How much of science is faith based?

[fleem]

On a side point I also wish more people (present company excluded) realized that the scientific process always involves working with probability distributions. Everything we know and everything we surmise we learned from the universe. For example, most maths are based on certain conservation laws like "conservation of number" and so on, which we most certainly learned from the universe. So since everything is empirical, nothing is certain. There is a certain probability distribution for 2+2=4 (which is quite tight) and another for a given value for the cosmological constant (which is quite loose).

 

[ZapperZ]

Generally the word and definition of "faith" (to borrow from Hurkyl's concern) is an unquestioning confidence in what one has been told even though there is no proof that what's been said is true. It also applys to having "faith" in the unknown... which is a bit of a crap shoot.

In light of this I'd suggest that the idea of faith in science be only applicable to a scientist's faith in self-determination, faith in the equipment they use because they know the manufacturing origin and faith that there will be a grant in the near future to maintain their research. And even in these minor situations faith can fail miserably.

This is blatantly false and contradictory.

I would never put "faith" in an equipment blindly. We spend a lot of effort making sure that what we get works. People seem to be forgetting that before we adapt something, there must be a TRACK RECORD of that thing. At the very least, there has to be an indication that it has a pattern of working in a PREDICTABLE pattern!

The word "faith" has been tossed around without regard to how it is defined. Because of that, somehow the assumptions and postulates of science are now being equate to the faith in religion. This is utterly absurd. How many times do you see beliefs in religion being tested EMPIRICALLY with the same frequency as the postulates and consequences of Special Relativity? There is also a total blindness to how science accepts something to be valid. Did anyone look at how difficult of a path it was for Relativity and Quantum Physics to be accepted by the physics community as a whole? Did someone think that they were accepted simply based on blind faith with zero empirical support? Now compare that to someone who accepts a particular religion!

I've resisted jumping into this thread, because there have been so many mis-categorization and outright false impression not only what science is, but HOW science is practiced. How many of you who have been so free with your opinions actually have direct, first-hand knowledge of the daily workings of science? How many?

Maybe you should consider on how much "blind faith" you put in your "data" (or in some cases, the LACK of data) to be able to arrive at such conclusions that you have come to.

Zz.

 

[fleem]

This is blatantly false and contradictory.

I would never put "faith" in an equipment blindly. We spend a lot of effort making sure that what we get works. People seem to be forgetting that before we adapt something, there must be a TRACK RECORD of that thing. At the very least, there has to be an indication that it has a pattern of working in a PREDICTABLE pattern!

The word "faith" has been tossed around without regard to how it is defined. Because of that, somehow the assumptions and postulates of science are now being equate to the faith in religion. This is utterly absurd. How many times do you see beliefs in religion being tested EMPIRICALLY with the same frequency as the postulates and consequences of Special Relativity? There is also a total blindness to how science accepts something to be valid. Did anyone look at how difficult of a path it was for Relativity and Quantum Physics to be accepted by the physics community as a whole? Did someone think that they were accepted simply based on blind faith with zero empirical support? Now compare that to someone who accepts a particular religion!

I've resisted jumping into this thread, because there have been so many mis-categorization and outright false impression not only what science is, but HOW science is practiced. How many of you who have been so free with your opinions actually have direct, first-hand knowledge of the daily workings of science? How many?

Maybe you should consider on how much "blind faith" you put in your "data" (or in some cases, the LACK of data) to be able to arrive at such conclusions that you have come to.

Zz.

ZapperZ your arguments would probably be taken a little more seriously if you:

1. Didn't reveal so much anger when you state (in so many words) that scientists control their emotions well.

2. Didn't vehemently accuse people of using a word without good definition and then proceed to use that word throughout your post without offering even a vague definition for it.

 

[baywax]

This is blatantly false and contradictory.

I would never put "faith" in an equipment blindly. We spend a lot of effort making sure that what we get works. People seem to be forgetting that before we adapt something, there must be a TRACK RECORD of that thing. At the very least, there has to be an indication that it has a pattern of working in a PREDICTABLE pattern!

The word "faith" has been tossed around without regard to how it is defined. Because of that, somehow the assumptions and postulates of science are now being equate to the faith in religion. This is utterly absurd. How many times do you see beliefs in religion being tested EMPIRICALLY with the same frequency as the postulates and consequences of Special Relativity? There is also a total blindness to how science accepts something to be valid. Did anyone look at how difficult of a path it was for Relativity and Quantum Physics to be accepted by the physics community as a whole? Did someone think that they were accepted simply based on blind faith with zero empirical support? Now compare that to someone who accepts a particular religion!

I've resisted jumping into this thread, because there have been so many mis-categorization and outright false impression not only what science is, but HOW science is practiced. How many of you who have been so free with your opinions actually have direct, first-hand knowledge of the daily workings of science? How many?

Maybe you should consider on how much "blind faith" you put in your "data" (or in some cases, the LACK of data) to be able to arrive at such conclusions that you have come to.

Zz.

I suppose I should have mentioned "track record" of use and manufacturing. But in the long run I agree with ZZ that the word faith and the definition of that word has been lost by the millions of people who use the term. Today the word has as many meanings to as many people as there are people.

Defining the term "science" shouldn't be as difficult and I believe that task might be left to the person initiating this thread. When a definition of "faith" and the definition of "science" are established the answer to the question "How much of science is faith based?" should not be far behind.

If you want a real contradictory experience, try defining "Christian Scientist"!

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ your arguments would probably be taken a little more seriously if you:

1. Didn't reveal so much anger when you state (in so many words) that scientists control their emotions well.

2. Didn't vehemently accuse people of using a word without good definition and then proceed to use that word throughout your post without offering even a vague definition for it.

Your faith in your ability to analyze someone's state of mind is faulty.

1. I'm not even close to being angry. Annoyed, yes, but whoa nellie, you don't want to be around when I'm angry.

2. Actually, I did implicitly attempt to define how *I* view what faith is via EXAMPLES and comparision between how SR was accepted, and how someone accept his/her religious belief. For some odd reason, that difference is being trivialized.

I also notice that my direct question on the validity of the "data" people are using to arrive at their conclusion is again being dismissed. I'm not surprise at all by this.

Zz.

 

[Sorry!]

today my philosophy teacher quoted something that made me think of this thread lol

'Just because the rock will fall 1000000000000 times doesn't mean it will fall 1000000000001.'

forgot who it was... maybe heideggar? (its who we were reading at the time. :S)

 

[Evo]

It will if you drop it 1000000000001 times. Unless that person thinks the 1000000000001th time it's going to defy gravity instead.

 

[ZapperZ]

today my philosophy teacher quoted something that made me think of this thread lol

'Just because the rock will fall 1000000000000 times doesn't mean it will fall 1000000000001.'

forgot who it was... maybe heideggar? (its who we were reading at the time. :S)

And ask your "teacher" how much he/she is willing to bet that it won't? I'd take that bet ANY day.

Note that in physics, especially in condensed matter physics, we deal with a GAZILLION particles a second behaving in ways that are utterly so predictable, we USE it in your modern electronics. Think about it, how many electrons per second went through your solid-state transistors in your computer right now? This is a number significantly larger than that number your teacher quoted, and this is just in ONE second!

... and you and your teacher put your LIVES on the predictability of such things, whether you're aware of it or not, every single second of the day.
Zz.

 

[baywax]

And ask your "teacher" how much he/she is willing to bet that it won't? I'd take that bet ANY day.

Note that in physics, especially in condensed matter physics, we deal with a GAZILLION particles a second behaving in ways that are utterly so predictable, we USE it in your modern electronics. Think about it, how many electrons per second went through your solid-state transistors in your computer right now? This is a number significantly larger than that number your teacher quoted, and this is just in ONE second!

... and you and your teacher put your LIVES on the predictability of such things, whether you're aware of it or not, every single second of the day.
Zz.

Just thinking about it gives me an ulcer... oh... maybe not... gives me the bacteria that causes an ulcer... or... is it that stress and fear lower my metabolic immune system then the bacteria gets at my bowels...?... let's call the whole thing off.

 

[Pythagorean]

I ripped this from the locked thread:

Science contradicts most religions. Psychology/Neuroscience gives us a good foundation for understanding why people believe in the supernatural. Archeology and Genetics supports the theory of evolution. The bible says the world was created in 6 days and man was created separately from dust.

Science supports a rational naturalistic worldview.

As far as being agnostic and atheist. I am both.
I can't prove there is no gods, but based on the evidence, I don't believe.
No faith wanted or needed.

I'd like to provide a sort ambiguity in interpretation. I'm also an atheist/agnostic (atheist, but agnostic to deism or a" non-religious god").

The portion I bolded is your interpretation. Before the world was created, how was a day measured? Is "the world" Earth or the Universe? We consider a day one revolution of our planet around the sun, what would God consider a day before he set the Earth to revolve around the sun?

I'm of course, not religious, this is all hypothetical, but my point is that religion is generally arbitrary and unfalsifiable, so science and religion shouldn't generally conflict.

Consider the Dalhi Llama's words:

"If, when we investigate something, we find there is reason and proof for it, we must acknowledge that as reality - even if it is in contradiction with a literal scriptural explanation that has held sway for many centuries or with a deeply held opinion or view. So one fundamental attitude shared by Buddhism and science is the commitment to keep searching for reality by empirical means and to be willing to discard accepted or long-held positions if our search finds that truth is different."

Conflict between science and religion probably arises from two irrational people who want different things and use character attacks to discredit that other person. At once time, politicians used religion to sway people. As science becomes more popular (and important for decision making) to the masses, politicians are beginning to use science to sway people as well.

We still have both religious and secular masses, so the new trend is to make your argument accessible to both sides without offending the other side.

Anybody really searching for absolute truth is probably either really frustrated and confused (and being led around by people who don't care) or they're deluding themselves.

I study science because it's fun, interesting, and applicable to my daily life, not because I want to be an authority on the matter of "truth".

 

[Hurkyl]

And ask your "teacher" how much he/she is willing to bet that it won't? I'd take that bet ANY day.

Note that in physics, especially in condensed matter physics, we deal with a GAZILLION particles a second behaving in ways that are utterly so predictable, we USE it in your modern electronics. Think about it, how many electrons per second went through your solid-state transistors in your computer right now? This is a number significantly larger than that number your teacher quoted, and this is just in ONE second!

... and you and your teacher put your LIVES on the predictability of such things, whether you're aware of it or not, every single second of the day.
Zz.

The quote was not

'Because the rock will fall 1000000000000 times, it is unlikely that it will fall 1000000000001.'​

it was

'Just because the rock will fall 1000000000000 times doesn't mean it will fall 1000000000001.'​

Furthermore, this is not a deductive argument; it is an inductive one, and only valid if you accept the philosophical hypotheses upon which it's based. To remind us of that, I presume, is the point of the quote.

Nobody (I think) is trying to tell you that you shouldn't believe the rock is going to fall on the 1000000000001-th try.

 

[Evo]

Nobody (I think) is trying to tell you that you shouldn't believe the rock is going to fall on the 1000000000001-th try.

It's a dumb example. A better example would be If your nose bled the last 1000000000 times you sneezed, that doesn't mean it will bleed the 1000000001th time you sneeze.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's a dumb example. A better example would be If your nose bled the last 1000000000 times you sneezed, that doesn't mean it will bleed the 1000000001th time you sneeze.

Better in what sense?

 

[Evo]

Better in what sense?

That it's not as ambiguous. It sounds like a bad translation of an old Chinese proverb.

It can definitely be taken to mean that the next time the rock will float off instead of falling. I guess whoever said it probably thought it sounded cool at the time, but it's pointless if it doesn't have a specific meaning.

Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that the point of the quote is to make one question certainty or probability? Instead, I see it as questioning gravity.

There is a reason I am referred to as seeing things in black and white, no gray.

 

[Sorry!]

yeah it is questioning gravity. or atleast what we can possibly know of it.

and hurkyl was right in his description that it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that it will occur the next time we have FAITH it will that's the point. :)

 

[Hurkyl]

That it's not as ambiguous. It sounds like a bad translation of an old Chinese proverb.

It can definitely be taken to mean that the next time the rock will float off instead of falling.

I don't follow; can't your version similarly be taken to assert that the next time you sneeze, your nose will not bleed?

 

[Evo]

I don't follow; can't your version similarly be taken to assert that the next time you sneeze, your nose will not bleed?

That's how it should be taken. There is no law in science that proves that every sneeze will cause a nose bleed.

 

[Hurkyl]

That's how it should be taken. There is no law in science that proves that every sneeze will cause a nose bleed.

Well, you've completely changed the meaning of the phrase.

One reminds us that "obvious" things still require proof, and that empiricial verification does not lead to logical necessity.

The other tells us to be wary of empirical evidence.

 

[Evo]

Well, you've completely changed the meaning of the phrase.

One reminds us that "obvious" things still require proof, and that empiricial verification does not lead to logical necessity.

The other tells us to be wary of empirical evidence.

I know, I'm bad. I won a court case (traffic court) for a friend because I found a grammatical error in a sentence that basically negated the preceding paragraph. I had her attorney show it to the judge and he laughed and said "she's absolutely right". Her case was dismissed, but thousands of others had lost their licenses because they and their attorneys didn't understand grammar.

I've found many such grammatical errors in legal documents at work dealing with huge $$$$$$, one really funny one actually gave the technology away until the end of time and it had to do with something very famous. I stopped it, sorry.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nobody (I think) is trying to tell you that you shouldn't believe the rock is going to fall on the 1000000000001-th try.

The last time I checked, causality itself was still considered to be an assumption.

 

[fleem]

Well, if faith in axioms is a negligible issue (because the probability distribution is so tight) then perhaps we should address common unscientific behavior of "scientists". Consider how many scientists in recent centuries would have bet their life savings that:

The Sun moves around the Earth
There aren't any tiny animals in a drop of pond water
Doctors washing their hands between patients is crackpottery
Space-time is Euclidean
A physics student presenting something like superposition to his professor should be kicked out of the school.

The question is, were these scientists guilty of something, or not? At the time, the scientists would have insisted these things were axioms with a very narrow probability distribution. Certainly the probability distribution widened when new information became available, but that new and extremely important information was greatly delayed by their faith in those axioms of admittedly narrow probability distribution. Part of the scientific method is learning from experience how to improve the scientific method. Let's learn from these mistakes that we should always spend at least a little time (not too much) on questioning whether 2+2 really does equal 4.

 

[ZapperZ]

But you seem to be forgetting that science corrected all of these things!

There is a common issue that pops up very often here, and not just in this thread, but in many threads that I've dealt with when people who do not understand how science works tries to discuss it. There is something called a "research front" area of science, and on a separate note, something that resembles a "degree of certainty". A research front area is where things are still being discovered, learned, observed, formulated, etc... i.e. we still don't know enough about it to say that we have a valid theory, formulation, observation, etc. The theory of high-Tc superconductor right now is one such example. While we know a lot about what it is, we still don't have a consensus on what makes it ticks. There are many theoretical explanations presently available, but there are still no definitive set of observations that can make us choose one the same way we did for the BCS theory. Now, you can't compare that with, let's say, Newton's laws under terrestrial conditions. We know how valid that is so much so we build houses and buildings with it! And not only that, we know WHEN not to use it. This is the sign of well-matured theory.

Unfortunately, people often confuse those two. When they hear stuff on "dark energy", etc., somehow it doesn't click into their heads that these are STILL being studied, and that no one is ready to fully come to a consensus on a formulation to describe it. The SAME can be said when quantum mechanics was first formulated. It wasn't, and it shouldn't, have been simply accepted based on the scant evidence and a theory that was still evolving. Such skepticism isn't based on "faith", but rather it is based on what I've said before, track record. The track record of an established theory being correct, and the lack of a track record of a new theory being right. Anything new needs time and a body of evidence for it to be considered as valid. This is FAR from the sign of something being accepted as a matter of faith.

Then there is the matter of the degree of certainty. The observation of YBCO undergoing a superconducting phase transition below 95K has a significantly higher degree of certainty than the presence of dark matter near the Bullet cluster. Or the theory of the band structure of Si has a higher degree of certainty than the describing the Top quark. Something in physics can be accepted to be valid, but yet, will have very different degree of certainty. What this means is that you simply cannot use one aspect of physics and then tries to make a blanket judgment on how ideas and principles are treated and handled. The variation in the degree of certainty can be due to the nature of the field of study (astronomy/astrophysics have such difficult task in gathering observations and the lack of ability to manipulate parameters on demand, where as in condensed matter, such ability is almost trivial by comparison, example: the isotope effect in conventional superconductors). So if one is pointing out how such and such a field got it wrong and had faulty starting points, one also needs to figure out what exactly was wrong, and what kind of a degree of certainty was there in the first place! Right now, I wouldn't be shocked if our understanding of Dark Matter and Dark Energy currently is shown to be wrong later on... I'd be surprised, but not shocked, because the degree of certainty is still not very high, and it is still a research front area.

I also think that, for some odd reason, many people are not aware that the postulates and axioms of physics are continually being tested. Read the thread on recent noteworthy papers in the General Physics forum if you don't believe me. The postulates of SR continues to be tested, a group at the U. of Washington continues to test Newton's gravitational constant, now up to sub-micron scale, etc... etc. So how many people who put faith in, let's say, astrology, actually test out the basic premise of their faith?

To equate how science is done as being similar to having "faith" in religion or pseudoscience is insulting and shows the lack of understanding on how it operates. To continue being "lectured" that scientists simply accepts some postulates or "axioms", or that they they should be "questioned", simply shows the ignorance of what has already being done and continues to be done. This is why I questioned the validity of "data" being used to arrive at such idea.

Zz.

 

[JoeDawg]

today my philosophy teacher quoted something that made me think of this thread lol

'Just because the rock will fall 1000000000000 times doesn't mean it will fall 1000000000001.'

forgot who it was... maybe heideggar? (its who we were reading at the time. :S)

Its actually Hume and its called the 'problem of induction'.

 

[JoeDawg]

Unless that person thinks the 1000000000001th time it's going to defy gravity instead.

Its not about the odds of this happening, its about whether belief in causation can be justified as certain.

All kinds of unexpected things do happen in life.

 

[JoeDawg]

And ask your "teacher" how much he/she is willing to bet that it won't? I'd take that bet ANY day.

You're missing the point of the example. Its not about probability. Its about certainty. Its a statement that we accept causation as a given, when we really have no justification to do so. The fact that something will probably happen is not the same thing as saying that it will happen. This may not be important to experimental science, but it is important to knowledge theory.

 

[ZapperZ]

You're missing the point of the example. Its not about probability. Its about certainty. Its a statement that we accept causation as a given, when we really have no justification to do so. The fact that something will probably happen is not the same thing as saying that it will happen. This may not be important to experimental science, but it is important to knowledge theory.

But that still makes very little sense. What is the purpose of illustrating something that have never occurred, or with such extremely low probability that it is, for all practical purposes, zero? That's like insisting that our formulation of equation of motion must include, no matter how small, the gravitational effects from Alpha Centauri.

There is a difference between being rigorous and being absurd. The requirement of "absolute certainty" is absurd when applied in this case, because there isn't such a thing. So why is it even in our vocabulary? Just to give us the ability to say that it doesn't happen? That makes no sense. This is almost the same situation when a lawyer is asking someone if that person is sure 100%, as if there is such a thing. Yet, most of us would look at someone sideways if that person claim to have seen a broken vase spontaneously reassembles itself into the original vase, a situation that, in statistical mechanics, does not have an absolute zero probability of not happening.

I agree with Evo. That was a stupid example. It also does not help in any way.

Zz.

 

[JoeDawg]

But that still makes very little sense. What is the purpose of illustrating something that have never occurred, or with such extremely low probability that it is, for all practical purposes, zero?

Like I said, its not about probability.
As soon as you bring probability into it, you've missed the point.
I could just as easily use this example.

I have two coins, one in each hand, I open one hand face down and that coin falls to the ground. Now, based on that action, and only that action, do I know with certainty that if I open the other hand, face down, the same thing will happen?

The question is not, do i have reason to believe this or that, the question is what can I know for certain. Causation is not a certainty, its something we have observed, something that has occurred in the past.

In this case we use 'reason' to bridge the gap between what we have observed in the past and will happen in the future. But reason has its limits.

Inductive reasoning is a useful tool, but sometimes it doesn't predict the future.
Reason can fail us. This is important to science because it helps define the limits of what we can know.

 

[ZapperZ]

Like I said, its not about probability.
As soon as you bring probability into it, you've missed the point.
I could just as easily use this example.

I have two coins, one in each hand, I open one hand face down and that coin falls to the ground. Now, based on that action, and only that action, do I know with certainty that if I open the other hand, face down, the same thing will happen?

The question is not, do i have reason to believe this or that, the question is what can I know for certain. Causation is not a certainty, its something we have observed, something that has occurred in the past.

In this case we use 'reason' to bridge the gap between what we have observed in the past and will happen in the future. But reason has its limits.

Inductive reasoning is a useful tool, but sometimes it doesn't predict the future.
Reason can fail us. This is important to science because it helps define the limits of what we can know.

Actually, I CAN say for certain that it will fall. Why? By observing that you're standing on the ground. That's why in the first example, I know for a fact that the ball will fall, because the person that the hand is attached to isn't floating in the air. The mechanism that is holding that person on the ground is the identical one that make the ball fall.

And this is not even "inductive reasoning". It is a physical fact based on observation.

Zz.

 

[fleem]

And this is not even "inductive reasoning". It is a physical fact based on observation.
Zz.

And thus space-time is Euclidean, said the Victorian scientist.

 

[ZapperZ]

And thus space-time is Euclidean, said the Victorian scientist.

Space-time IS Euclidean, for THIS particular purpose! If not, then I can also argue that there's not even a ball for you to track the trajectory. Argue with the engineer that constructed the building you're in that spacetime isn't euclidean.

I wish, if you want to counter my argument, that you'd at least be direct, rather than simply making a snide comment like that, especially when you want to slap such a label on me.

Zz.

 

[baywax]

My faith in Loren Booda coming back and providing us with a definition of faith has all but evaporated so I'm contributing this quote from my Oxford dictionary and thesaurus.

faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief : the Christian faith.
• a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.
PHRASES
break (or keep) faith be disloyal (or loyal) : an attempt to make us break faith with our customers.
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French feid, from Latin fides.

Thesaurus
faith
noun
1 he justified his boss's faith in him trust, belief, confidence, conviction; optimism, hopefulness, hope. antonym mistrust.
2 she gave her life for her faith religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine.
PHRASES
break faith with our own chairman has broken faith with this organization be disloyal to, be unfaithful to, be untrue to, betray, play someone false, break one's promise to, fail, let down; double-cross, deceive, cheat, stab in the back.
keep faith with Mrs. Grimes has always kept faith with everyone in my department be loyal to, be faithful to, be true to, stand by, stick by, keep one's promise to.

I really don't see the word being applied to the sciences.

Dictionary
science |ˈsīəns|
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology.
• a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences.
• a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology.
• archaic knowledge of any kind.
ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’

Thesaurus
science
noun
1 he teaches science at the high school physics, chemistry, biology; physical sciences, life sciences.
2 the science of criminology branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field.

No mention of faith in this definition of science.

 

[Hurkyl]

And this is not even "inductive reasoning". It is a physical fact based on observation.

Those two sentences look like they're in direct contradiction with each other.

If you don't call that inductive reasoning, then just what the heck do you call the kind of reasoning that infers 'facts' through extrapolating past observation?

 

[ZapperZ]

That's why I put in quotes, because it isn't the "induction" as done in mathematics.

Here it is nothing more than F=ma. If all the conditions remain identical, and the ball doesn't fall, then F=ma has failed. It isn't a matter of chance or statistics anymore. That observation has violated all known classical physics.

So when I said that it is based on "observation", it means that it is based on physics, not via induction. The fact that you are standing on the ground and the Earth still orbits the sun and the moon around the Earth mean that gravity still works, and so will F=ma.

Zz.

 

[Hurkyl]

So when I said that it is based on "observation", it means that it is based on physics, not via induction.

What sort of reasoning do you think physics is based upon? I mean, you don't think it's a purely deductive pursuit, do you?

 

[ZapperZ]

What sort of reasoning do you think physics is based upon? I mean, you don't think it's a purely deductive pursuit, do you?

Physics uses logic. But logic isn't physics. You can't deduce the physical aspect of our universe simply based on logic. Logic does not produce the cause and effect for the ball to fall, nor can it derive the constancy of the speed of light or any of the conservation laws. What makes the ball fall the gazillion'th time isn't logic or statistics, but physics.

Zz.

 

[JoeDawg]

And this is not even "inductive reasoning". It is a physical fact based on observation.

Its only a physical fact, AFTER you observe it.

 

[Loren Booda]

I intend the definition of faith in the context of this thread to denote secular faith, or non-religious faith. It may be that hypotheses are in part built upon such secular faith, not in blind belief but with the process for anticipating whether guesses are scientifically scrutable and worthwhile. If science is confined to the scientific method, one must (as many do) have faith in one's ability to effectively and repeatedly "test" the scientific method itself by its own success or failure. Otherwise the scientific method might become a sacred, unquestioned monolith.

Tentatively, faith in science I see as the belief that the scientific method works realistically, consistently and successfully.

 

[ZapperZ]

Its only a physical fact, AFTER you observe it.

No, I'm observing that you are standing on the ground. That is what I meant as a "fact". This proves to me that F=ma and gravity are still valid. I don't kneed to see the ball falling to know that it will.

Zz.

 

[Hurkyl]

What makes the ball fall the gazillion'th time isn't logic or statistics, but physics.

Physics doesn't make the ball fall; it merely predicts that it will. And why does physics make that prediction? Because we had a theory, empirically verified that it worked in a gazillion situations, and inferred that it will work in this situation too. Is that not an accurate summary? That's exactly what inductive reasoning is...

 

[ZapperZ]

I intend the definition of faith in the context of this thread to denote secular faith, or non-religious faith. It may be that hypotheses are in part built upon such secular faith, not in blind belief but with the process for anticipating whether guesses are scientifically scrutable and worthwhile. If science is confined to the scientific method, one must (as many do) have faith in one's ability to effectively and repeatedly "test" the scientific method itself by its own success or failure. Otherwise the scientific method might become a sacred, unquestioned monolith.

Tentatively, faith in science I see as the belief that the scientific method works realistically, consistently and successfully.

See, this is what I have a problem with. Why must you BELIEVE in that the scientific method works? Why must you accept this as a belief rather than based on valid observation? Are there no empirical evidence at all to justify the acceptance of it? You made it sound as if one has to accept this and that's it, without any justification! That's baloney!

Zz.

 

[Hurkyl]

See, this is what I have a problem with. Why must you BELIEVE in that the scientific method works? Why must you accept this as a belief rather than based on valid observation? Are there no empirical evidence at all to justify the acceptance of it? You made it sound as if one has to accept this and that's it, without any justification! That's baloney!

Sure there's empirical evidecnce that justifies the acceptance of it -- but why did we decide to listen to empiricial evidence in the first place?

 

[ZapperZ]

Physics doesn't make the ball fall; it merely predicts that it will. And why does physics make that prediction? Because we had a theory, empirically verified that it worked in a gazillion situations, and inferred that it will work in this situation too. Is that not an accurate summary? That's exactly what inductive reasoning is...

Induction in mathematics requires you to make an "indirect" logical conclusion. You can, for instance, assume that something is true, and carry it out to the end to show that the result is logically nonsensical or self-contradictory to prove that it is false.

I do not see adopting that the ball will fall as such a step. It is very direct in accepting that the ball WILL fall based on the observation of the surrounding facts.

Maybe we are arguing semantics here, but even if you categorize it as inductive reasoning, it certainly isn't based on "faith", as has been mentioned in this thread. My certainty that the ball will fall has nothing to do with having "faith".

Zz.

 

[Hurkyl]

Induction in mathematics requires you to make an "indirect" logical conclusion.

I'm not talking about mathematical induction.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sure there's empirical evidecnce that justifies the acceptance of it -- but why did we decide to listen to empiricial evidence in the first place?

I dunno.. I wasn't around back then when the caveman saw the first falling ball.

I accept valid empirical evidence because it is reproducible. And as a physicist, I can see how an empirical evidence can be verified in many different ways by different methods, and different people that have varying backgrounds. This means that such evidence is independent of how or who is observing it. And then when I see that such evidence works all the time under the same condition, I will begin to trust that this is something as part of Nature, and not someone's imagination. that's what we want in the end.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not talking about mathematical induction.

I was.

Zz.

 

[Hurkyl]

I was.

So, large parts of you've been saying simply isn't applicable to what everybody else has been talking about?

 

[ZapperZ]

So, large parts of you've been saying simply isn't applicable to what everybody else has been talking about?

Which large part?

Zz.

 

[JoeDawg]

No, I'm observing that you are standing on the ground. That is what I meant as a "fact". This proves to me that F=ma and gravity are still valid.

Gravity is an rule derived from past experience. In fact that is all the theory of gravity is, a description of what has occurred in the past.

If I see gravity work once, I wouldn't develop a rule.
If I see it work 10...100... 10000... times then I see a pattern in 'past experience'.

When I apply that rule of past experience, that pattern I see in past events, to future events, that is inductive reasoning.

I understand your frustration, this is not the easiest thing to get your head around. But once you do, its quite profound.

 

[Hurkyl]

Which large part?

All of the parts where you talk about induction.



*takes step back*

ZZ -- as far as I'm concerned, the main points I am trying to make here is:

(1) Science is not "pure reason" -- it cannot be deduced from deductive logic.
(2) The justification for accepting Science is circular -- we accept science because we have empirical confirmation.

 

[JoeDawg]

Maybe we are arguing semantics here, but even if you categorize it as inductive reasoning, it certainly isn't based on "faith", as has been mentioned in this thread. My certainty that the ball will fall has nothing to do with having "faith".

Agreed, the faith argument is nonsense.
It conflates 'faith' with reasoned belief.
Its an equivocation error.