Reason to believe vs no reason to doubt

In summary, the conversation is discussing the American expression "We have a reason to believe" and the speaker's personal preference for it. They argue that having a reason to believe is more important than having no reason to doubt, and that the expression "I have no reason to doubt" encompasses the idea of having a reason to believe. The conversation also mentions the need for more context in order to fully understand the topic being discussed.

What's your pick

  • I have a reason to believe

    Votes: 5 100.0%
  • I have no reason to doubt

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5
  • #1
ddr
I don't quite support the American expression:"We have a reason to believe" cause I don't think it's enough.What's your pick:

-I have a reason to believe?

-I have no reason to doubt?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I am not sure I get what you are talking about, but I voted "I have a reason to Believe" because I am taking it as a larger concept, and therefore it is much more important to me to have a reason to believe in something, than to have no reason to doubt it.

I mean, I have no reason to doubt a whole miriad of things...but why should I believe in any of them unless there is some reason?

In other words: Why make stuff up?
 
  • #3
My gut reaction was that there was no choice for 'I have no reason to believe'. Without more context, I for one, won't understand what you're getting at.
 
  • #4
DDR at least give some detail on what the heck you're talking about.
 
  • #5
My point was:

If I have a reason to believe then I have minimum one reason to believe.If I have no reason to doubt then I have minimum all the reasons to believe.The expression "I have no reasons to doubt" is much wider and more general and it incorporates the expression "I have a reason to believe" in its self.
 

What is the difference between "reason to believe" and "no reason to doubt"?

Reason to believe refers to having evidence or logical support for a particular belief or claim. No reason to doubt, on the other hand, means that there is a lack of evidence or logical support to question or doubt a belief or claim.

How do scientists determine whether there is a reason to believe or no reason to doubt a particular theory or hypothesis?

Scientists use the scientific method to test and evaluate theories and hypotheses. This involves making observations, forming a hypothesis, conducting experiments, and analyzing the results. If the results support the hypothesis, there is a reason to believe it. If the results do not support the hypothesis, there may be a reason to doubt it.

Can a theory or hypothesis have both a reason to believe and a reason to doubt?

Yes, it is possible for a theory or hypothesis to have both a reason to believe and a reason to doubt. This often occurs when there is conflicting evidence or when the theory or hypothesis is still being tested and evaluated.

Is it better to have a reason to believe or no reason to doubt?

Neither is inherently better than the other. It depends on the context and the strength of the evidence or support for the belief or claim. In general, scientists strive to have a strong reason to believe a theory or hypothesis, but they also remain open to new evidence and potential reasons to doubt.

What happens if there is no reason to believe or a reason to doubt a theory or hypothesis?

If there is no reason to believe a theory or hypothesis, it is considered unproven or untested and requires further research and evidence. If there is a reason to doubt a theory or hypothesis, it may be revised or discarded in favor of a more supported one. This is the nature of scientific inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
696
Replies
5
Views
841
Replies
9
Views
884
Replies
13
Views
836
Replies
1
Views
653
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
913
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Back
Top