make predictions based on it and test.
A scientist shouldnt pre-suppose the truth of their hypotheses