Welcome to Thunderdome

Third Eye Blind trolled an audience filled with Republican National Convention attendees during a charity concert at Cleveland's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Tuesday night, with singer Stephan Jenkins continually blasting the GOP and antagonizing the crowd with remarks like, "Raise your hand if you believe in science."
...
Knowing his audience, Jenkins used the microphone to condemn Republican ideology and perform a set list that refrained from playing any Third Eye Blind hits.
...
"The Republican National Convention is not a private event … It's a public sales pitch, and everyone is supposed to deliver the script," Jenkins wrote at the time. "This whole hustle is peppered with music bits meant to wed policies like forced births of rapists' babies and minority voter suppression to song. Even the private party my band was asked to play at the RNC is not some innocuous event. Though I am happy to play for Republican fans, like my lifelong Republican mom, playing the RNC convention is a tacit endorsement of the Republican presidential candidate and his party platform, and this is not my mom’s Republican Party anymore."

Third Eye Blind were playing a charity event for Musicians on Call (sponsored by the RIAA and AT&T) at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame & Museum in Cleveland on Tuesday evening. Though not technically part of the Convention, the show was expected to find TEB “covering several pro-America anthems for the RNC friendly audience in attendance,” according to Cleveland.com.

Another tweet asked whether the band was concerned that their actions would hurt the charity, to which the group replied, "Great question. We were not, as Musicians on Call were well aware of who we are and our take on things (like science and rights!)"

The problem revolves around the plausibility of inductive reasoning, that is, reasoning from the observed behaviour of objects to their behaviour when unobserved. As Hume wrote, induction concerns how things behave when they go "beyond the present testimony of the senses, or the records of our memory". Hume argues that we tend to believe that things behave in a regular manner, meaning that patterns in the behaviour of objects seem to persist into the future, and throughout the unobserved present. Hume's argument is that we cannot rationally justify the claim that nature will continue to be uniform, as justification comes in only two varieties—demonstrative reasoning and probable reasoning —and both of these are inadequate. With regard to demonstrative reasoning, Hume argues that the uniformity principle cannot be demonstrated, as it is "consistent and conceivable" that nature might stop being regular. Turning to probable reasoning, Hume argues that we cannot hold that nature will continue to be uniform because it has been in the past. As this is using the very sort of reasoning (induction) that is under question, it would be circular reasoning. Thus, no form of justification will rationally warrant our inductive inferences.

TPRJones wrote:Unlike other belief systems, the prophecies of Science regularly come true.

And when they don't Science changes to match the new reality.

Malcolm wrote:How do you know you 100% completely, fully understand anything?

All you have is the best possible approximation based on known observations and theories that try to explain those observations and predict other observations.
...
you can never ever get 100% certainty because tomorrow may turn up an observation the theory can't explain.

So then, there may be gaps between science and reality? What fills those in?

A theoretical physicist must dare I say, believe, that alike atoms will and always have decayed at the same rate...

But it's not a belief in the sense that it is rock solid and cannot be changed by evidence to the contrary.

God does not throw dice!

God does not throw dice!

But it's not a belief in the sense that it is rock solid and cannot be changed by evidence to the contrary. At least not if he's doing science properly.

Do I need to go to the arena of climate change to point out that science requires the belief a human being, with all his emotional baggage, can divest himself of subjectivity, achieve some Vulcan-like zen state of apathy, and apply his knowledge to a mystery with no bias?

We're talking about science here, not religion.