Faith in Science

Loren Booda

Because of our limited intelligence, at least initially we must assume most scientific facts on faith until (if ever) we have the opportunity to test them.

Adam

ARGH! What the hell is all this religious drivel? I thought this was PHYSICSforums! Good grief.

Religion = organised superstition.

If I wanted to read about that stuff, I'd go to religionforums.

FZ+

Correction: "scientific facts" without the opportunity to test them are not facts, but hypotheses/postulates. If we have confidence something to be a fact without testing, then we show faith. If we plan later to test it, and keep trying to disprove it, and instead show that IF x is true y MUST be true, that is not faith.

zimbo

I agree with those. I would have added that we have faith that those laws of the universe are fundamental and unchangeable over time. (Hence scepticism about induction: So far, each time I drop a piece of paper in my room, it falls. But am I using faith when I believe that the same will happen whenever I do it in the future?)

Kerrie

i left this question open, because it seems the more vague a comment is the more people have to say about it...

anyway, i believe there is a minute amount of faith we put in science, in the consistencies we are accustomed to, but that leap of faith is certainly much smaller then say the faith we are told to put in god...

also, we as people put a certain amount of faith in the scientists to do their work objectively and honestly...which leads me to another topic...ethics in science...

(Q)

Kerrie

but that leap of faith is certainly much smaller then say the faith we are told to put in god...

Excellent point – but it is a different kind of faith, which is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. Unlike the sciences, the kind of theological knowledge we must have faith in can be interpreted in so many ways. And each version is just as valid as the next. No one interpretation can be stated as the absolute rendition.

If for example, every scientist had a different interpretation of relativity, how could anyone find any possible use for the theory? It would become so diluted that eventually be rendered meaningless.

Herein lies the problem with the varying interpretations of gods. Each person’s version of a god is more or less meaningless to another. The moment they try to accept someone else’s interpretation of a god, there own rendition loses all meaning for them.

Mentat

Actually, I would have to disagree with #1 and #2, as being based on faith. There is tangible proof that the universe exists. There is tangible proof that it works according to certain laws. #3 might be based on faith.

Loren Booda

FZ+ That's a fact.

Tom Mattson

I would agree with zimbo when he says...

And even to that, I would add that the laws are the same everywhere. This one was challenged a surprising number of times at PF v2.0. What makes us so sure of it?

LURCH

I think this is an excellent disription of the faith modern man places in science. I would wager that most of us here are fairly confident that medical science will eventually discovered a cure for cancer. This confidence is "faith" as described by the biblical passage above. There is "evident demonstration" in the fact that medical science has solved many similar problems in the past. However, no one has ever "beheld" medical science actually finding the cure for cancer.

Loren Booda

Mentat Would one define "after experimentation" as when the wavefunction has "collapsed"? Are faith and physical reality then antithetical? Does the wavefunction represent faith before experimental measurement?

Kerrie

as you can see, those of you re-visiting this thread will notice that certain posts have been removed and put into this thread:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...=&threadid=322

it is called Lifegazer Philosophy 101 [:))]

Mentat

Actually, you (and njorl, in a previous post) are describing faith in the possibilities of scientific discovery. However, this is not the kind of "faith in science" that I thought Kerrie was talking about. I thought she was talking about how much faith is involved in actual scientific study.

RuroumiKenshin

In my opinion, faith in science is based on the postulates collected from experiments(although such experiments don't neccesarily have to be done in the physical world: i.e, metaphysics).



I agree with that scripture. But when you relate it to "faith in science", I don't believe "though not beheld" applies to all aspects of science, but metaphysical aspects of it. Or have I interpreted it wrong?

Psyber freek

no, I don't have any 'faith' in science. There's no point to it. After all, science in man's creation and science will die along with mankind.

RuroumiKenshin

true, psyber freek. but, the context of "faith in science" refers to now, while humans still exist.

Kerrie

i think humanity continues to have "faith in science" (not the same perspective as i intentionally meant) because it is the only "truth" we can "rely" on for now...