Science-Based Thinking vs Magic/Faith-Based Thinking

There is a clear difference, and incompatibility, between science-based and magic/faith-based thinking.  Science-based thinking is supported by evidence and leads to justified true belief.  Magic/faith-based thinking is unsupported by evidence and is based on a desire for certainty and comfort.  Let's take a close look at this incompatibility.

What is science?

Knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

• Here are two links, one brief, the other more lengthy, to further help clarify the term:

Understanding Reality Requires Science

Philosophy of Science

What is magical thinking?

Believing that thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.

What is faith?

Belief without evidence

- - - - - - -

Science and Religion

"The most essential conflict between science and religion is not in their conclusions — such as evolution, the heliocentric solar system, or the origin of disease — but in their ways of arriving at their conclusions. The fundamental disagreement is in how, rather than in what.

"Religion relies on authority — from a person, book, or tradition — and its Truth is supposed to be universal and eternal. But in science, the authority is in the evidence and reasoning, which are always open to challenge; so science’s truth is relative and tentative."

https://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/science-vs-religion-the-thinking-of-evidence-vs-faith/

Science and Pseudoscience 

"The word “pseudo” means fake, and the surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing, in this case science itself. When we speak of knowing science we do not mean simply knowing scientific facts (e.g., the distance from earth to sun; the age of the earth; the distinction between mammal and reptile, etc.) We mean that one must clearly understand the nature of science itself— the criteria of valid evidence, the design of meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of useful theories, the many aspects of the methods of science which make it possible to draw accurate, reliable, meaningful conclusions about the phenomena of the physical universe."

https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~coker2/index.files/distinguish.htm 

Science and Alternatives To Medicine (CAM)

"CAM practitioners and advocates, despite practicing what is in reality mostly pseudoscience-based medicine, crave the imprimatur that science can provide, the respect that science has. That is why, no matter how scientifically implausible the treatment, CAM practitioners try to tart it up with science. I say “tart it up” because they aren’t really providing a scientific basis for their favored quackery. In reality, what they are doing is choosing science-y words and using them as explanations without actually demonstrating that these words have anything to do with how their favored CAM works."

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-difference-between-science-based-medicine-and-cam/

- - - - - - -

Also related to this discussion is how religious apologists, proponents of alternatives to medicine and other supporters of any other pseudoscience view evidence.  Below is one of my blog posts looking at the matter.  Even though it directly addresses religious apologists, it applies to the other categories of magic/faith-based thinkers as well:

Evidence: Religious Apologists And Science-Based Thinkers Diverge

- - - - - - -

Remember: 

• If YOU make a claim, YOU are obligated to support it with evidence.
• The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required for acceptance.
• Science is not certain and all assessments are provisional and based on probability.
• Randomized, controlled studies is the "Gold Standard" of research, with observational studies less certain.  In addition, the more studies are replicated with the same result, the stronger the probability of them being representative of reality.
• One may be exposed to the terms "theory" and "proof"  in discussing science.  While they may be used colloquially, in a scientific discussion, "hypothesis" should substitute for "theory" if theory is used as a speculation before it is verified. The term "proof" should never be used in a scientific context:  it is a mathematical term.

If you challenge this post, please present what trumps objective evidence in understanding reality, AND why.  Thanks.