What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[zakur]

That is the title of a new book coming out at the end of this month. It looks very interesting. From the publisher:

More than one hundred of the world's leading thinkers write about things they believe in, despite the absence of concrete proof.

Scientific theory, more often than not, is born of bold assumption, disparate bits of unconnected evidence, and educated leaps of faith. Some of the most potent beliefs among brilliant minds are based on supposition alone -- yet that is enough to push those minds toward making the theory viable.

Eminent cultural impresario, editor, and publisher of Edge (www.edge.org), John Brockman asked a group of leading scientists and thinkers to answer the question: What do you believe to be true even though you cannot prove it? This book brings together the very best answers from the most distinguished contributors.

Thought-provoking and hugely compelling, this collection of bite-size thought-experiments is a fascinating insight into the instinctive beliefs of some of the most brilliant minds today.

Amazon has reviews from Publishers Weekly and Booklist.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think a better question would be, "What do you believe but cannot prove, but can define what would prove it?" For me that is the crucial difference between scientific hypothesis/theory and woo.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That there is an underlying order to the universe, which can be understood rationally, given sufficient data and the correct interpretation of that data. It's the basic assumption behind philosophy and science. So far everything suggests it's the correct view; however, since the alternative is mysticism, and we can never prove we're not butterflies dreaming of a whelk, it's really just an assumption. In other words, evidence only matters if we're right about evidence mattering, which it only would in an ordered, rational universe.

 

[mummymonkey]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=875954#post875954