What does "respecting other people's beliefs" actually mean?

[Hakluyt]

I am often told I should - and I have been told that I haven't. But I genuinely don't know what it means.

I am a great believer in good manners, and I would always be polite if I was attending some sort of faith based event. I never go on prayer threads. I do try never to be rude. But the threshold for "disrespect" seems extraordinarily low- sometimes mere disagreement seems unacceptable.

Also, what constitutes a "belief"? The major world religions- OK- I get that. But do I also have to respect "new" religions made up in the 1970s/80s? Kabbalah? Is homeopathy a belief? If I say, for example "homeopathy is discredited bollocks and this is why" is that a public service or disrespecting someone's beliefs? Is astrology a "belief"?

Atheism isn't a belief system, obviously, but am I entitled to be offended and report the post if someone says that atheists lead empty lives devoid of joy? Or if someone says that science is evil and devoted to hiding the evidence for the paranormal/ the cure for cancer/whatever for it's own selfish ends?

But isn't defining somebody as an atheist about as meaningful as defining somebody as an a-matrixist? You can't prove that the matrix doesn't exist either. The list of things not to believe in is infinite.

I think gruffalo post right at the start if the thread is spot on.
In particular how you say things, your time of voice, facial expression matter just as much if not more than the words you are using. These are the things that really convey your respect and your 'belief' that everyone can think what they want, you don't have the right to tell them they are stupid to think differently than you.

It is obvious with religion because there is no way we can say either way god exists or not or heaven and he'll exist or not. Not as obvious with things like homeopathy or crustal healing.
But you see, when my friend used crystals and homeopathy and found these were the only things that eased the pain off particular procedures, who on earth would I be to tell her it's all rubbish? Or even to think it's not ok for her to say 'I believe homeopathy is working' when it so clearly made a huge difference to her.

As far as I am concerned a lot of 'science' is closer to a belief than a proven thing. So I prefer to let people think whatever they want to think.

My issue is more about limits. When do a belief start to be unacceptable? Eg if it puts a vulnerable person in danger.
The two examples I'm thinking about are blood transfusion and a child (of course I want to shout. It will save his/her life!) and immunisation (of course you shouldn't do it I want to shout whilst knowing that's belief of no vaccination wouldn't hold in court and I would be forced to do so for the good of the child).
So what is right/wrong? Is it belief only? Does it allow you to do whatever you think is ok to do?

mini completely agree with you that science is based on belief. But you won't find a lot if people to agree with you on that. Especially not the ones who think that 'because science and trials have shown X therefore that's the truth'.

I'm agnostic, I'm hedging my bets

I agree, how people say things and having some sensitivity are all very important. I suppose all beliefs are relative until something can be proven to be a fact. Even then, people are free to believe something else. I guess even after the world was proven to be round, flat earthers existed. They had a right to believe the world was flat, they didn't have a right not to have this belief interrogated. I think also "facts" tend to be accepted as such through consensus, so it's important to keep talking

No one owes anyone anything. There is no onus on anyone. Everyone does their own research and is responsible to there own selves to walk the path of their choosing.

Surely you owe humanity? Personal experience is the lowest burden of proof bar falsifying something. The scientific method, although not perfect, is the best system we have.

People who subscribe and endorse homeopathy or vaccine deniers are potentially dangerous, sometimes fatally.

Well you see the thing is, for every person saying homeopathy is real, you have at least 1 person saying it's not real.

It's up to a sick person to diligently seek out information and make an informed decision.

I don't think science is supposed to offer definitive explanations. It is supposed to give the most rational explanation taking into account what we know now.

Some explanations are less rational than others. I suppose it's up to the individual whether they prefer the more or less rational explanation.

I think most people don't base a belief in god on a rational proof but some people do try to find rational proof eg that Noah existed (and they don't tend to do it very well).

Unless I am in police custody or a court I do not expect to be interrogated. I like hearing about others' personal experiences, I only need more evidence if they are trying to make me believe what they do.

People should seek out information, of course, but is that not the same as questioning things, you enquire. It amounts to the same thing. In choosing one thing over another, you make a choice to discredit one in favour of giving credit to the other. And I agree with merrymouse some explanations are more rational than others. But then rational thinking really comes from "thinking" over observation. Having said that, don't we tend to rely on both, empiricism and rational thinking.

And yes we owe humanity to keep asking questions and seeking out information.

DioneTheDiabolist, I am not suggesting you interrogate people! you interrogate the idea, to see if it holds up.

"As far as I am concerned a lot of 'science' is closer to a belief than a proven thing"

Say more about this?

"But science is to some degree rooted in belief. Every fact is a theory, every theory a hypothesis."

Nothing whatsoever about the scientific method has anything to do with belief without proof.

A hypothesis is a guess to be tested with an experiment. After the experiment, you analyse the data to see if they agree with or go against the hypothesis & draw a conclusion.

None of this has anything to do with belief.

"for every person saying homeopathy is real, you have at least 1 person saying it's not real."

This is what happens when you place as much value on the opinion of some 15-year-old girl writing on a hippy dippy website as you would on the opinion of a scientist.

"But isn't defining somebody as an atheist about as meaningful as defining somebody as an a-matrixist? You can't prove that the matrix doesn't exist either. The list of things not to believe in is infinite."

^ This.

"A hypothesis is a guess to be tested with an experiment. After the experiment, you analyse the data to see if they agree with or go against the hypothesis & draw a conclusion."

And when you've done all that,buy writ a paper, and your colleagues crawl all over it looking for mistakes. Then, and only then do you publish it.

A bit if fervent from saying "I held a purple Crystal and my headache went away. So purple crystals must cure headaches.

A hypothesis is a guess a guess is a belief. I believe that every time I let go of a balloon, it will hit the floor, I guess or believe that the very next balloon I let go of, will hit the floor. I can test this all day long and conclude that everyone will hit the floor, now I need to explain why this happens. So I am Newton and I have a theory, however the very next thing I drop is a balloon filled with helium. So now I question, why did this balloon float when all others didn't? I guess, suppose or believe now, that it floats because of the helium, after all, this is because the gas is the only difference, so it goes...

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Plus I would go further and say that sometimes there is huge bias within science. Sometimes it simply doesn't pay to break with a paradigm, for instance. I'm certain that those who seriously question global warming get quite a bashing and funding withdrawn. In terms of peer review, well that rather proves the point, much of what we consider to be fact is based upon consensus. Not that there is anything wrong with consensus , I agree with it, but it should be acknowledged.

"I'm certain that those who seriously question global warming get quite a bashing and funding withdrawn"

Really? They seem to get quite a lot of air time to me........

"A hypothesis is a guess a guess is a belief."

That is nonsense. A guess is not a belief, and a hypothesis is not a belief, either.

Have you never carried out an experiment in school?

"In terms of peer review, well that rather proves the point, much of what we consider to be fact is based upon consensus"

It is criticism by other, knowledgeable professionals. Not consensus as in "Let's hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya'".

Have you never carried out an experiment in school? yes plenty and they had all been done before to death!

A hypothesis is neither a guess nor a belief. It is an idea based on what the person making it already knows, and which will then be tested to see if it stands up.

No sorry, you don't necessarily already know the validity of the hypothesis. You think it might work but it is also likely that it won't.

Mini - No part of the scientific method (hypothesis > experiment > data > conclusion) has a belief, anywhere, especially the hypothesis which is at the beginning of the process. Even if the data & conclusion support the hypothesis, that is only one experiment that could be an outlier. You would look at meta-analyses to draw more credible conclusions.

It is quite scary that you have gone through formal education, took a science course and performed experiments, and have retained so little about what it was you were supposed to learn about the scientific method.

I would have thought that this thread would have been more about beliefs than a discussion on science and scientific evidence...,

Beliefs and science aren't mutually exclusive for the simple reason that we can't explain the whole world around us. There are many things we just have to accept as they are wo knowing the whys. We might be striving to understand but the reality is that we know very little.
On the top of it, science isn't set in stone something that was thought to be true one day isn't a year later. It's great but it also means that science as such doesn't hold truth at all, no more than beliefs about life after death do.

On the 'is there some beliefs in science?' I would very much say YES. It's there when a researcher is spending 20years proving a theory that no one wanted to believe because it 'looked' so wrong. And to be able to 'prove' it after years of efforts.
It is there when peer reviewed journal refuse an article on herbal medicine but accept exactly the same one, with the same experiment, using chemical names instead.
It is there in astronomy where different people do different studies based on completely different premises that they all consider being 'the' truth. Anyone look at the universe that has a limit wo having one, expands but is actually retracting at the same time? They will be able to say that their measures are in line with their theory but none if the theories can coexist together .

So as the scientific truth as we know it today can change, I think we need to be careful not to act as if it was THE truth and belittle anyone that think it's wrong. Who knows if in 5, 10 or 20 years time that person won't be proven right?
In the same way that someone who believes in god and the afterlife needs to be careful not to belittle someone who doesn't believe.
Because as it is, we don't know.

CoteDAzur, I am quite uncertain as to why you are arguing with me, because nothing you have said actually contradicts what I have said, apart from your pedantic use of language in respect of the word hypothesis.

Wiki, can't be bothered to search around the net, but this will do

"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories"

A hypothesis is a best guess, which is then tested.

A hypothesis is neither a guess nor a belief. It is an idea based on what the person making it already knows, and which will then be tested to see if it stands up

A theory is accepted in light of the fact that it appears to explain something. It remains in place uncontested unless another theory comes along that better explains this. Newton and Einstein are perfect examples of this, and well known.

I think philosophy of science is interesting and quite valid Opinion, like a hypothesis, a best guess, what humans strive for is knowledge, and therefore opinion needs to be tested vigorously. But then that is just my opinion

The previous two posters make an awful lot of sense. I too, am surprised the subject has turned to science. Belief and science aren't mutually exclusive.

You don't have to look too far to see that peer review is not all it's cracked up to be. It is far from the quoted and revered holy grail/gold standard everyone aspires to.

www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

www.labnews.co.uk/features/peer-review/

m.jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

"It is there when peer reviewed journal refuse an article on herbal medicine but accept exactly the same one, with the same experiment, using chemical names instead. "

Could you tell us more about when and where this happened?

I think it's also important to remember that while obviously it is possible for scientific thinking to change in the light of future evidence (is it, in fact, one of the things that distinguishes science from belief or faith), if something, like homeopathy, for example, has been proved not to work, it can't then be proved to work. If it worked, but we didn't know how, then obviously different theories would emerge and be tested until finally we found out. But it's not that it works and we don't know how- it just doesn't work.