Why Is Science Based On So Much Faith? [Archive]

Kerrie

Dec8-04, 10:43 AM

sorry to spoil your foolish fun TENYEARS, but i had to edit your garbage verbage out, but i do believe there is a valid point you are making here that i am keeping open with my changes :biggrin:

yes, we do rely on our science to be accurate and ETHICAL. those who are pioneering science must prove themselves to be honest, ethical and as objective as possible. and if they choose to be educators, they must also practice these qualities as well, probably even more so.

it is actually a good example for many (especially us americans) to follow in many choices we need to make in our lives; everything from choosing a mate to choosing political parties. science, however, is the base of establishing our "reality" from, whereas politics and relationships are stemmed from morals and opinions. we have no choice but to have faith in those setting the stage of our understanding of the universe, thus we hope they are the honest and ethical people we expect them to be.

as individuals, we should question everything that we read, hear, and see. if we accept everything for what is fed to us, it would be easier to be led from the truths. question your news source, your favorite radio shows, authors of books/articles you read up on, etc. chances are their opinions are interlaced with the facts, and you have the responsibility of filtering out those opinions and absorbing the material for the facts.

arildno

Dec8-04, 11:39 AM

Locrian

Dec8-04, 11:49 AM

Hmm. Before the modedit, the OP was absurd and probably a joke. Now its just absurd. At least the uncertainty has been removed.

It's still hard to take seriuosly. Take this quote:

You take instruments made by someone else, made of parts of multiple people, calebrated by formulas equations and other instruments all working in unisone to provide an approximation of an answer you cannot see.

Who calibrates by an equation? That's rediculous. If calibration by someone else is such an issue, do it yourself. Then it's only one person, and you know how they did it. I calibrate some of my own instruments; why can't you?

An answer you can't see? What could that mean? I can see the readout on any instrument I have. Is Braile being read by a blind person an answer you can't see? I guess the poster is making a sad attempt to wax philosophical over the existence of things you don't observe visually. That argument never lasts long anyhow.

It's nice to have some flamebait, but it would be nicer if the poster knew anything about the subject... and could form a coherent paragraph without supervision.

Locrian

Dec8-04, 11:52 AM

Note that a precondition of PROGRESS is to BUILD UPON the work of others.
If we, as individuals, were to question EVERYTHING, and only accept as valid that which we personally have verified to be true, we would never, CONSIDERED AS A COMMUNITY, raise above the level an individual may come to from first principles.

This is untrue. Reverifying hypothesis that have already been tested requires very little time - certainly much less than required to form the initial idea and come up with an experiment to test it. In getting my physics degree, I questioned and reverified many, many experiments in very little time.

I rose far above first principles and (though it didn't seem it when I was there!) spent rather little time in the lab class doing it.

Kerrie

Dec8-04, 11:52 AM

Note that a precondition of PROGRESS is to BUILD UPON the work of others.
If we, as individuals, were to question EVERYTHING, and only accept as valid that which we personally have verified to be true, we would never, CONSIDERED AS A COMMUNITY, raise above the level an individual may come to from first principles.

you omitted any kind of reference to my closing point: chances are their opinions are interlaced with the facts, and you have the responsibility of filtering out those opinions and absorbing the material for the facts

this is in reference to news sources (more applicable to american sources) such as newspapers, television and radio, not for educational sources necessarily.

arildno

Dec8-04, 12:25 PM

This is untrue. Reverifying hypothesis that have already been tested requires very little time - certainly much less than required to form the initial idea and come up with an experiment to test it. In getting my physics degree, I questioned and reverified many, many experiments in very little time.

I rose far above first principles and (though it didn't seem it when I was there!) spent rather little time in the lab class doing it.
And you questioned EVERYTHING pertinent to physics?
I don't think so..

Locrian

Dec8-04, 12:50 PM

And you questioned EVERYTHING pertinent to physics?
I don't think so..

No, you don't, but that isn't what is important. In this post you imply that there are too many pertinent things for me to have reverified, rather than the idea that there are only a few. I see no reason to accept this. In this way you hope to move the debate away from the phrase "first principles" (your words) and to something much more broad without anyone noticing. I suspect you also hope to bury the word "never," as it is a dangerous word that in this context is almost certainly indefinsible.

This is not an effective argument. I still see no evidence that the first principles of physics cannot be questioned and verified in time to go on to new discoveries. In fact, with good education, I can see them verified quickly and efficiently, leaving plenty of room for newer material to be questioned and reverified.

Maybe some examples would provide a stronger case for your argument than this maneuvering?

arildno

Dec8-04, 01:17 PM

Sure enough, although I want first to state what I mean a bit more clearly:
1) I do NOT want to imply that we can never reach an adequate proficiency for the practice as a scientist. That is just silly.
If I implied this, that's my fault.
2) However, look at the following:
When modelling some phenomenon by the use of differential equations, we are not primarily interested in the "strictly mathematical" aspects of the equation; i.e, questions of existence of solutions, uniqueness, the convergence rate of a particular approximation scheme, or even whether the chosen approximation scheme actually would lead to a convergent series solution, or yields, in fact, an asymptotic approximation representable as a wholly divergent series.

That is why such concerns are termed "strictly mathematical" in the first place; although they are relevant (IMO), the detailed study of these issues is not strictly necessary in every single case you're working with.

It is a more pressing concern to develop modelling skills, and develop an understanding of why a given approximation method (for example, WKB) is, for the most part, a mathematically justifiable technique than to get bogged down at every turn by some tricky and difficult convergence proof.

Hence, my position is:
Although, from a theoretical point of view, some difficult, "strictly mathematical" issues are, indeed, necessary to clear up in order to get a rock-solid foundation, the study of these issues is not necessarily (and, IMO, should not be) the province of the physicist.

EDIT:
When you are to, for example, devise a NEW method of approximations, such considerations certainly becomes directly relevant to a practicing physicist; i.e, you have to VALIDATE your method.
However, when applying tried-and-true techniques to a new problem, which has been verified to obey some rough, necessary criteria for the applicability of the old method, you may go ahead, even if you haven't strictly proven that the problem falls under SUFFICIENT criteria for the validity of the method
(such issues can be tough, but I maintain that they remain relevant in an abstract sense).

honestrosewater

Dec8-04, 01:24 PM

I just have two quick questions for some scientists out there:
1) Given two explanations explaining the same event, would you choose the one containing the fewest or the most unnecessary assumptions?
2) Do you ever perform tests in an attempt to prove an assumption is false or evaluate its correspondence with reality?

gerben

Dec9-04, 01:12 AM

arildno

Dec9-04, 05:32 AM

It is not based on faith. It is based on trust.

Thank you, gerben for that distinction.
A rational division of labour, in which we leave some of the work-load to others, is based on a trust that they are competent in doing their part, leaving us free to do ours.
It has nothing to do with blind faith, after all..

selfAdjoint

Dec9-04, 10:58 AM

However I think you will find that scientists don't just accept ther equipment as it comes to them, but do experiments to validate that it does what it says and to calibrate it. My memory of my undergraduate physics labs seems to recall an awful lot of time spent calibrating.

Kerrie

Dec9-04, 11:19 AM

TENYEARS

Dec9-04, 04:31 PM

honestrosewater

Dec9-04, 06:39 PM

It is a scary prospect is it not?
No, because, in science, everything can be independently verified. This is not the case in, say, revealed religion.

TENYEARS

Dec9-04, 11:16 PM

Bull, you kid yourself. Who verifies the verifier? The one who is verifiing they to must use what the others use to correct? LoL To see it you only need to be honest with yourself. I imagine such a premise would scare the living daylights out of you if you truely took it to what it is. So what do you really know? Careful there is a large fish lurking. If you think these thoughts you will be it's meal in an instant and who knows how long it will be before you are spit out.

gerben

Dec10-04, 12:30 AM

So I have touched a nerve with some. That is good it means you are not completely asleep. Any device used any word spoken which is not a direct experience to yourself is faith. In a court of law you would lose and lose badly. Faith - reliance or trust in. The whole system is built upon levels of trust/faith. It is a scary prospect is it not?

No it is not scary. It is an adventure. We only experience what we experience. Such a thing as "truth" is not needed for our descriptions of the empirical world. The great thing is that we can predict and control aspects of the empirical world using logical models. It does not matter whether these models are said to have this quality you call "truth". There is nothing to be gained by doing that.

You claim relgion is not based upon levels of understanding? This is the same with relgion for the non direct experiencers. You are many of them. You see what you fail to comprehned is that some aspects of religion actually is an expression of physics which is not yet understood. The true who are those who have experienced this are like those who you trust in science. It is one and the same. This is the truth if your understand it or not it does not matter.

Whether theories are felt to be "true" or not does not matter. The only thing that matters is that they work. I bet Newton did not feel that his theories were "true" he just guessed, and tried whether they worked. He probably did not know where his guess came from. There is no reason for something like "gravity", it is just a concept, defined to help us predict and control things in the empirical world we life in.

We attempt to understand what we are interested in and yet so many times we stop short of the goal. Why? The question is do you know that in your own field you have stopped short? The key to the path of knowlege is knowing that you do not know. Belief falls away like a husk and there before you lies the truth. Every path is different but the important thing is that we live in a vacum of the unknown when we do not understand. Only then will the truth be able to implode upon you. If any of you are honest you will understand this. Good night faithful. LoL

There is no fun in: accepting that you know nothing and believing that that is the truth. It is just playing around with concepts in a useless way. It is more interesting to play around with concepts in order to try to get conceptual models that give you some control over the empirical world. You can do that only if you accept that your concepts may need to be replaced by once that give more control, and therefore they should never be given this nasty quality called "truth".

So, faith?
Well, for a while… until we tried, and only until we see it fail.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
F.W. Nietzsche

honestrosewater

Dec10-04, 03:02 AM

Who verifies the verifier?
?? You are the verifier. That's why I said and italicized independently. You were pointing out scientists' dependence on each other. I was pointing out that scientists don't have to depend on each other; They can depend on themselves.

So what do you really know?

I wasn't responding to that question because you hadn't asked it. Anyway, what do you really know about what? Verification implies a system, but that system needn't be "reality". It can be a formal axiomatic system, for instance, about which the verifier can have perfect knowledge.

If you are trying to devalue scientific knowledge by arguing that all knowledge is based on assumptions, your argument is self-defeating.

TENYEARS

Dec10-04, 07:18 AM

No, science is based on faith. You are just not honest with yourself and do not quite understand yet. Non belief does not denote the truth but it does allow for one to become a witness to what is. There is no time frame for this but in this state it is an eventuallity and that is physics. LoL the very facet of enlightenment is physics itself. The very proccess itself. Get out of the box. We all like to believe we understand so many things in life. Sometimes this belief becomes so important when we witness life around us because we need to immerse ourselves in something of value in the midst of the madness. Aspects of science like religion are like that. Science can give you nothing just like relgion or if you will not believe if you question with all that you are chuck the formulas the words the images take from the most base part of what you are and apply it forward. There and only there is there true discovery true knowlege. There you become the truest pioneer. Nothing will shake your knowlege it will stand like a monolith unchangable industructable before any and all. For what is is and what is not decays into the mist. On a Sunday morning in 1991 I figured out what gravity was and that is reality. It will stand into infinity for I figured it out and nothing will change that or it's reality. All other things are imaterial. Sometimes that is why learning is a bad thing. Many aspects of what we learn are true but some are not and are actually illogical but accepted. When you combine the picture it does not completely fit and yet it is propagated as so. This is where the great value of non belief comes in. A cooworker came in the other day and told me of something she spoke to her daughter that I let them practice. Treat all that you look upon as wrong and you will keep it honest. She found something which was an accepted part of a process for 10 yeears which was looked by many people that was wrong. It does not matter where you are or what you do this is the way to truth. It is a simple method I have discovered within myself that works and it may also work for you. To change the world, to live in harmony with it you must understand it honestly.

russ_watters

Dec10-04, 12:07 PM

Bull, you kid yourself. Who verifies the verifier? The one who is verifiing they to must use what the others use to correct? Go buy a GPS reciever and get back to us. Go buy a telescope and get back to us. Look at your monitor and get back to us. Use a cd player and get back to us. Drive a car and get back to us....

The fact is, that anyone can verify virtually any part of science if they choose to. The verification is as simple as accepting the fact that the technology we use today would not be possible if our science was wrong. Period. So every time you switch on a GPS reciever you are verifying, for yourself, Relativity. Every time you turn on a CD player, you are verifying, for yourself, QM. Every time you drive your car you are verifying, for yourself, thermodynamics.

arildno

Dec10-04, 01:00 PM

TENYEARS:
" On a Sunday morning in 1991 I figured out what gravity was and that is reality. It will stand into infinity for I figured it out and nothing will change that or it's reality. All other things are imaterial."

This shows your true colors, doesn't it?
An arrogant, ignorant crank.
(Besides, learn proper grammar; your education level is obviously abysmal)

Tom Mattson

Dec10-04, 03:45 PM

No, science is based on faith.

*yawn*

The rest of the class has moved beyond this, but TENYEARS is still struggling to keep up.

Again, for the hard of caring: There is a difference between trusting the work of other people and simple "faith". Of course I do not verify all the results that I use in my work, but I know that I could if I wanted to. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. It's not possible to verify each and every detail of scientific knowledge that I need to use to get my work done. Such reliance on the work of others is necessary for progress. Without it, you would not have a computer or an internet to bother the rest of us with. :yuck:

If you want to know where is the evidence that our trust is not misplaced, then I refer you to the last sentence of my previous paragraph. In addition to being a funny joke, it also enunciates a principle: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is, I know that the picture of the physical universe is not far off from the science that I have learned, because the physical universe behaves nearly exactly as I would expect it to, according to that knowledge. I believe what I have learned because what I have learned works.

You are just not honest with yourself and do not quite understand yet.

TENYEARS, this is a Philosophy Forum, not your personal mental toilet. We are all being honest here, both with ourselves and others. Keep this up, and you won't be welcome here for much longer.

Henceforth, I am going to delete any of your posts that do not meet the level of quality specified in the Guidelines. Please see to it that your future posts meet them.

Nereid

Dec10-04, 04:06 PM

TENYEARS, just in case you foolishly assume that Tom is alone in his characterisation of your inputs, let me make it clear to you that I am in accord with what he wrote. If for any reason Tom is not around to delete 'any of your posts that do not meet the level of quality specified in the Guidelines', and I am, I will delete them.

In passing, I note that you have not answered the key question addressed to you by several posters, in different forms: what gives you the confidence to make posts on PF? Have you, by direct experience, personally verified all key elements of the hardware and software you use? of the internet? I'm actually quite curious to know.

TENYEARS

Dec10-04, 05:45 PM

Nereid, you just gave me a grinch smile pal. So my words have affect you. Good. I do not denouce science for I am in awe of the universe it's flow and how it changes. How could anyone not be. My words posted in this way were to bring you back a step and make you question the very foundation of your thoughts. To wake you up and polarize you into a reality that is yet unseen. You see there are many theories on reality at this moment on gravity on many things. What I laugh about is that the implications of those realities which are not understood and yet in the midst of my words I just found myself a fault. Lol. Functional fixedness is part of everyones life even mine. Maybe they do understand some of it, but I can see aspects which they do not and because of this I am alone in what I understand. I want the world to understand but it is not my place or anyones. We are guided by a world of money and power but I have hope for more for free minds are the greatest asset to our world for only that can create the action we need for our true responsbility which is the realization of the living science itself. Who of you is brave to face that it is faith. When you let go to that only then will you find science in a light you could never have dreamed. Good night.

chroot

Dec10-04, 05:59 PM

Can someone hand me an airsickness bag, please?

- Warren

BoulderHead

Dec10-04, 09:06 PM

http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/vomit_bag.wav
:tongue:

TENYEARS

Dec11-04, 08:53 AM

In passing, I note that you have not answered the key question addressed to you by several posters, in different forms: what gives you the confidence to make posts on PF? Have you, by direct experience, personally verified all key elements of the hardware and software you use? of the internet? I'm actually quite curious to know.

Neried, I or should I address you as such. I don't really know there is one do I. For all I know this is a program written by a talaneted individual with an incredible language/personality simulator. LoL More realistically maybe the whole site is composed of 5 people or 10 all who answer with different ID's from the same computer. Maybe there is a hack who is intercepting every packet on the wire and altering it to his needs just for fun. And maybe I am just talking to myself here. That seems to be the case either way. lol. Yes I have faith right now that like you that what I percieve to be part of is what I am part of. I do not kid myself. It is indeed faith. Did you ever see the movie "Brazil"? The reason why I say what I do is that very few individuals understand the implications of what they learn. All it does for them is define the paramters of the box. When I took my present job after a period of time I spoke with one which I would consider the most intelligent individual there. I was relaying my idea of gravity and matter to him. He spoke four words and in an instant he understood the implications of my realization. Not out of a book. The same individual then tried to catch me one day some years later in the parking lot one day joking around about time and relativity. I figured out what I care to and at that moment I took the challenge and right there in the dam parking lot I rolled out in conjuction with what I realized from matter and gravity the reality of how time slowed as one approaches the speed of light! One would have to have faith in my words but I would not because they are ineed just words. Treat all that you have learned as wrong and you will understand what is.

You may kick me off the forum at any time if I offend your illusion too greatly. It matters not to me, but will it matter to you. LoL

KaneOris

Dec11-04, 08:59 AM

Knowledge is belief, you dont know anything, you believe it, people that believe in science and its explanations because it is more believable to them, there is more evidence.

Drayakir

Dec11-04, 11:33 AM

Look. There is a truth that exists. Scientists are working to achieve it. There are thing called axioms. We accept them to be true because the test of time showed them to be. If you want, you can take each axiom independently, and check whether it works or not.

Tools are like that as well. You may choose to test them, if you want; to calibrate them. If they conform to what other people before you have discovered, they are calibrated. If not, then they might be wrong, or you might discover something.

Science is not based on faith, because faith would require complete belief in what people have discovered before you. Then how are discoveries made? Someone QUESTIONS something, and tests it. That is not faith; that is doubt.

TENYEARS

Dec11-04, 12:06 PM

Uncertainty? At any point and time the relative nature of all creation is in a state of flux. This is an absolute I witnessed and understand. Even with macro objects which are part of this reality at any point and time even it if be three seconds ago what I percieved to be does not have to be. One there is my perception of what was, two there is the fact that is in a state of flux and three there is the fact that the macro representation itself may not be complete or it presently does not represent the end toward the object or process being observed. So it is faith toward the objective because at any point you are trusting something other than right now. For if you were it right now you could be a direct witness to reality or the relativity of relality itself. Since you are not in right now you fixate processes and objects which you percieve to be correct. That is still trust which is equal to faith. If you brought this before a court of law it would be classified as faith. Why so upset. LoL

phoenixthoth

Dec27-04, 11:19 PM

(By Tom)

Henceforth, I am going to delete any of your posts that do not meet the level of quality specified in the Guidelines. Please see to it that your future posts meet them.

Quote from the PF guidelines:
All members have the right to thier own ideas, beliefs and faiths . Members have the right to express these on physics forums with equal respect and consideration.
Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum.

Am I the only one who sees a blatant contradiction in the two rules?

I have a serious question from a seriously uneducated person. I freely admit that, btw.

Is it true that the laws of science (lets just take Physics to start because of its foundational nature) are universal?

How and when was this proved and how can I independently verify this for myself because I do want to? (It was claimed that most scientific theories can be independently verified.)

Thank you.

With Respect,
PhoenixThoth

Nereid

Dec28-04, 03:22 PM

I have a serious question from a seriously uneducated person. I freely admit that, btw.

Is it true that the laws of science (lets just take Physics to start because of its foundational nature) are universal?Can we take this one step at a time please?

What is meant by the phrase 'laws of physics'? I'm personally more comfortable with theories ... which as you know come with 'domains of applicability'How and when was this provedI rather doubt that you'll find any serious scientist - or serious observer of science - who would claim that anything can be 'proved' in science. Indeed, outside of formal systems (such as math), does anyone claim that 'proof' is possible?

I must have written this a dozen times now, but the best that I think we can do in science is something like this: "within its stated domain of applicability, is consistent with all the good observational and experimental results; continue to be capable of making specific, concrete, testable (in principle) predictions; should those predictions include new phenomena, so much the better."and how can I independently verify this for myself because I do want to? (It was claimed that most scientific theories can be independently verified.)If we take GR as an example, you can (in principle) 'verify' its predictions by a) repeating the experiments that have previously been done, b) devising new experiments and observations to test its predictions, and c) examining the theory for yourself (to verify its internal consistency, for example).

phoenixthoth

Dec28-04, 03:55 PM

Can we take this one step at a time please?

Yes.

What is meant by the phrase 'laws of physics'? I'm personally more comfortable with theories ... which as you know come with 'domains of applicability'I rather doubt that you'll find any serious scientist - or serious observer of science - who would claim that anything can be 'proved' in science. Indeed, outside of formal systems (such as math), does anyone claim that 'proof' is possible?

You interpreted my statement how I intended you to. I shall now call them the theories of thermodynamics and Newtons theories and the inverse square theory and the theory of gravity. I said I was uneducated!

Ok so nothing can be proved in science. Do you believe any theory? I know a scientist is supposed to doubt science; indeed, expect it to be wrong (which seems absurd to me but that's just my HO)... But is there any theory you do believe? GR, perhaps? Or Maxwell's equations? How about F=ma (which is not just a definition)? Do you believe that?

And, if you do, withstanding the fact that nothing in science can be proved, what do you call it when you believe something you cannot prove?

If you don't believe anything in science (which I doubt), then why study it? It works! Oh, of course, that tired old cop out answer. Well that's just not rigourous enough for my taste. I am like Berkeley attacking Newton. Calculus works, so why the need for limits? To be more rigorous. By the way, of course Berkeley was only half right because Abraham Robinson, and others, proved that infinitesimals can exist as Newton used them. So Newton was right, in a sense. And I bet science is indeed universal, that it is 'right' like Newton, but it is like Calculus was in the 1600's: not rigorous. Maybe in 400 years it will be, especially if we, as Hilbert suggested 100 years ago, axiomatize physics (see! maybe you folks already have and I'm unaware?).

I must have written this a dozen times now, but the best that I think we can do in science is something like this: "within its stated domain of applicability, is consistent with all the good observational and experimental results; continue to be capable of making specific, concrete, testable (in principle) predictions; should those predictions include new phenomena, so much the better."

What does this have to do with my questions in the last post?

If we take GR as an example, you can (in principle) 'verify' its predictions by a) repeating the experiments that have previously been done, b) devising new experiments and observations to test its predictions, and c) examining the theory for yourself (to verify its internal consistency, for example).

Let's boil this down further; I'll make an analogy between GR and the statement 1+1=2. 1+1=2 is a universal statement. It states that *any* time you add one object to one object you *always* get 2 objects. What I mean by "universal" is implied by what's in the asterisks. In math, this is proved not by observation (for it cannot, which is my point), but by logic.

So let's take Einstein's field equations from GR. Better, E=mc^2. This is an example of what I called (erroneously) a law. Is this equation universal? If so, how is that known?

By universal, I mean that for *any* mass *anywhere* *anytime*, m.

And therefore, I think that even though you avoided answering my question with a yes or no, you'd have to say that science has not been proven to be universal. Domains of applicability, etc.

Ok.

Now that we've established that science is not universal, go back to an earlier paragraph:
If science is not universal, then why study it? It works! Oh, of course, that tired old cop out answer. Well that's just not rigourous enough for my taste. I am like Berkeley attacking Newton. Calculus works, so why the need for limits? To be more rigorous. By the way, of course Berkeley was only half right because Abraham Robinson, and others, proved that infinitesimals can exist as Newton used them. So Newton was right, in a sense. And I bet science is indeed universal, that it is 'right' like Newton, but it is like Calculus was in the 1600's: not rigorous. Maybe in 400 years it will be, especially if we, as Hilbert suggested 100 years ago, axiomatize physics.

Tom Mattson

Dec28-04, 10:45 PM

Am I the only one who sees a blatant contradiction in the two rules?

Quite possibly.

Think of the 'quality' guidelines as amendments to the 'freedom of speech' guidelines. This being a discussion forum, it only stands to reason that the manner in which one expresses one's thoughts should be constrained to that which leads to (you guessed it) discussion.

Russell E. Rierson

Dec28-04, 11:06 PM

A "physical" scientific theory, can never be proved true, it can only be proved false when it does not correspond to real world observations.

As far as faith goes, I have faith in certain regularities of nature. I have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I cannot be absolutely sure of that :wink:

Of course, Newton's laws do not correspond "exactly" with reality but they still have an acceptable range of validity. :tongue:

phoenixthoth

Dec28-04, 11:20 PM

Quite possibly.

Think of the 'quality' guidelines as amendments to the 'freedom of speech' guidelines. This being a discussion forum, it only stands to reason that the manner in which one expresses one's thoughts should be constrained to that which leads to (you guessed it) discussion.

I agree (although I don't know how many people view the two above quotations in contradiction--one of biblical proportions, at that :yuck: ).

Russell E. Rierson

Dec28-04, 11:33 PM

By universal, I mean that for *any* mass *anywhere* *anytime*, m.

It seems to me that the laws of physics SHOULD be universal. If there were different laws for different regions, or if there were regions of the universe where the laws did not hold then there would be different regions with incompatible laws, or regions where space-time breaks down - one example a "singularity". Of course, thankfully, the singularity is most likely hidden behind an event horizon, and thus the laws are still there for universal democracy :wink:

phoenixthoth

Dec28-04, 11:37 PM

It seems to me that the laws of physics SHOULD be universal. If there were different laws for different regions, or if there were regions of the universe where the laws did not hold then there would be different regions with incompatible laws, or regions where space-time breaks down - one example a "singularity". Of course, thankfully, the singularity is most likely hidden behind an event horizon, and thus the laws are still there for universal democracy :wink:
I also think, from an aesthetic point of view, that they should be. But they haven't been proven to be it seems.

Russell E. Rierson

Dec28-04, 11:54 PM

I also think, from an aesthetic point of view, that they should be. But they haven't been proven to be it seems.

You are a mathematician to the bitter end, eh phoenix? :wink:

String theory looks very promising and it is very elegant, mathematically. It is still not accepted as a true theory of science due to the fact that it is extremely difficult to verify experimentally - from what I have read about it, of course :rolleyes:

According to Max Tegmark's level 4 multiverse, mathematical existence equals physical existence, where mathematical existence is defined such, that a proposition and its negation cannot both be proved true.

Nereid

Dec29-04, 11:39 AM

You interpreted my statement how I intended you to. I shall now call them the theories of thermodynamics and Newtons theories and the inverse square theory and the theory of gravity. I said I was uneducated!Glad I could be of assistance.Ok so nothing can be proved in science. Do you believe any theory? I know a scientist is supposed to doubt science; indeed, expect it to be wrong (which seems absurd to me but that's just my HO)... But is there any theory you do believe? GR, perhaps? Or Maxwell's equations? How about F=ma (which is not just a definition)? Do you believe that?OK, I've thought about this for a day or so ... and I have no idea how to answer! :cry:

At one level, I could say that I'm not aware of 'believing' (or 'not believing') anything ... that goes to my 'thinking'

At another level, I could say that my behaviour (which is all anyone can tell about me ... or do you have a contrary view?) is consistent with certain 'beliefs' (such as that my PC will likely work tomorrow, that I will be able to log into PF and post replies to phoenixthoth, etc).

At a third level, I could observe that other people make statements (such as 'I believe in the one true god' or 'I believe in the ONE TRUE GOD' or 'I do believe I have the 'flu') which contain the word 'believe', and from these try to infer what they mean (in the first two cases, I have no idea whatsoever - it's been a puzzle for me for the longest time).

So I'm going to have to say I'm stumped, and can you please tell me more about what this 'belief' thing is? Let's start with how you intend it to mean, in the above statement of yours.And, if you do, withstanding the fact that nothing in science can be proved, what do you call it when you believe something you cannot prove?What do you call it when you lkihsfa something you cannot prove? You see my problem? I have no good idea what lkihsfa means!If you don't believe anything in science (which I doubt), then why study it? It works! Oh, of course, that tired old cop out answer. Well that's just not rigourous enough for my taste. I am like Berkeley attacking Newton. Calculus works, so why the need for limits? To be more rigorous. By the way, of course Berkeley was only half right because Abraham Robinson, and others, proved that infinitesimals can exist as Newton used them. So Newton was right, in a sense. And I bet science is indeed universal, that it is 'right' like Newton, but it is like Calculus was in the 1600's: not rigorous. Maybe in 400 years it will be, especially if we, as Hilbert suggested 100 years ago, axiomatize physics (see! maybe you folks already have and I'm unaware?).Let's keep this on hold until we bottom out 'belief', OK? I must have written this a dozen times now, but the best that I think we can do in science is something like this: "within its stated domain of applicability, is consistent with all the good observational and experimental results; continue to be capable of making specific, concrete, testable (in principle) predictions; should those predictions include new phenomena, so much the better."What does this have to do with my questions in the last post?It may very well be a nascent statement of what I believe? Perhaps from this we can work our way towards a common understanding of what seems to be the key to your ideas?Let's boil this down further; I'll make an analogy between GR and the statement 1+1=2. 1+1=2 is a universal statement. It states that *any* time you add one object to one object you *always* get 2 objects. What I mean by "universal" is implied by what's in the asterisks. In math, this is proved not by observation (for it cannot, which is my point), but by logic.Ah, now we're getting somewhere! It seems to me that this boils down to 'what is the nature of mathematics?' or 'does any formal system of logic have a 'real' existence?' or 'in what way is math different from an engrossing novel about fairies, dragons, unicorns, angels, and Luke Skywalker?'So let's take Einstein's field equations from GR. Better, E=mc^2. This is an example of what I called (erroneously) a law. Is this equation universal? If so, how is that known?At one level, it cannot be 'universal', for GR comes with a 'domain of applicability', and that is considerably less than 'universal'! At another, it's only an equation, so it's just as 'universal' as '1+1=2' At a third level, GR is a pretty good theory (see above), so the field equations are darn useful (however, if Andrew M or phy_pmb tomorrow comes up with a different way of expressing the core ideas in GR, using a much more usable approach than tensors etc, phoenixthoth may well ask which set of math descriptions of GR is universal).By universal, I mean that for *any* mass *anywhere* *anytime*, m.In one sense the answer clearly must be 'no, it can't possibly be universal', because the terms 'any-where-time' and 'mass' are just as much theoretical constructs as the field equations of GR, so either you have to be sure that those terms are being used in a manner consistent with GR, or the statement is meaningless (to see this, compare it with "by universal, I mean that for *any* purple *any-why* *any-anger*").And therefore, I think that even though you avoided answering my question with a yes or no, you'd have to say that science has not been proven to be universal. Domains of applicability, etc.Worse (or better, depends on your POV), science CAN NOT be 'proven to be universal' :surprised

Indeed, I could argue that 'universal' is just as much a hypothetical construct as 'dragon'; further, that any even vaguely useful explication of what 'universal' means will ooze (scientific) theories from all its pores ... for a flavour of this, compare what I think you intend by 'universal' with what anthropologists recorded regarding cognates of this term when they detailed the belief systems of various cultures.Ok.

Now that we've established that science is not universal, go back to an earlier paragraph:
If science is not universal, then why study it? It works! Oh, of course, that tired old cop out answer. Well that's just not rigourous enough for my taste. I am like Berkeley attacking Newton. Calculus works, so why the need for limits? To be more rigorous. By the way, of course Berkeley was only half right because Abraham Robinson, and others, proved that infinitesimals can exist as Newton used them. So Newton was right, in a sense. And I bet science is indeed universal, that it is 'right' like Newton, but it is like Calculus was in the 1600's: not rigorous. Maybe in 400 years it will be, especially if we, as Hilbert suggested 100 years ago, axiomatize physics.Well, I think we'll have to leave discussion on this until later ...

Microburst

Dec29-04, 01:28 PM

You are a mathematician to the bitter end, eh phoenix? :wink:

String theory looks very promising and it is very elegant, mathematically. It is still not accepted as a true theory of science due to the fact that it is extremely difficult to verify experimentally - from what I have read about it, of course :rolleyes:

According to Max Tegmark's level 4 multiverse, mathematical existence equals physical existence, where mathematical existence is defined such, that a proposition and its negation cannot both be proved true.

This reminds of a quote it goes something like this…

"Philosophy is a game with objectives and no rules.
Mathematics is a game with rules and no objectives."
:rofl:

phoenixthoth

Dec29-04, 02:21 PM

At one level, I could say that I'm not aware of 'believing' (or 'not believing') anything ... that goes to my 'thinking'

At another level, I could say that my behaviour (which is all anyone can tell about me ... or do you have a contrary view?) is consistent with certain 'beliefs' (such as that my PC will likely work tomorrow, that I will be able to log into PF and post replies to phoenixthoth, etc).

At a third level, I could observe that other people make statements (such as 'I believe in the one true god' or 'I believe in the ONE TRUE GOD' or 'I do believe I have the 'flu') which contain the word 'believe', and from these try to infer what they mean (in the first two cases, I have no idea whatsoever - it's been a puzzle for me for the longest time).

So I'm going to have to say I'm stumped, and can you please tell me more about what this 'belief' thing is? Let's start with how you intend it to mean, in the above statement of yours.

It seems to me that you already have a grasp on what 'belief' is; you used it 'correctly' in several instances.

We might as well also ask what 'faith' is. Perhaps 'faith' has been defined elsewhere? Do we have a working definiton of 'faith' going? And if not, why wasn't this question raised before with the word 'faith'? Well, now I'm raising it. What is faith?

A dictionary probably won't help, but let me see what it comes up with...

faith http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
belief http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief

The question I ask you is this: do you want to use any of the above definitions and, if not, why not?

edit: Now while it may be wrong, or not, to say science is based on faith, could we argue with the above definitions, that faith is involved in science?

And note that this isn't meant, by myself and perhaps TENYEARS, to be a profound observation. However, it always seems to generate a lot of discussion when it is proposed...

russ_watters

Dec29-04, 02:55 PM

If I may jump in for a sec: What is meant by the phrase 'laws of physics'? I'm personally more comfortable with theories ... which as you know come with 'domains of applicability' Though I don't know if it is typical usage (it appears some people are using it in this thread), I tend to consider "The Laws of Physics" to be the actual, absolute, True laws that govern the way our universe works. Our scientific theories are our attempt to figure out these laws, and the usual scientific caveat applies: even if we find The Laws of Physics, we can never really be sure we have them - unless, of course, we find them on sandstone tablets near a burning bush!

This, of course, leads to confusion and discomfort when talking about Newton's Laws, for example - which are not part of that set of "The Laws of Physics."

phoenixthoth

Dec29-04, 06:49 PM

If I may jump in for a sec: Though I don't know if it is typical usage (it appears some people are using it in this thread), I tend to consider "The Laws of Physics" to be the actual, absolute, True laws that govern the way our universe works. Our scientific theories are our attempt to figure out these laws, and the usual scientific caveat applies: even if we find The Laws of Physics, we can never really be sure we have them - unless, of course, we find them on sandstone tablets near a burning bush!

This, of course, leads to confusion and discomfort when talking about Newton's Laws, for example - which are not part of that set of "The Laws of Physics."

So then would you say that "The Laws of Physics" are universal, even if we'll never be sure we have them? I suppose since we'll never be sure we have them that this is a pointless question but let's suppose we discuss it anyway.

Would then they be universal basically by definition and, if not, how does one (like myself) independently verify, at least in theory, that "The Laws of Physics" are universal?

The main question that this thread is dedicated on is whether science involves, or is based on, faith. The question is does a scientist believe any of science?

Nerid stated that nothing in science can be proved. (Absolute?) Proof is possible in mathematics but not science. (The way I define proof makes the word "absolute" redundant there.)

Case 1. There is a scientist who believes at least one iota of science, one theory/law. (Perhaps an example is Einstein and the theory that E=mc^2.) Now, since that theory cannot be proved and since the scientist believes it, that scientist believes something he cannot prove. By believe, I probably mean one of the definitions above. And by faith, I probably mean one of the definitions above. So I say that such a scientist has faith in the theory he believes in.

In this case, the thought that science is based on faith is yet to be seen. I don't know if I believe that myself; I do believe that science involves faith. Just my HO based on the suspicion that case 2 is not the case.

Case 2. No scientist believes in any of science.

If this is the case, then faith is not involved in science whatsoever. However, it would seem to me that this would be highly absurd. It would seem to me like a group of priests none of whom believe in God.

Now I know that a randomly choosen scientist is not going to believe a young theory or, indeed, many theories (even old ones). However, I would assert that there is a scientist who believes in at least one iota of science. Again (and I don't mean to give you an ad nauseum arg. with the intention of being more logical), this scientist has faith in what he believes for it cannot be proven.

I'm curious to know (maybe I should start a thread in the Philosophy of Science) how many scientists think the "laws"/Laws of Physics are indeed universal and how many of those have a justification for this, if not a proof, and how many have faith in it.

From what I've read, no one is suggesting that the faith that is involved in science is blind faith. I, for one, view the faith involved in science to be quite reasonable (if there is such a thing as reasonable faith) and certainly not blind faith. (Or perhaps TENYEARS did call it blind faith; I don't know.)

honestrosewater

Dec30-04, 01:10 AM

If I may jump in for a sec also...
Are "The Laws of Physics" abstract or concrete objects?
Intuitively, a law is not a concrete object; A law is an abstract object. There are plenty of problems (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/) in defining abstract and concrete objects, but I would suggest the following, for starters: Concrete objects are spatiotemporal and causally efficacious. Abstract object are not concrete objects, i.e., they are nonspatiotemporal or causally inefficacious or both.
If you class laws as abstract objects and accept the above definition, "The Laws of Physics" are either nonspatiotemporal or causally inefficacious or both, thus they either cannot be studied by physical science (being nonspatiotemporal) or cannot "govern the way our universe works" (assuming "govern" is a causal relation) or both.
If it isn't already obvious, I'm quite confused about the abstract/concrete dichotomy myself. I can't offer a clarification, but I think one is needed, and I didn't see anyone else mentioning it explicitly.

It boils down to my wondering how you expect to escape the abstraction involved in thinking about laws or rules. Universals, definitions, verifications, axioms, theorems, proofs, formal systems, interpretations, theories, spacetime, mass... are any of these concrete objects?

As for belief, why can't physical scientists do what mathematicians do: assume?

honestrosewater

Dec30-04, 01:32 AM

I'm curious to know (maybe I should start a thread in the Philosophy of Science) how many scientists think the "laws"/Laws of Physics are indeed universal and how many of those have a justification for this, if not a proof, and how many have faith in it.Have you seen the Faith in Religion vs. Faith in Science (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56101&page=1&pp=20) thread?

From what I've read, no one is suggesting that the faith that is involved in science is blind faith. I, for one, view the faith involved in science to be quite reasonable (if there is such a thing as reasonable faith) and certainly not blind faith.I think it would be best to define "faith" as "belief without justification" and then admit various types or levels of justification (to go along with the definition of knowledge as true, justified belief). This would also fit with the deduction v. induction distinction and allow you to deal with justification in terms of probability. That is, it would introduce the already developed knowledge and power of math and logic into the discussion.
I have to say again that I think assumption (and possibly other states like undecided or undecidable) must be included in the nonbelief category in order to avoid a false dilemma.
Edit: The false dilemma arises when you ask someone, "Do you believe statement S is true or false?" Of course, they can answer, "Neither" without contradiction.

phoenixthoth

Dec30-04, 01:42 AM

You're right of course. The claim that science is unviersal is not a scientific claim but, rather, an abstract philosophical claim. Therefore, one ought not expect it to be independently verifiable though one would hope the logic of the proof can be followed at most in finite time.

In other words, the universality of science, eg that experiments performed on earth will precisely mimic experiments performed a trillion light years away if the conditions are all equal besides location, is a non-falsifiable claim. We can't go a trillion light years away to drop an apple.

Back to the main point of the thread which is science being based on faith...

I'm waiting for someone to point out that in the very definitions I offered, belief in a science theory is not faith. If you find the right combinations of definitions of belief and faith.

I however, define faith as belief in something that cannot or has not been proved. I define belief as mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

And since no science theory can be proved, though there is material evidence for it, a scientist who believes a theory is placing faith in it.

Sorry that I'm repeating myself. Feel free do clean up this post if you wish.

Do you believe in the big bang theory? Or do you believe it is incorrect?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58028

Russell E. Rierson

Dec30-04, 02:36 AM

We might as well also ask what 'faith' is.

Religious faith appears to be mostly based on the unobserved.

Scientific faith appears to be based on redundancy, in that the measurements, observations & experiments can be repeated over and over.

:smile:

phoenixthoth

Dec30-04, 02:47 AM

Religious faith appears to be mostly based on the unobserved.

Scientific faith appears to be based on redundancy, in that the measurements, observations & experiments can be repeated over and over.

:smile:

The religionist who has observed something religious, eg God, over and over is then placing the second kind of faith in that something.

EDIT: Nerid: are you essentially saying that about science, you are certain that you are not certain? Let's examine that a bit.

i am certain that i am not certain.

am i certain of that statement?

better: i am only certain that i am not certain of anything.

am i certain or not certain of the "better" statement? well
1. if i am certain of the "better" statement, then the "better" statement is false for "i am not certain of anything" is no longer the *only* certain statment. since the "better" statement is false, "i am not (only certain) that (i am not certain of anything)" is true. then either "i am not certain of anything" is not the only thing i am certain of or i am not certain of "i am not certain of anything." i will handle the second case below. since "i am not certain of anything" is not the only thing i am certain of, i am certain of something besides "i am not certain of anything," which contradicts the statement "i am not certain of anything." so we have either a contradiction or the second case which is
2. i am not certain of "i am not certain of anything" contradicts the statement i am certain of "i am not certain of anything" and, therefore, it contradicts the statement, "i am only certain of 'i am not certain of anything'," which is the premise.

Therefore, I am certain that I am not certain is a strange loop and is paradoxical.

But perhaps you would say neither certain nor not certain. Let's examine this case. Well, I'm assuming the law of the excluded middle: A v ~A is true for all A (including A=I am certain). Assuming this law, you're either certain or not certain.

Russell E. Rierson

Dec30-04, 03:04 AM

The religionist who has observed something religious, eg God, over and over is then placing the second kind of faith in that something.

The religionist did not observe a natural phenomena, otherwise the non-religionist could also observe it. It was a subjective experience FOR the religionist, which would not survive scrutiny of the scientific method. :wink:

phoenixthoth

Dec30-04, 03:12 AM

The religionist did not observe a natural phenomena, otherwise the non-religionist could also observe it. It was a subjective experience FOR the religionist, which would not survive scrutiny of the scientific method. :wink:
I'm a non-scientist and I don't have a particle detector in my backyard. Why should I put any stock in QM? (If your answer is to suggest that QM was necessary for computers and such, I'd like you to make a case for that because I don't believe it.)

A non-religionist likewise doesn't have a "God detector" and therefore quite reasonably doubts the results obtained by those that do.

I just deleted a long post realizing that we're already off topic. We mean to speak of how faith is involved in or is the basis for science.

Russell E. Rierson

Dec30-04, 03:30 AM

I'm a non-scientist and I don't have a particle detector in my backyard. Why should I put any stock in QM?

Both religionists and non-religionists can observe the wave-particle experiments of QM.

There is no experiment to detect God :wink:

honestrosewater

Dec30-04, 03:32 AM

I however, define faith as belief in something that cannot or has not been proved.If something cannot be proven, it will never be the case that it has been proven, right? So can you just say "faith is belief in something that has not been proven"? (I see the distinction you're making, but I think it is implied in the shorter definition.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "proof", but, at least as far as I'm concerned, it would fall under "justification". That is, formal deductive proof, formal inductive proof (or argument), common sense, subjective evidence, objective evidence, material/physical evidence, intuition, direct observation, divine revelation, a sixth sense, "feeling lucky"- basically any reason other than "I don't know" or "just because" that one could give for believing something- could all be considered justification, for starters. The debate begins, and people part ways, in clarifying and eliminating some kinds of justification. It sounds like you want to eliminate everything but formal deductive proof. Right?
I define belief as mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.Sounds great. You either believe or you don't believe something. So "not believing" must include assuming, being undecided, etc.
And since no science theory can be proved, though there is material evidence for it, a scientist who believes a theory is placing faith in it.
Possibly, but only by your definition- because you have eliminated certain kinds of justification. People have different standards of proof, definitions of justification, whatever you want to call it. Your big bang thread is a great example of those differences.
I said possibly, because I'm a bit confused about what constitutes a physical theory. It seems there are two parts: 1) the formal system and 2) the interpretation. The interpretation would be what establishes meaning or the relevance between the math and observations. I'm a bit confused about the nature of the interpretation and if it's just another pure abstraction and if it can be "purified", so to speak. :rolleyes:

phoenixthoth

Dec30-04, 03:49 AM

Russell: This is not the place, IMO, for that discussion. I'd be happy to discuss with you in another thread somewhere.

If something cannot be proven, it will never be the case that it has been proven, right? So can you just say "faith is belief in something that has not been proven"? (I see the distinction you're making, but I think it is implied in the shorter definition.)
I see what you mean. Yes, that is a more elegant way to state it: faith is belief in something that has not been proven, as you indicated.

I'm not sure what you mean by "proof", but, at least as far as I'm concerned, it would fall under "justification". That is, formal deductive proof, formal inductive proof (or argument), common sense, subjective evidence, objective evidence, material/physical evidence, intuition, direct observation, divine revelation, a sixth sense, "feeling lucky"- basically any reason other than "I don't know" or "just because" that one could give for believing something- could all be considered justification, for starters.
Right. There are different notions of what constitutes a proof. You forgot proof by self-evidence although that may fall under 'common sense.' So you don't, then, think faith is involved except when you have no reason at all (I don't know or just because) to believe? Faith is when you believe something for which you have no reason to believe it? Do I have your definition right, before I continue?

The debate begins, and people part ways, in clarifying and eliminating some kinds of justification. It sounds like you want to eliminate everything but formal deductive proof. Right? [quote]
Want to? No. Feel mathematically obliged to? Yes. I'd love it if all of the above really did constitute proof but they don't, IE, not all of the above are deduction.
[quote]Sounds great. You either believe or you don't believe something. So "not believing" must include assuming, being undecided, etc. Assuming would seem to me to be a mental acceptance of the validity of something and therefore belief. Maybe this seems different to you? Any time you don't accept the validity of something, you don't believe in it; so, being undecided is not believing, yes.
Possibly, but only by your definition- because you have eliminated certain kinds of justification. People have different standards of proof, definitions of justification, whatever you want to call it.
I think this is a wonderful observation.

I said possibly, because I'm a bit confused about what constitutes a physical theory. It seems there are two parts: 1) the formal system and 2) the interpretation. The interpretation would be what establishes meaning or the relevance between the math and observations. I'm a bit confused about the nature of the interpretation and if it's just another pure abstraction and if it can be "purified", so to speak. :rolleyes:
I think it can be purified somewhat in the context of language theory and metaphor theory. One would model the situation as the math being a metaphor for the observed. The idendification between the formal system and the interpretation is a map/function with domain and range. You could look at it that way.

honestrosewater

Dec30-04, 03:54 AM

I think the key is that in principle such and such is observable by everyone. Even so, what people can observe in principle is still debatable.

If the scientific method cannot provide justification, then scientific claims that use the scientific method as justification are not justifiable. Fine, but the statement is conditional- if A, then B. Don't expect everyone to agree with A, or even to agree that logic can provide justification. (I should have spelled that out better, but you get the point.)

honestrosewater

Dec30-04, 04:48 AM

So you don't, then, think faith is involved except when you have no reason at all (I don't know or just because) to believe? Faith is when you believe something for which you have no reason to believe it? Do I have your definition right, before I continue?I was just giving the broadest definition of justification. You can certainly narrow your definition as much as you want to. Personally, I'm not sure what I consider justification. Direct observation (as in my own personal subjective experience of something) and logical consistency, perhaps.
I can assume your definition for the sake of argument.

Assuming would seem to me to be a mental acceptance of the validity of something and therefore belief. Maybe this seems different to you?The difference I would draw between assumption and belief concerns truth. I'm not sure exactly how I would phrase the definitions, but postulates, axioms, hypotheses, premises, etc. would all be assumptions until they are believed to be true. It would be a matter of certainty and context, I suppose. There is some subtlety I can't put my finger on. For instance, do you believe Modus Ponens is true? I'm not yet sure how that makes sense.
I think it can be purified somewhat in the context of language theory and metaphor theory. One would model the situation as the math being a metaphor for the observed. The idendification between the formal system and the interpretation is a map/function with domain and range. You could look at it that way.Thanks, I'll look in to that.

Edit: BTW, I don't mean to sound like I'm revealing any profound knowledge either. Surely anyone who's been around PF for a while knows that any argument is based on definitions anyway. I'm just saying that everyone may not have realized that the definitions of some of the terms being used here are actually quite contentious, so it's necessary to clarify them to avoid a pointless argument.

Nereid

Dec30-04, 10:32 PM

Cool, I go away for a day or three, and the thread has moved on to much deeper and interesting things, and poor ol' Nereid is still stuck pondering 'belief' :cry:

So, FWIW, a post that all will no doubt wish to post :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ...

In terms of what phoenixthoth said, I believe it's pretty circular ... ('faith' = 'trust' = 'belief' = ...). But then, for me, there's a cline between emotion and thinking ... 'I think Mandrake is a pompous fool' or 'I feel Les is a really cool dude' or 'I really lost my cool talking with that blockhead phone company CSR'. But it seems to me this doesn't help, because I can take a deep breath, apologise for my rudeness, and the nice CSR (in Bangalore, no doubt) and I may end the call getting on just fine (and me promising to drop an email to her super recommending her for a promotion) ... or Mandrake in his next post may confess to being (formerly) an obnoxious racist, but he's seen the error of his ways because he's fallen madly in love with someone from Nigeria with an IQ of 2000 .... or ... you see? In phoenixthoth's intent, there seems to be some kind of timelessness or permanence to 'belief' and 'faith' - it just won't do to change my mind as to what I 'believe in' six times before breakfast!

So then I thought, what are the timeless things I 'believe'? Here's a partial list:
1 if I jump off the top of the Eiffel Tower (without a parachute, etc), I will die
2 I cannot avoid the taxman
3 sauvignon blanc from New Zealand is usually very good to drink
4 I will never write a paper that unifies GR and QM
5 in the past year, my moods have swung quite a lot
6 love isn't all you need

But this doesn't help much, because 'science' is whatever it is no matter what Nereid (or phoenixthoth?) believes (or doesn't believe) ... and this thread starts with the assumption that 'science is based on (so much) faith'.

So is 'science' something which exists independently of 'scientists'?

To answer this we could turn to the leading philosophers of science ... Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend ... and their (philosopher) critics.

If I understand Paul, there's no essential difference between 'science' and magic (or religion), and belief 1 above is just a matter of taste. TENYEARS seems, in this sense, to be a fan of Paul.

If I understand Karl, belief is irrelevant - the first good observation that's inconsistent with a theory, law, hypothesis, ... and only a fool would continue to 'believe' it.

Thomas, however, seems to be saying that belief is a bit of a fad ... in normal times, it's OK, it's what scientists do; at times of paradigm shift, the best minds may be respected for flipping and flopping every second Sunday.

And what about Imre?

russ_watters

Dec30-04, 11:00 PM

I'm a non-scientist and I don't have a particle detector in my backyard. Why should I put any stock in QM? (If your answer is to suggest that QM was necessary for computers and such, I'd like you to make a case for that because I don't believe it.)

A non-religionist likewise doesn't have a "God detector" and therefore quite reasonably doubts the results obtained by those that do. There is a pretty key difference there: if you choose to, you can learn about QM and know the things we are saying are true. You can choose to learn how a laser works. You can choose to learn why the double-slit experiment does what it does (you can perform one if you choose!), etc. The same cannot be said about a "God detector" - which, does not exist.

Closing your eyes and ears and choosing ignorance does not support your position.

honestrosewater

Dec31-04, 12:38 AM

poor ol' Nereid is still stuck pondering 'belief' :cry: Belief is whatever you believe it to be. :tongue2:
So, FWIW, a post that all will no doubt wish to post :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ...You and your flippin acronyms- WTFDFWIWM? I know I'll figure it out as soon as I post this.
4 I will never write a paper that unifies GR and QMI don't think anyone's buying this one.

I guess I should add something constructive. Perhaps belief can be clarified by making it more intere$ting: You believe X if you would bet your life that X is true. That seems extreme, but is that what belief really means?

Nereid

Dec31-04, 08:51 AM

You and your flippin acronyms- WTFDFWIWM? I know I'll figure it out as soon as I post this.for what it's worth, I try not to invent them, simply use what I've seen others use :smile:I don't think anyone's buying this one.:surprised :rolleyes: :confused: :blushing: :!!) I guess I should add something constructive. Perhaps belief can be clarified by making it more intere$ting: You believe X if you would bet your life that X is true. That seems extreme, but is that what belief really means?Yes, that's sorta in the direction I was going ... the most 'permanent beliefs' that I think I have relate to 'black&white' cases of staying alive, such as 1, my Eiffel Tower example. It also deals rather neatly with at least some aspects of phoenixthoth's questions/challenges - putting faith in 'science' is different than putting faith in anything else because it preserves your life ('this pill will cure you of {dreaded illness}', 'a tsunami will hit the coastal areas of Y at 25:67 tomorrow'). An interesting negative example is the outbreak of BSE and vCJD in the UK ... the Department of Agriculture (as I think it was then) ignored science and said beef from infected cattle was safe to eat - faith in government pronouncements dropped.

But this doesn't help much, because the issue isn't whether Joan G&T or Joe Sixpack have faith in science, it's the extent to which science itself is based on faith.

And that's where I was trying to go ... we need to reach some sort of consensus on what science is before we can properly discuss this (ditto 'faith', but phoenixthoth and others have already started to deal with that).

So, any takers? Bacon, Hume, Berkely, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Dennett, ... which one(s) - if any - are on the right track?

Les Sleeth

Dec31-04, 10:56 AM

But this doesn't help much, because the issue isn't whether Joan G&T or Joe Sixpack have faith in science, it's the extent to which science itself is based on faith.

I think it would be useful to distinquish between three types of faith.

1. There is what we might call pragmatic faith. Pragmatic faith is trusting something that has consistantly "worked" in the past, and it is the successes of that past performance which has naturally given one faith it will continue to work in the future. I think science engenders this sort of faith.

2. There is spiritual faith, which in the West has primarily descended from the apostle Paul's interpretation of it. Let's assume for the moment Paul described something that one really can have faith in. Whatever it is, it isn't available to the senses. Back then what was still around was a feeling Jesus had made prevalent in the hearts of those who were open to it. Paul had allowed himself to feel that, and taught that it is ironclad faith in that feeling as the "way" which will unite one with God. Faith in this case means to trust something that is very subtle and internal to guide one. In other words, don't let the much more apparent and sometimes overwhelming circumstances of the external world pull you into its "ways." It has its pragmatic aspect too because the feeling of it (when it is real) gives internal rewards such as contentment and wisdom, which most people could do with a bit more of.

3. Lastly there is blind faith. Blind faith seems to go on quite a bit in religion. Instead of having faith in the original experience the teacher brought alive in people, over time "articles of faith" develop, which are the devices of religion--from rituals, dogma and artifacts to scripture--developed by the religious over the centuries. But blind faith isn't restricted to religion. One can be "blinded" by unjustified faith in science, for example, too (which I've claimed that some physicalists do).

I'd sum up by saying faith is good when what we have faith in benefits us overall. But it is also important one's faith be proportional to the efficacy of our faith object; when one goes beyond that, it can result in deluding us.

And that's where I was trying to go ... we need to reach some sort of consensus on what science is before we can properly discuss this (ditto 'faith', but phoenixthoth and others have already started to deal with that).

So, any takers? Bacon, Hume, Berkely, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Dennett, ... which one(s) - if any - are on the right track?

I'm a Locke, A.J. Ayer, and Peirce fan myself.

Locke: “Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience. In that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself.”

Ayer: “All propositions which have factual content are empirical hypotheses; and the foundation of a empirical hypothesis is to provide a rule for anticipation of experience.”

Peirce: "All the evolution we know of proceeds from the vague to the definite. . . . Many a man has cherished for years as his hobby some vague shadow of an idea, too meaningless to be positively false."

phoenixthoth

Dec31-04, 12:23 PM

Nerid...putting faith in 'science' is different than putting faith in anything else because it preserves your life...
I agree. My goal is to show that some kind of faith is involved in science. Now that we're getting down to it a bit more, I'll rephrase my claim: there is at least one scientist who puts faith in at least one scientific theory. This would prove, if correct, the other claim I made which is that faith is involved in science. I didn't then make a distinction between different kinds of faith and neither did, tmk, TENYEARS. So any type of faith will do as long as there is some in science. Where TENYEARS and I part ways is that I don't think I can prove science is based on faith.

But this doesn't help much, because the issue isn't whether Joan G&T or Joe Sixpack have faith in science, it's the extent to which science itself is based on faith.
As you struggled with what belief is, I am struggling with this distinction. I know and I don't care right now about Joe Sixpack having or not having faith in science. To me, Joe Sixpack (assuming he's not a scientist), that has nothing to do with whether faith is involved in science.

What does it even mean for science to be based on faith? Faith to me (correct me if I'm wrong) must involve a being, an observer, a person. A person has faith, a subject (eg history or math or science) does not. So to what extent is science based on faith? To me, that means that the people involved have faith. Therefore, for science to be based on faith means that the people involved (and I think it must be scientists) have faith in science and that science is based on this faith.

So to discuss this you suggest that we need to define what science is. I'm not a scientist so I won't even try to define it. If I were to venture a guess:
Science is the meticulous observation of the universe in which an integral component is making theories of those observations and testing those theories with experiments which involve more meticulous observations.

I'd personally like TENYEARS to fix a definition of science with us, fix which version of faith he's meaning, and then show how science as defined is based on that version of faith.

My claim is not as strong as TENYEARS' but to convince you of my claim I have to fix definitions, too.

TENYEARS

Dec31-04, 08:31 PM

Ok phoenixthoth:

Faith = Belief = Trust In

At every moment of our relative existence in all that we interelate we have trust,faith and belief. It is impossible for a relative object to do anything other that that. That is pure logic that is realization beyond the relative for a knife cannot cut itself. When I experience reality in 1987 I needed to understand how such a thing was connected with reality. If I am part of the whole concious what was it's connection with the physical reality. In 1991 it came to me it was a direct realization of what the universe was made, what gravity is and magnetism. When I understood this it came to me how much of science is based on belief. The question was still floating around what the universe was made of and it was already stated in relativity. LoL what a joke. Relativity = String Theory. All belief. That was my laugh. I LoLed far to much over it. You see they cannot connect the dots because what they have is faith, beleif and trust but they do not understand. It is not that they cannot it is that they believe it is above them beyond them. No, it is that they are afraid like we all are of the truth, but only the truth will set you free. Magnetism is a facet of gravity which polarizes the vibration of conciousness itself. Static electricy the same thing. The big LoL is that in an instant of realization one would instantly understand the reality of what is possible from such function of universe. You would understand humans can see the future, they can fly, they are more than their skin, they can see all waves of existance and are themselves part of this awsome vibrating whole. Some of these things I have personal experince in and some I do not, but I in the moment of realization all the of what can be came to me. To believe anything I have said here would be faith. The view of the realitive world through relative objects will always be faith. Even the viewing through ones own eyes or the multitide of the eyes of others. It is still indeed faith. I cannot show eyes that refuse to open. To see the truth only requires for one to look without the aid of another. There and only there will one see the stark truth of reality. In the moment of witnessing you will indeed bethrown down only to rise up in a clarity unmatched throughout the history of your experience.

How in the name of God could science not have known that string theory was indeed relativity. Simple faith and lack of thought, lack of understanding. Hawking himself screwed up royally in multiple statements of reality. What a joke and yet at any moment the conciousness of a human fluxes and our perception of things is altered at any given instant and yet the truth is unchangable and when it comes to proclaimations of truth as an abolute one should be simply be certain. Who of you I dare any of you to say that relativity is different than string theory. After I discovered the nature of reality I read an article a couple of years later. It was of one who was said to be the discover or great proponet of the string theory. LoL it was his friend who uncovered the theory in his own realization. Faith in other. Good choice for once. Lol

For science to have been in the dark for so long when reality was aleady here surrounding us. Note: Did you know that Mr E became a christian scientist. Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol Of course that is faith for I do not know it is true. In fact, no fact in history for all I know is real. That is absolute truth. I can say I believe with a fairly high degree of probability and yet it is indeed faith. Faith of those who present that history, the picture before my eyes.

loseyourname

Jan1-05, 02:49 AM

Science and the Chruch are one and the same.

Ten, what is this even supposed to mean? Science and church are not even in the same category of being. Science is a processual method. Church is any variety of institutions that ritualize spirituality. Are you simply trying to say that at some basic level, the scientist and theologian use the same techniques to acquire knowledge; that is, they both trust in their experience? The only difference being that the scientist trusts only sensory experience, whereas the theologian trusts in some other category, whether it be divine revelation or simply a feeling of truth associated with texts said to be divinely inspired? Is that even a meaningful comparison? All it seems that you are saying is that any attempt to acquire knowledge necessarily requires that one trust in one's own experience. Are you under the impression that you've come up with a revolutionary idea, or even one that not everyone is aware of, by doing so?

Nereid

Jan1-05, 11:32 AM

There is a pretty key difference there: if you choose to, you can learn about QM and know the things we are saying are true. You can choose to learn how a laser works. You can choose to learn why the double-slit experiment does what it does (you can perform one if you choose!), etc. The same cannot be said about a "God detector" - which, does not exist.There's a sense in which such a thing may exist ... in the 22nd or 23rd century.

Just as we can look at science through the lens of 'what scientists do', so we can examine religious belief, etc by studying those folk who state they have such (and those who state that they don't). For a (weak) analogy, think of depression, or romantic love ... psychologists, neuro-scientists, evolutionary biologists, etc are beginning to get a handle on these things (from an 'external' POV; they are NOT addressing the nature of the subjective experience itself, AFAIK). And in the popular literature, I've seen references to a 'god gene'; IIRC, there's been some interesting work done on religious hallucinations and epilepsy; and so on (I'm NOT saying that any of this work is good - or not - or that these results per se provide a good understanding).

So maybe in another 100 years or so it will be possible to make a 'god detector' - it will show the extent to which a person is 'wired for religion' (genes, brain chemistry, neuron wiring, ... I don't know), and maybe even some Pharma will make a pill which you can take to change your wiring - either way (Prozac for depression; why not cazorP for religion? zoPcar to stop religion?) :surprised

russ_watters

Jan1-05, 02:48 PM

Ehh, shoulda answered this before: So then would you say that "The Laws of Physics" are universal, even if we'll never be sure we have them? I suppose since we'll never be sure we have them that this is a pointless question but let's suppose we discuss it anyway. You got it - though I wouldn't consider it a pointless question. Its a question never addressed by scientists because it, in a way, is the one article of faith that science is based on: the belief that there is a set of Universal Laws and if we try hard enough and are smart enough, we can figure them out.

The fact that our theories work does seem to be evidence that the universe obeys some Universal Laws, but we really don't and can't ever know for sure that God isn't up there somewhere screwing with us. Would then they be universal basically by definition and, if not, how does one (like myself) independently verify, at least in theory, that "The Laws of Physics" are universal? Well that's just it - (if they exist )they are universal by definition and we can never really know if we have them.

Philocrat

Jan1-05, 03:08 PM

Why does science have such faith? I don't like faith. You take instruments made by someone else, made of parts of multiple people, calebrated by formulas equations and other instruments all working in unisone to provide an approximation of an answer you cannot see. You work with formulas which generate boxes of boxes which house a reality that is comprehended because it is taught to be so and provable within the box and yet out of all the words you see nothing. Science should not be based on faith as well as relgion. There is one way to understanding and one way alone..........

LOGIC IS THE GIVER OF 'TRUE' OR 'REAL' FAITH!

Now, think of all the institutions ever existed in this world and ask your self these questions:

(1) HOW MUCH LOGIC DOES EACH OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS USE IN THEIR THOUGHTS AND DEEDS?

(2) IF EACH ONE OF THEM USES LOGIC AT ALL IN THIER THOUGHTS AND DEEDS, WHAT KIND OF LOGIC DOES IT USE AND HOW CONSISTENT ARE THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES?

As far as Logic is concernced, having faith in something implies that you have given a great deal of thought to it using logically consistent arguments. Every statement of fact is logically deduced to the finest and clearest detail without dubious, unaccountable, intervening variables. That is, given anything, event or invention, regardless of the number of logical and quantitative devices involved, regarless of the number of people, machines, measurements, sensors, maximisers, minimisers, enhancers and contributory mechanisms involved, the sum totality of the outcome must be such that it is in the end wholly construed as being 'LOGICALLY AND QUANTITATIVELY CONSISTENT.

The 'DEGREE OF CONSISTENCY' of the resulting consequence or outcome supervenes upon the 'DEGREE OF CONSISTENCY' of everyhting that went into it and everything that took part in its production. How long anything lasts without change of its form suggests how logically consistent the means of its production or creation. Anything that comes into existence, remains the same, and permanently survives destruction, in the world ruled by logic and logic alone, is deemed to be 100% logically and quantitatively consistent.

We know that science uses the highest percentage of logic in the production of things and knowledge in general, with high degree of logical and quantitative consistencies, the question now is, how much logic is used in other institutions or disciplines? We need to measure them!

The production of knowledge and things for the benefit of all mandkind is a very serious business. When you put yourself forward in the world society as the producer of knowledge and things for the sustainment of the human life as a whole, you had better be Good because you are taking responsibility that is so life-critcal that you cannot afford not to appeal to Logic, the very type of Logic that allows you to be always CLEAR in your thoughts and deeds.

The time has now come for us to quantify and measure how much logic and what type of logic is used in the production of all our life utilities and knowledge in general, especially the type of knowledge that we all rely on to help the human race not only to structurally and fucntionally progress but also, and above all, to finally survive physical destruction!

phoenixthoth

Jan6-05, 01:41 PM

Although Nereid and others are not willing to admit they believe anything they cannot prove (quite possibly because they don't believe anything they cannot prove), here are some scientists who believe what they cannot prove:

http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html

ALEXANDER VILENKIN
Physicist; Institute of Cosmology, Tufts University

http://www.edge.org/q2005/images/vilenkin100.jpg

There are good reasons to believe that the universe is infinite.

If so, it contains an infinite number of regions of the same size as our observable region (which is 80 billion light years across). It follows from quantum mechanics that the number of distinct histories that could occur in any of these finite regions in a finite time (since the big bang) is finite. By history I mean not just the history of the civilization, but everything that happens, down to the atomic level. The number of possible histories is fantastically large (it has been estimated as 10 to the power 10150), but the important point is that it is finite.

Thus, we have an infinite number of regions like ours and only a finite number of histories that can play out in them. It follows that every possible history will occur in an infinite number of regions. In particular, there should be an infinite number of regions with histories identical to ours. So, if you are not satisfied with the result of the presidential elections, don't despair: you candidate has won on an infinite number of earths.

This picture of the universe robs our civilization of any claim for uniqueness: countless identical civilizations are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. I find this rather depressing, but it is probably true.

Another thing that I believe to be true, but cannot prove, is that our part of the universe will eventually stop expanding and will recollapse to a big crunch. But this will happen no sooner than 20 billion years from now, and probably much later.

Therefore, there are some scientists who have faith.

honestrosewater

Jan6-05, 07:08 PM

Sure, a scientist having faith in science is possible, but is it necessary? To prove it isn't necessary, we only need to find one scientist who doesn't have faith in science, right? So we need to either start looking for such a scientist or prove that such a scientist can't exist, right?

phoenixthoth

Jan6-05, 07:56 PM

Sure, a scientist having faith in science is possible, but is it necessary? [1] To prove it isn't necessary, we only need to find one scientist who doesn't have faith in science, right? [2]So we need to either start looking for such a scientist or prove that such a scientist can't exist, right?

[1]
Give me a definition of science and I'll point out the beliefs that cannot be proved (which I am taking to be the definition of faith). The things I will point out will sound absurd to many "reasonable" people but they are still there.

[2]
Unnecessary to do either one because we shall see that faith is necessary in science.

honestrosewater

Jan7-05, 04:03 AM

[1]
Give me a definition of science and I'll point out the beliefs that cannot be proved (which I am taking to be the definition of faith). The things I will point out will sound absurd to many "reasonable" people but they are still there.Whoa, what happened to nonbelief, assumption, being undecided, etc.? People can still not believe something, right? So what does it matter if X can't be proven if, at least, not everyone has to believe X anyway?

phoenixthoth

Jan7-05, 02:47 PM

Whoa, what happened to nonbelief, assumption, being undecided, etc.? People can still not believe something, right? So what does it matter if X can't be proven if, at least, not everyone has to believe X anyway?
I don't know. Ask that of religion.

honestrosewater

Jan7-05, 05:55 PM

I don't know. Ask that of religion.
I don't understand. I wasn't trying to be an ***. I just wanted to make sure you weren't jumping to conclusions.
I did some searching for a definition of science and found one point of consensus: Science is open to revision. People disagree on the methods of scientific discovery, progress, analysis, and so on. I'm not a practicing scientist so I don't have any personal experience to speak from.

I would still like to know how you intend to prove all scientists believe in science (or believe whatever it is about science you propose they must believe).

phoenixthoth

Jan7-05, 07:13 PM

I don't understand. I wasn't trying to be an ***. I just wanted to make sure you weren't jumping to conclusions.
Sorry if I came off as being curt. I just wanted one who readily agreed with your statement involving X's to consider the replacement X=religion. I find it thought provoking either way.

I did some searching for a definition of science and found one point of consensus: Science is open to revision. People disagree on the methods of scientific discovery, progress, analysis, and so on. I'm not a practicing scientist so I don't have any personal experience to speak from.
So what is believed in today (eg's may include, or not, GR, ST, SR, QM, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, conservation of mass/energy, DNA is integral in how life is, etc.) is not believed tomorrow. Still, what is believed today can't be proved and is in my opinion, then involving faith.

I would still like to know how you intend to prove all scientists believe in science (or believe whatever it is about science you propose they must believe).

I don't claim that. My claim is that faith is involved in science, not that science is based on faith. By that I mean that at least one scientist believes at least one aspect of science. The proof was given a couple of posts ago when scientists were asked to state things they believe which they cannot prove.

loseyourname

Jan7-05, 08:10 PM

So what is believed in today (eg's may include, or not, GR, ST, SR, QM, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, conservation of mass/energy, DNA is integral in how life is, etc.) is not believed tomorrow. Still, what is believed today can't be proved and is in my opinion, then involving faith.

Sure, but it is not necessary to believe any of the theories of science true in order to conduct science.

I don't claim that. My claim is that faith is involved in science, not that science is based on faith. By that I mean that at least one scientist believes at least one aspect of science. The proof was given a couple of posts ago when scientists were asked to state things they believe which they cannot prove.

Of what relevance is that claim? I think Descartes effectively proved that belief in anything other than one's own existence requires some leap of faith. This thread was started on the premise that science itself is based on faith. The question then becomes whether the methodology (because science is only a method) itself requires faith. I would answer yes to that question with the caveat that it requires no more faith than is required to believe that when you hit the "A" key on your keyboard and the cursor is in the text box, an "A" will appear in the text box - a rather trivial amount of faith, certainly not amounting to a critique of the method.

FZ+

Jan8-05, 10:55 AM

My claim is that faith is involved in science, not that science is based on faith. By that I mean that at least one scientist believes at least one aspect of science.

Surely that is a very pedantic claim. By that definition, science involves:

Terrorism
Sex
Murder
Socialism
Conservatism
Genocide

and indeed, all the goods and evils of mankind. The fact is, all you are saying is that scientists are at least occassionally human. One would think that science is not defined by the union of the properties of all scientists, but by the intersection which crosses their various differences. That should not include faith - not intentionally, for any case.

In short, scientists are allowed to have faith in things. But if they deal with these things with faith, then they are not dealing with them particularly scientifically in the strict sense.

phoenixthoth

Jan8-05, 11:30 AM

Where is the definition of science you're referring to? Surely not in what you quoted. You are surely stretching things.

What is the correct definition of science? Based on your definition of science, I may be able to tell you where the nontrivial faith lies. It appears to be pointless to use my definition of science (above somewhere) because it will seem as though I'm making stuff up to suit my argument's needs.

FZ+

Jan8-05, 12:28 PM

phoenixthoth

Jan8-05, 02:06 PM

Science is wonder and scepticism. If we define faith as belief without scepticism, then the belief of a scientist for a given idea is not really faith, because he is making an effort to prove it wrong or not-wrong.

First of all, I don't agree that that is the definition of science. I was thinking more along the lines of "a body of theories, derived from either meticulous observation or thought experiments, which are continually tested against more observation and experiments; the body of theories are essentially meant to elucidate patterns in the observations/experiments as well as to have predictive and postdictive power." Something along those lines...

Anyways... I also disagree on your definition of faith. To me, faith is belief in something one cannot prove.

If we can't agree on definitions, we can't really chat about this subject.

honestrosewater

Jan8-05, 09:37 PM

Sorry if I came off as being curt.No problem. I was more concerned you weren't taking my objection seriously.
I just wanted one who readily agreed with your statement involving X's to consider the replacement X=religion. I find it thought provoking either way.I think that is the crucial point in some religions- that a person chooses to believe.
So what is believed in today (eg's may include, or not, GR, ST, SR, QM, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, conservation of mass/energy, DNA is integral in how life is, etc.) is not believed tomorrow. Still, what is believed today can't be proved and is in my opinion, then involving faith.The source of disagreement wasn't over any particular theory but methodology. It's mostly philosophers saying "science is this and only this and only works this way..." and practicing scientists telling the philosophers to get a real job. Well, that's the more entertaining way of viewing it. :approve:
I don't claim that. My claim is that faith is involved in science, not that science is based on faith. By that I mean that at least one scientist believes at least one aspect of science. The proof was given a couple of posts ago when scientists were asked to state things they believe which they cannot prove.Then faith is involved in deduction if at least one logician believes at least one aspect of deduction. What's that expression? Hoisted by your own petard?

loseyourname

Jan9-05, 12:10 AM

First of all, I don't agree that that is the definition of science. I was thinking more along the lines of "a body of theories, derived from either meticulous observation or thought experiments, which are continually tested against more observation and experiments; the body of theories are essentially meant to elucidate patterns in the observations/experiments as well as to have predictive and postdictive power." Something along those lines...

Nope. Science is the method by which these hypotheses are tested, not the theories derived from the results of the tests.

Anyways... I also disagree on your definition of faith. To me, faith is belief in something one cannot prove.

If we can't agree on definitions, we can't really chat about this subject.

If that's the definition of faith, then it's a trivial definition. I will again contend that Descartes proved that any belief other than the belief in one's own existence requires faith by that definition.

phoenixthoth

Jan9-05, 12:42 AM

No problem. I was more concerned you weren't taking my objection seriously.
I think that is the crucial point in some religions- that a person chooses to believe.
The source of disagreement wasn't over any particular theory but methodology. It's mostly philosophers saying "science is this and only this and only works this way..." and practicing scientists telling the philosophers to get a real job. Well, that's the more entertaining way of viewing it. :approve:
Then faith is involved in deduction if at least one logician believes at least one aspect of deduction. What's that expression? Hoisted by your own petard?
Yes and there is a rule that my reply is at least 10 characters.

phoenixthoth

Jan9-05, 12:47 AM

Nope. Science is the method by which these hypotheses are tested, not the theories derived from the results of the tests.

Of course, dictionary.com is wrong. Doh! "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." So Newton's Law of gravity is not science? E=mc^2 is not science? Science is the method by which E=mc^2 is tested? Well, that's news to me.

If that's the definition of faith, then it's a trivial definition. I will again contend that Descartes proved that any belief other than the belief in one's own existence requires faith by that definition.
I agree, it is trivial. It remains nonetheless that science involves faith. As I said many posts ago, this is not a profound or new fact.

loseyourname

Jan9-05, 12:50 AM

Of course, dictionary.com is wrong. Doh! "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." So Newton's Law of gravity is not science? E=mc^2 is not science? Science is the method by which E=mc^2 is tested? Well, that's news to me.

Nope. They are laws of science. They are not science. Science is just the method by which we determine, test, and falsify these laws.

I agree, it is trivial. It remains nonetheless that science involves faith. As I said many posts ago, this is not a profound or new fact.

Okay, then why state it? It seems to me that TEN was attempting to belittle science. I'm glad you agree with me that he has no case.

phoenixthoth

Jan9-05, 01:07 AM

Nope. They are laws of science. They are not science. Science is just the method by which we determine, test, and falsify these laws.
So your saying the laws of science are not science and that science is just the method you mentioned?

How do you define faith?

Okay, then why state it? It seems to me that TEN was attempting to belittle science. I'm glad you agree with me that he has no case.
I don't know.

TENYEARS didn't seem to me to back up his case at all. I suppose we were supposed to take it on faith. :)

I don't see why science being based on faith would belittle science. I guess he does strike a nerve when faith is at all linked to science.

loseyourname

Jan9-05, 01:20 AM

So your saying the laws of science are not science and that science is just the method you mentioned?

Well, jeez, you just restated exactly what I already stated. Of course that's what I'm saying!

How do you define faith?

I suppose I define it as belief without scepticism, usually in things that are postulated to be unprovable (don't have to be, though). {Edit}: Not that I think I have the exclusive capacity to define the word, but that's at least what I mean when I use it. Obviously, this usage isn't consistent. I could try to build a case that my definition is more in line with common historical usage of the word, but I don't even know that that is necessarily the case. I could very well be using the word incorrectly for all I know. As long as I let you know what I mean by a given word before using it, does it really make a difference?

TENYEARS didn't seem to me to back up his case at all. I suppose we were supposed to take it on faith. :)

I don't see why science being based on faith would belittle science. I guess he does strike a nerve when faith is at all linked to science.

Science being based on faith, using your definition of faith, wouldn't belittle science. It just seemed like TEN was trying to belittle science - you know, "YOu Are aLl fools, Lol, loL, etc, etc." and all that crap. Hopefully he was banned for it and won't bother us any more.

selfAdjoint

Jan9-05, 10:27 AM

loseyourname

Jan9-05, 07:35 PM

loseyourname, would "belief in unfalsifiable claims" be a good definition, or part of a good definition? Then of course you would have to discuss your personal meaning of falsifiable. I for example don't think string theory is manifestly unfalsifiable since there is a real possibility that in the future some falsifiability test may be defined. But the Shroud of Turin is manifestly not falsifiable since every test that suggests it's a fake is always matched by another test that suggests the first one is wrong.

That's a pretty good way of defining it, I suppose. A belief in something that is unfalsifiable in principle is a good one. Take, for instance, the claim that God loves us. When we speak of a human x loving another human y, we don't speak in the same terms. It is possible to demonstrate that claim to be false. If we observe human x to be neglecting or harming our doing mean things to human y, we can consider the original claim to be falsified. But to a religious person, no matter what God does to a person, it is done out of love. That claim is not falsifiable by any means whatsoever. It must simply be accepted on faith.

phoenixthoth

Jan9-05, 07:40 PM

But to a religious person, no matter what God does to a person, it is done out of love. That claim is not falsifiable by any means whatsoever. It must simply be accepted on faith.
The claim that God does anything to a person is also not falsifiable.

Any time you use the word "God" in a claim, it is not falsifiable. This is pretty clear using most any definition of "God." Therefore, by these definitions, religion is based on faith.

Science, from what little I have learned, is just about what is falsifiable. Therefore, by these definitions, science is not based on faith.

I'm left wondering whether the following is falsifiable:
"The scientific method is valid."

loseyourname

Jan10-05, 01:41 AM

I'm left wondering whether the following is falsifiable: "The scientific method is valid."

Sure. We test hypotheses using the scientific method. If functional knowledge were never produced using this method, the claim would be falsified. Of course, no scientist would ever make a claim like that. Scientific claims are far less ambiguous. At the very least, you'll need to state what you mean by "valid" and the context you mean it in.

honestrosewater

Jan10-05, 01:20 PM

Self-evident truths aren't falsifiable, are they?

phoenixthoth

Jan10-05, 07:25 PM

Sure. We test hypotheses using the scientific method. If functional knowledge were never produced using this method, the claim would be falsified. Of course, no scientist would ever make a claim like that. Scientific claims are far less ambiguous. At the very least, you'll need to state what you mean by "valid" and the context you mean it in.

Let me get something straight before I continue. What do you mean by "falsifiable?"

It doesn't matter how I define "valid" becaue if you disagree with my conclusion, you'll point to a definition of valid that is convienient for your position.

But here goes nothing anyway: valid:Producing the desired results; efficacious.

So inserting this back, I am wondering if the following statement is falsifiable:
The scientific method produces the desired results and is efficacious.

Implicit in this statement is the word always:
The scientific method always produces the desired results and is efficacious.

What do I mean by desired results? I mean that what is desired is to test a hypothesis.

So I can reduce what I'm wondering, hopefully in a clear enough language with enough common ground:
"The scientific method always tests hypotheses successfully."

Is that falsifiable? I haven't formed an opinion on it yet but I'm wondering if it is not falsifiable, then is it taken on faith? Is the scientific method itself viewed with incredulity and scepticism? Just curious; I'm not a scientist.

Also wondering, H., if you mean that "The scientific method always tests hypotheses successfully" is self-evident?

loseyourname

Jan10-05, 11:32 PM

So I can reduce what I'm wondering, hopefully in a clear enough language with enough common ground:
"The scientific method always tests hypotheses successfully."

Is that falsifiable? I haven't formed an opinion on it yet but I'm wondering if it is not falsifiable, then is it taken on faith?

I would say that it is falsifiable. If the scientific method were used to determine that a given hypothesis is false, but later the hypothesis proved true, then the method would be falsified. You cannot say the latter, however, because the scientific method is incapable of proving the truth of a hypothesis; the best any hypothesis can hope to do is resist falsification and become ever more likely.

selfAdjoint

Jan11-05, 08:20 AM

Notice that the scientific method is a social method, and its falsifications happen over time. It might seem for a while that experiment supported a given hypothesis, such as the appearance of the sun's motion seemed to support a geocentric astronomy. But continuing work over many generations falsified this hypothesis.

Nereid

Jan11-05, 09:23 AM

Nereid here again, hoping that harking back to some earlier posts won't be taking this thread away from the interesting, new line it now seems to be moving in ...

Thanks Les, those 'faith' classifications are good ... as TEN doesn't seem to be participating though, and as phoenixthoth doesn't seem to have used these ... Do you have the names of the key works (one each would be nice) of your favourites (Locke, Ayer, Peirce), wrt the nature of science?

In terms of Les' categories of faith (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=415924&postcount=64), it would seem that each scientist, as they do their science thing, has this in abundance. For example, that geologist astronaut collecting rocks on the Moon didn't check that he would die if he went collecting without his spacesuit; in labs all over the world, experimental scientists have pragmatic faith that breaking the safety codes will likely lead to injury or death. And as ordinary humans, scientists everywhere have pragmatic faith that the air they breath won't turn into HF or \tau neutrinos tomorrow.

I would think this is pretty uncontroversial, boring to discuss, and if it's all that there is to TEN's rant (and phoenixthoth's setting up of possible logical inconsistencies), then why are we wasting time on it?

Much more interesting is science itself. Good to see that there seems to be a consensus emerging that the core of science is the method, not the results. If we agree on this, then I can appreciate phoenixthoth's puzzlement ... how can you discuss the role of 'faith' in a method? Even worse, the method has a large social component; it's independent of the beliefs of the participants :surprised OK, at least it's more like an epiphenomenon.

To see this, two analogies may be helpful (like all analogies they break when stretched):

1) 'the market', as in economics. While individuals create a market (price) through their (individual) actions, and the beliefs and motivations of the players may be extraordinarily diverse, the market is particularly efficient at crunching all the relevant information.

2) language. Almost all of us are fluent speakers of at least one language. While in many ways it's early (neuroscience) days, the brain mechanisms for the conversion of the idea to speech sounds (and the reception of air pressure variations to 'understanding') are invisible to us ... we are conscious only of the result. (and BTW Les, introspection has apparently been of only limited help in working out the 'how' of language, in the sense I'm describing here).

So what? In the first analogy, the 'faith' (beliefs) of the players is irrelevant to the outcome; in the second, the brain mechanisms cannot be said - even by TEN - to have 'faith'.

Oh, and in case anyone is tempted to get carried away with the 'social' part (no, this is NOT a strawman; read Feyerabend, or some of the 'sociologists of science'), whether I believe that the source of ideas on astrophysics come from the voices of my ancestors whispering to me through the rustling of leaves in my favourite oak tree, or a desire to banish Newton's 'rape manual', is irrelevant.