And I think the most reliable is math, math is objective and is based on some axioms and some acceptance of things. We know 2+3=5 ,why we know what the symbol ¡°2¡± means, because we universally accept it. A researcher must believe it , and to further develop mathematical principles they also basic on some axioms, we totally accept that perimeter derived by diameter?, even we can not prove by ourselves. And the mathematicians use it to prove area of circle equal to p¡Ár¡Ár, and it was totally logical ,and it was different from religious, because it can be proved .we can see the belief of the researcher in math also can be the evidence for their results, because it is universally accepted it. And it becomes reliable just because it lack of personal belief, and also the belief ca also can be prove by logic.
But here is one problem behind math. Is it an universally accepted principle is true? Is this belief will become a bias for us and against the researchers results since we think it was true? For instance, in ancient Greece, Pythagoras,(572BC?¡«497BC?)¢Ü believe that: There are just integer and the ration of integer in the world. So they can not find the irrational number, because the belief influenced them and make the researcher not accept there are not only integer and the ration of integer in the world, there are still other numbers in the world. Beliefs make a bias for them, and stop them from finding a new knowledge. So we can see the belief can get against the results. It¡¯s hard to say whether it is count as evidence for or against their results.
It also happens in science, when the scientist explain his theory , the belief often influenced and against there results. When Einstein apply his relativity theory to the structure of universe, he assumed that the universe is contracting or expanding. ¢ÝThat is incompatible with the main notion of static universe in that time. So Einstein made the mistake that he refused to accept his result, and added a term (the Hubble constant etc) to his equations and make his equation suit to his belief of the static universe. A few years later ,another scientist Edwin hubble says that the static universe was wrong, and he has enough evidence to prove that, Einstein finally said he had made the mistake. So we can see that although the scientist are trying for objectivity, but the mistake is made, because the belief of the researchers and bias not the scientific method, so the belief of the researchers in nature science are sometimes against their results.
But I think to some extent the beliefs can act as evidence of their results. The beliefs of the researchers are Important in the establishment of the hypothesis. If the scientists had no belief the research would not exist. The scientist in 1700s, explained that objects lost weight when they burned because they combined with a substance in the air called phlogiston, which has negative weight. But the scientist Lavoisier realized that the reason no one could find any phlogiston was because it was not there. He discovered that when things burn, they combine with oxygen¢Þ. In this case, if Lavoisier didn¡¯t have that belief, the research will not begin. Because the further research will stems on belief, and the researcher will be based on that. Even we should not said whether is was count as evidence for or against their results because we don¡¯t know yet if the beliefs are right or wrong. So I think the beliefs cannot be proved, or there are enough evidences against that can count as against their results. And if there is a sufficient evidence or it can proved ,I think it can¡¯t say it can count as against their results.
History is another scope of knowledge because it is different from math and science totally subjective , For instance, when the historians investigate the war in Roman time, they see that the crusades claimed that soldiers who fought and sought the only victory, they claimed the just war is against all the enemies and occupy the enemy¡¯s territory¢ß .Today when they interpret the wars ,we will believe that the crusades are too blood, and it can¡¯t be called just war ,but when the historians in roman time ,interpreting the wars they will say the war is just without cruelty.the personal beliefs and feeling, and perception from experience will change the way of investigation ,and they may look at the history from one angle, the bias of researchers will make him look at the event from one perspective .and the historian which has no relationship with that time, no influence from that time will look at the event from all angles. And do not focus on one point. So here it was hard to say the belief of the researchers weather can count as evidence for or against their results. because the definition of ¡°just war an unjust war ¡± is changed . but I think when the historians belief form from all angles from all aspects of investigation can count as evidence, and be against if it just focus on one point.
Historians often need to make judgement. They are basic on both primary resource and secondary resource. we can see today USA¡¯s attract Iraq ,USA claim that the war is just and right. But some countries said it was an aggressive war .there is the evidence and judgement for both sides, and the beliefs seem neither short of giver evidence or against their results rather than event analysis. And I think here the judgement is make from different sources, and there is the limitation to researcher , the researchers can not see all the things ,the beliefs form them will be different, so the results will be different. And I thinks the beliefs made from adequate and correct resources can count evidence of their results, if it just focus on few resources count against their .
And often the social and political situation and opinion will influence them and change their results ,they do not form beliefs basic on their results. the historian David lrving denied the holocaust , the six millions Jewish were killed by germen soldier¢à, because he was right wing beliefs to influence him to change all the resources to support the false knowledge. I think we should take objectivity and openness.
Art is another area of knowledge there is totally objectivity. Do you know the painting ¡°Bathers¡± by French impressionist George Seurat develop which is full of mathematics¢á ? in the painting the golden rectangle ,projective geometry ,proportion ,ratios optical illusions were used in , so not only the three dimensional scene can on a two dimensional canvas. It also give us the visual appreciation. When the artist recreate the feeling using external symbols ,his use of mathematics knowledge in his painting made it more beautiful, George Seurat believe that the golden rectangle really can make the painting more beautiful. So I think if his belief that have sufficient evidence, and can prove it, it can count as the evidence for their results.
It¡¯s obvious that the beliefs have both advantage and limitation on the researchers results in different areas of knowledge ,only we get adequate evidence and open mind or logical can get evidence for their results, so is it clearer for you to say whether it is possible for a car to travelin the lake?
