Debate on the word Belief in Science

মাণিক শীল বিতর্ক: Can we say: ‘I/we believe’ in practicing Science?

[মাণিক শীল আমার জন্মস্থান কুমিরা গ্রামের দুলাল শীলের পুত্র। স্মৃতিকে টেনেটুনে যত পেছনে নিতে পারি, ১৯৬৬ সাল থেকে গত পঞ্চাশ বছর যাবৎ দুলাল শীল তাঁর নরসুন্দর বৃত্তি নিয়ে আমার মতো কুমিরা গ্রামের অনেকের জীবনের সঙ্গে জড়িয়ে রয়েছেন। মানিক শীল পেশায় পল্লীচিকিৎসক, স্থানীয় স্বাস্থ্যব্যবস্থার সঙ্গে জড়িত। এর নাম ‘মাণিক শীল বিতর্ক’ দিয়েছি, কারণ বিতর্কটা যে কোনো কারণেই হোক মাণিক শীলই সূচনা করেছেন। পরে অবশ্য ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের আধুনিক ভাষা ইনস্টিটিউটের অধ্যাপক শিশির ভট্টাচার্য্য এবং তাত্ত্বিক পদার্থবিদ্যার সহকারী অধ্যাপক তানভীর হানিফের মধ্যে মূল বির্তকটি হয়। দীর্ঘ এই বিতর্কের ভাষা যে কোনো কারণেই হোক, ইংরেজি। বিতর্কের বিষয়: বিজ্ঞানচর্চার ক্ষেত্রে ‘আমি বিশ্বাস করি যে’ শব্দক্রমটি ব্যবহার করা সঙ্গত কিনা। শিশির ভট্টাচার্যের নিচের কবিতাটির উছিলায় ফেসবুকে এই বিতর্কটির সূত্রপাত।]

বিশ্বাসের রূপকথা

বিশ্বাস করো, সৃষ্টির কর্তা মাত্র একজন!

বিশ্বাস করো, ঈশ্বর পৃথিবীতে অবতীর্ণ হন!

বিশ্বাস করো, সূর্যদেব আকাশে ছুটে বেড়ান বারো ঘোড়ার রথে!

বিশ্বাস করো, শান্তি পাবে, থাকো যদি ধর্মপথে!

বিশ্বাস করো, ঈশ্বর বসে থাকেন আকাশে এক সিংহাসনে!

বিশ্বাস করো, বিশ্রাম নিয়েছেন তিনি শনিবারে, জগৎ সৃষ্টি করে সাতদিনে!

বিশ্বাস করো, অন্তত একটি পুত্র আছে সৃষ্টিকর্তার!

বিশ্বাস করো, আমরা সবাই সন্তান বাবা আদম আর মা হাওয়ার!

বিশ্বাস করো, মানুষকে সৃষ্টি করা হয়েছে মাটি থেকে!

বিশ্বাস করো, পুণ্যবান যাবে স্বর্গে, আর পাপী যাবে নরকে!

বিশ্বাস করো, একটা কচ্ছপ তার পিঠে বহন করছে এই পৃথিবীকে!

বিশ্বাস করো, তোমার কষ্টের কারণ পুর্বজন্মের পাপ!

বিশ্বাস করো, নবীদের কাছে আসে আসমানী কিতাব!

বিশ্বাস করো, আত্মাগুলো অমর, অজর!

বিশ্বাস করো, মানুষের বিচার হবে মৃত্যুর পর!

বিশ্বাস করো, রেডিওর কথা ভেসে আসে ইথারে!

বিশ্বাস করো, এক কালো বিড়াল আছে অন্ধকারে!

বিশ্বাস কি করবো, রক্তের রঙ সবুজ?

বিশ্বাস কি করবো, আছে চতুষ্কোন কোনো ত্রিভূজ?

বিশ্বাস কি করবো, জলেরও আছে আকার?

বিশ্বাস কি করবো, পৃথিবীটা নয় গোলাকার?

বিশ্বাস করতে হয় না অসত্যকে।

বিশ্বাস যা করতে বাধ্য হই, তাও কি চিরদিন সত্য থাকে?

অন্ধকার থাকে না, জানালা খুলে দিলে।

অন্ধকার দূর হয়, আলো জ্বালাতে শিখলে।

কালো বিড়াল তখন নাওতো থাকতে পারে!

কোনো বিশ্বাসই কি টিকতে পারে জ্ঞান আর কালের বিচারে?

কচ্ছপ-বাহন পৃথিবী, ইথার, সূর্যদেবের পর

একদিন আরও কত কি রূপকথা হবে-

স্বর্গ, আত্মা, ঐশী গ্রন্থ, অথবা ঈশ্বর!

মাণিক শীল: কথাগুলো বাস্তব, কিন্তু যথেষ্ট কঠিন ও রহস্যময়। যেমন ধরা যাক, মূল্যবোধ ও মানবতার সমন্বয়ে যে বিশ্বাস সেটি আলোকিত বিশ্বাস, যার দ্বারা নিজে ও জগৎ সংসার দুইই আলোকিত। আর যে বিশ্বাসে মূল্যবোধ ও মানবতার সমন্বয় নাই সেটি অন্ধ বিশ্বাস, আর এটা খুবই ভয়ঙ্কর। প্রচুর জ্ঞান, ধনসম্পদ, প্রভাব-প্রতিপত্তি-সম্পন্ন মানুষেরও অবমূল্যায়ন হয় যদি সে বিশ্বাসী না হয়। উপাধি একটাই তার:সেটি হল বিশ্বাসঘাতক। পরিশেষে কথা একটাই, সবকিছুর ভিত্ত হল সত্য, এটার উপর দাঁড়িয়ে আছে বিশ্বাস। এ ছাড়াও নানাভাবে বিতর্ক আছে বিশ্বাস শব্দটির মূল্যায়ন নিয়ে।

শিশির ভট্টাচার্য্য: বিশ্বাস কখনও সত্যের উপর দাঁড়িয়ে থাকে না। যা আমি বিশ্বাস করি, তা সত্য হতেও পারে, নাও হতে পারে। এজন্যেইতো বিশ্বাস। টেবিল যে টেবিল সেটা চোখে দেখা যায়, বিশ্বাস করতে হয় না। যা সত্য বলে জানা যায় না তাই বিশ্বাস করতে হয়। বিশ্বাস অবশ্যই অন্ধ। চোখ খুলে কেউ বিশ্বাস করতে পারবে না। অন্ধকারেই কালো বিড়ালে বিশ্বাস করি আমরা, দিনের আলোতে করি না।

মাণিক শীল:তাহলে যা সত্য নয়, তাকে বিশ্বাস করা যায় কীভাবে?

শিশির ভট্টাচার্য্য: যতক্ষণ আমরা জানি না সত্য নয়, ঠিক ততক্ষণই আমরা বিশ্বাস করি বা অবিশ্বাস করি, আমাদের পূর্ব অভিজ্ঞতা, জ্ঞান, পারিবারিক, সামাজিক শিক্ষার পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে। আমাদের দেশের তরুণের সাধারণত বিশ্বাস করে, পাশ্চাত্যের তরুণেরা সাধারণত অবিশ্বাস করে। কিন্তু যখনি আমরা কোনো সত্যকে জানি, যেমন ম্যালেরিয়া হয় বিশেষ জীবানুর কারণে, তখন সেটাকে বিশ্বাস বা অবিশ্বাস করার প্রশ্নই ওঠে না। জ্ঞান হচ্ছে আগুনের মতো, বিশ্বাস ধরা যাক, মাখনের মতো। আগুনের কাছে আসলে মাখন গলে যাবেই।

মাণিক শীল: অজ্ঞানতা এবং অন্ধকারের উপর ভিত্তি করে (প্রকৃত কারণ জানা ছাড়া) যদি কোনো কিছুকে বিশ্বাসই করতে হয় তবে সেটি হবে অন্ধ বিশ্বাস। এটির ব্যাপকতা দীর্ঘায়িত হয় না। যে কোনো সময় মূল কারণ আবিষ্কার মাত্রই পরিবর্তনশীল।

মাণিক শীল: সব বিশ্বাসই অন্ধ বিশ্বাস। বিশ্বাসকে অন্ধ হতেই হবে। আমরা জানি না, স্বর্গ আছে কি নেই। কিন্তু আমরা বিশ্বাস করি। সুতরাং এটাও অন্ধ বিশ্বাস। ‘অন্ধবিশ্বাস’ কথাটার কোনো অর্থ নেই। একটা বিশ্বাস দেখাও যেটার পেছনে যুক্তি বা প্রমাণ আছে। যদি না দেখাতে পারো, তবে বিশ্বাস মাত্রেই যে অন্ধ সেটা মেনে নিতে হবে, কারণ যুক্তি-প্রমাণ ছাড়াই তুমি কোনো কিছু মেনে নিচ্ছো।

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, not necessarily all beliefs are blind. Blind belief is a kind of belief where you can’t provide good reason (not evidence) for that. It doesn’t depend on reasons or evidences at all.

Shishir Bhattacharja: Do you know ANY belief for which you CAN provide good reason? Just give me one. By the way, what is GOOD reason in fact? Can reason be BAD? If it is BAD, then can we call it reason at all?

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, many. There are good reasons to believe that Lord will die within 2117. There is good reason to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. There were good reasons to believe that we will be able to find the Higgs boson. How much more do you want? Good reason is an English phrase not to be confused with being rational.

Shishir Bhattacharja: These are rationally possible incidents. These are NOT beliefs.Can you use the word belief in your articles of Physics? You can talk about rationally possible things or incidents. By the way, which Lord are you talking about? Which Lord will die?

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, how can you say that these are not beliefs? certainly these are not religious, blind or irrational beliefs–yet these represents a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true–which is the generic definition of belief. Rationality alone can’t dictate possibility of incidents. This is not obvious to most people, but this is already firmly established. Shisirda, certainly physicists talk a lot about beliefs – though not those sort of beliefs (you know what I am talking about). As a linguistic expert you certainly know the difference between the mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something (certain rationally possible incident) being true and the notion of rationally possible things or incidents.

Shishir Bhattacharja: For me possibilities that are based on rationality are not beliefs. We can talk about them in a scientific paper. Unfortunately, you and I often differ on words and NOT on things. For me, what physicists talk about are rational possibilities, not beliefs. You want to include them in belief, which is a decision of yours that I strongly disagree with. For me, we use the verb or noun belief when on the basis of facts we cannot ascertain whether something is true or false. Then we believe, that SOMETHING is true or false. My question is WHY is it prohibited to say I believe in a scientific paper? It is prohibited because we know very well what the very word belief means.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Let me clarify. I am not stating my personal view about what is meant by “belief”. So, I won’t use the words “for me.” I do agree with you that possibilities that are based on rationality are not beliefs. But the mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something (certain rationally possible incident) being true certainly constitutes belief. All serious academics will agree with that. Where did you find that it is prohibited to say I believe in a scientific paper? There are scientific papers which I don’t believe. If that is not prohibited–how can the reverse be? I will give two definite examples of beliefs that all scientists hold–yet they can’t be generically proven to be true by any rational means: (i) The belief in causality. This cannot be proven. (ii) The belief in probability. This assumes causality operates by statistical rules. Next – I will demonstrate by an example-why the second belief is kind of flimsy. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox)

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, really? please have a look at the meaning of the word ASSUMPTION in the dictionary. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio…/english/assumption

Shishir Bhattacharja: I know enough English to understand what verbs like believe or assume mean. Just show me one scientific paper where the author says: I believe. You cannot say that I do not believe in a scientific paper. You can only say that I do not agree with the claims of some paper. I will be surprised if you can publish a scientific paper saying you believe or do not believe in something. This is the way I was taught to do science.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Nobody is questioning your grasp in English–that doesn’t mean you can’t be dead wrong sometimes. However if you are trying to say that something that you accept as true without question or proof doesn’t constitute belief–then you need to prove your alternate definition. I can show not one but hundreds. For the time being have a look at these two papers: PhysRevD.95.064033 and PhysRev.159.1285. There is no semantic difference between saying that I don’t agree with the claims of some paper and I don’t believe in their claims. Is it possible to make any unproved claim without believing in it? As a practicing hard scientist–I know that very well. I must also clarify that by “belief” I don’t mean it in the theological sense. Still by “belief” I mean “belief”. You said: “For me, we use the verb or noun belief when on the basis of facts we cannot ascertain whether something is true or false. Then we believe, that SOMETHING is true or false.” This happens a lot of times in Physics when on the basis of facts we cannot ascertain whether something is true or false–yet without discarding it we continue to believe in it. You can ask any physicist.

A quark (Q) model recently proposed by the authors for high-energy meson-baryon and photoproduction processes is extended to high-energy baryon-baryon scattering and production of negative-parity baryons. The positive- and negative-parity baryons are assumed to belong, respectively, to the representations (56,1) and (70,3) of the group SU(6)×O(3). Sum rules resembling those of SU(3) and SU(6,6), but differing in details, are obtained for the baryon-baryon processes within the 56 representation. An interesting sum rule which is obtained for negative-parity baryon production involves only nonstrange particles and could be within fairly early reach of experiment. The model is primarily characterized by an impluse approximation for Q-Q scattering and thus disallows processes involving exchanges of more than one unit of charge, hypercharge, and even spatial symmetry, among the initial and final 3Q states representing the baryons. This last condition precludes the high-energy peripheral production of metastable baryon states like the Roper resonance, which we believe to have an internal orbital structure of LP=1+.(http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.159.1285)

Shishir Bhattacharja: I DONOT agree with you. These scientists do not believe, they wait to prove it, rationally or if possible empirically. In the text you have sent Fermi paradox, the wording I believe/we believe has not been used once. The author said, people believe, he was strong believer… This does not mean that when you do science you can say I believe. When we collect data for doings some sort of generalization we may have a model in our mind, but that does not mean belief. Why can’t you send me a PDF copy of some scientific paper where the scientist writes: I believe! I do not need hundreds of them, one will suffice.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, ho ho. now when I showed you what you asked for? I expected you to go beyond–” I do not agree with you.”–this like of mere assertion. Mere assertion is a fallacy–not a fact. You demonstrated to me what assertive blind faith is‪. There is no linear relationship between rationality and empirical evidence. Rationality can be applied to any hypothesis (even bum)–empirical or not. One can start from complete nonsense and apply pure logic to come to a nonsensical conclusion. Also–one can try to prove his/her belief–I am sure that everyone have heard that sentence. Shisirda, I haven’t posted the link of Fermi Paradox to demonstrate the use of “I believe”–for something else. Please, go to those papers’ links and read the abstract. That will suffice.

Shishir Bhattacharja: Assumptions on the basis of fact or arguments are not beliefs. We were discussing whether one can believe when he does science. Stay on that proposition. Do not deviate. One can assume something, but assumption is not belief. Check Wikipedia on the definition of belief, faith etc. We can always say, I do not agree with some one’s proposition. However, we have to give arguments. This is allowed. Not only scientific papers, in any kind of serious paper, if one says: I believe… he is bad writer. Look in the internet, for example. Even you do not write this, I am sure.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, The articles I quoted were published in one of the most prestigious journals and the authors are reputed theorists. Now you are committing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Shishir Bhattacharja: But still, I do not accept the word believe here. This is a problem of the language and the author could have used another word. I cannot accept it becuase I was trained in a different way, sorry.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, This is blind faith in action

Shishir Bhattacharja: Not at all, I was trained with Aristotle (Organon) and then with Popper. I will never accept that we can use this very verb to believe while we do science. This is unnecessary. This is my position for now. The author in the abovementioned abstract could have written: which according to our assumption, shall have an internal orbital structure…

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Aristotle actually believed a lot of unfounded things about nature. What was Popper’s position. I am curious.

Shishir Bhattacharja: I am talking about the 5th volume of organon, TOPICS where he says how to ask questions and give answers.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Even if he had written that–it would mean the exact same thing. I have already provided the meaning of assumption.

Shishir Bhattacharja: For him those were not beliefs. For us, yes.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Good logic. Then we shouldn’t criticize “believers”. Because for them they are not mere beliefs but facts.

Shishir Bhattacharja: I did not mean that. He tried to explain facts, he did not believe in them. Yes all believers think that whatever they believe is true. Our point of discussion is not that.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Believers also try to explain facts like how sun or moon was created, or man and woman and a lot. Don’t you see that?

Shishir Bhattacharja: I agree completely. Then for you there is no difference between a believer and a scientist?

Tanvir Hanif: But why are you contradicting yourself? When you say: “For him those were not beliefs. For us, yes.” “He tried to explain facts, he did not believe in them.” Don’t you see the contradiction?

Shishir Bhattacharja: No belief is falsifiable. And whatever is not falsifiable is not science according to Popper.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, The first line is not due to Popper. The second one is. Yes, beliefs are falsifiable.

Shishir Bhattacharja: I did not say that it was from Popper. How can you falsify that we are descendants of Adam and Eve?

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, We can’t. Did I say we can? Not all beliefs are but a lot–indeed.

Shishir Bhattacharja: So that story is NOT science. You can use I believe in that case, or, in similar cases, according to my knowledge of English.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, I already said that I am not talking about beliefs in the theological sense. Please, scroll up. Shisirda, I meant that just trying to explain things doesn’t give Aristotle a higher station than the “believers”–which I think you implied.

Shishir Bhattacharja: Do not bring a red herring, as we say in English. We are being polemical on a single word belief. You think, we can use this word in doing science and you have given some example also. Thank you. But I think, it’s wrong to use this word in a scientific article. This is where we disagree. Do you accept that?

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Please, try to see why scientists are using the word “belief” from their perspective without being judgemental about the use of that word by them–which is used too frequently and even by a lot of famous scientists–in the context of what they were doing all along.

Shishir Bhattacharja: That’s their problem. I think they could have used a different word. English is rich in vocabulary.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Probably you can write an article about it.

Shishir Bhattacharja: I have read the abstract where I have in fact found the wording we believe. In that text, we believe is not indespensable.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, simply because it’s not a single author paper.

‪ Shishir Bhattacharja: The problem is not with he choice of the pronoun WE but with the very verb: to believe. Do you understand my position? I have understood yours.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, I think you are insisting on giving the word “belief” a narrow meaning. Why don’t you write an article about your point of view for a wider audience? I think that is in accord with your expertise and you will also know how your idea gets acceptance or not.

Shishir Bhattacharja: You will find many texts about the good writing style in the Google. In each one of them the authors asks for not writing I/we believe in a scientific article.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, surely there were no question about so many reputed authors writing style in high rank journals. why should I even take any google article seriously–when that fact remains?

‪ Shishir Bhattacharja: ‪ Because, some authors misused the word belief, that’s all.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda,, Misuse of words are not accepted so frequently in first class Physics journals.

‪Shishir Bhattacharja: gywbbv gwZågt (ms¯‹…Z cÖev`)| What is wrong is wrong. First class Physics journal may have made a mistake in lexical choice.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, It’s not one person. The journals are peer reviewed. You can’t just say that they were and are wrong all along. That doesn’t make much sense.

‪ Shishir Bhattacharja: ‪ I repeat what is wrong is wrong.

Tanvir Hanif: In any case–if you think that it is a big mistake in lexical choice—then that will be a big research project. I think your idea is original and none else share it. Please, write a paper.

‪Shishir Bhattacharja: ‪ For me saying I believe in doing science is a malpractice. I now know, thanks to you, many do that, but I simply cannot accept that malpractice. It’s like corruption. Some accept it, saying that many other people also do it. However there are always some people who do not accept even a bit of corruption.

Tanvir Hanif: The problem is you couldn’t prove it wrong. You assumed many things. But when I showed you that those are not the cases–instead of retracting your assumptions–you are saying the Physics journals made mistakes in lexical choice. That’s really funny

Shishir Bhattacharja: There is nothing to prove. It’s a question of lexical choice. I do not agree with their lexical choice, that’s all. Many people do some thing, that’s what you have shown. But, you believe that you have proven something.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, the question was not about agreeing about the choice but the reasons behind it. I have provided reasons for that choice being perfectly alright. you didn’t even recognized the choice. you wrongly assumed that ” I believe’ or “We believe” isn’t used in any scientific articles and challenged me to show at least one. why? Because you would accept that choice–if I would provide you with that reference? No, because you blindly fixed your choice and no matter what reason is provided you won’t accept that

Shishir Bhattacharja: Thank you for showing me that we use the word believe in Physics. I was trained not to use that word in doing linguistics which is not as hard science as Physics is. My teachers gave me that training on the basis of Aristotle and Popper. And, in the examples you have given, I have seen that the use of the verb believe is not indespensable. You have not given any reason for using the very word believe. If you can, then and then only, I will think about changing my position.

Tanvir Hanif: It’s a malpractice if you narrow your definition of belief. However, it isn’t. No reasonable person will accept that reputed scientists are malpracticing by using the word belief in scientific articles. You won’t be able to establish your definition. That’s all I can say.

Shishir Bhattacharja: I already said that, I understand your position, which is: many reputed scientists are doing something, so, that must be a reasonable practice.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Yes, I did and very lucidly. I even made distinction between blind beliefs in the theological sense and belief in the scientific sense. Certainly, if many reputed scientists from a random sample are doing something then that’s a statistically significant thing. I might not be reputed but still as a scientist I can understand their point of view very clearly and coherently.

‪Shishir Bhattacharja: ‪ I DONOT accept the use of the word belief in any serious write-up, regardless who does it. Sorry I can not go against the teaching of my masters without any valid reason.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, Then that’s a personal conviction based on master-disciple kind of appeal to authority, not a matter of objective and rational discourse. This is understandable to me though I hold none.

Shishir Bhattacharja: See what is written in the page 8 of Elsevier scintific journal stylesheet. It seems that the scientists do NOT follow the style sheet of the journal and the reviewer as well as the editors allow them to do so.

ttps://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/websites/elsevier_publishingcampus/files/Skills%20training/Elements_of_Style.pdf

Avoid expression of belief

‪Avoid: “We believe this model result to be true.”

‪Write: We show through our analysis that this model result is consistent with the empirical evidence.”

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, this is understandable. nobody says that they believe their particular results to be true—because consistency with empirical evidence is not sufficient for a scientific theory to be true. it’s a necessary but insufficient condition. Avoid expression of belief is not equal to using the word belief in broader contexts that scientists use. Otherwise, Elsevier would band the word itself and disallow it’s use. They are very much aware that comparable or even far better journals in science makes use of that word. Shisirda, so you think that is a miracle or conspiracy? I don’t see any rational explanation on your part.

Shishir Bhattacharja: They have given clear example in the style sheet. So we know which belief they are talking about. Your scientists (writers+reviewers) are NOT following the style sheet and that’s all. Theirs is an exception based on erronous lexical choice.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, they are and how I have explained that very clearly–though they needn’t follow Elsevier’s style sheet while they are publishing in PRD. that would be ridiculous.

Shishir Bhattacharja: I think we MUST stop here. Our discussion go NOWHERE. Now I will copy-paste this discussion and send it to you for your approval. Thank you for your time.

Tanvir Hanif: Shisirda, ok. please do. thank you too.