How much of science is faith based?

[ZapperZ]

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.

I'm sure it is. What you have described is what I've been telling everyone - it is a phenomenological law, i.e. heavy on observations. But at the same thing, it is what saves it from being based on "faith". Thus, with all the situation being identical, you know what's going to happen next.

Maybe it is called "inductive reasoning". I was using "induction" as in mathematics, which I had assumed to be the same in philosophy. It has a series of strict logical sequence.

However, to never have seen even one case where such the situation fails, does this require that one make an any kind of "reasoning" to accept that that situation will occur?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

I believe, and I'm sure you have read it too, that these are the points that I've been trying to make as well. I don't for a second accept the notion that standard science is based on faith.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

BTW, and I think I will have hammered this to death already by now, so this may be the end of my participation here, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=149923", former president of the APS, in a thread on PF a while back. She wrote an article in Physics Today titled "Belief and knowledge—a plea about language" (the link to that article can be found in the thread I pointed to). She has clearly indicated on why, as scientists, we ought to be careful in choosing the words we use, because as can be clearly seen in this thread, those who are outside of it cannot judge clearly what these words mean beyond the pedestrian usage of it. This is especially true in the use of the word "believe".

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

I always thought the quote about the nth try (10^6 + 1) or whatever it was had to do with hidden variables or unknown external forces.

The reason the ball might not drop the last time is not because the core physics changes, but because our perception of the problem was wrong (we thought the ball and gravity were an isolated system)

What if there's a time-dependent dirac delta function that expresses some external force that acts every m years, and we just got around to the 18mth interval as we throw the ball the (10^6 + 1)th time?

That, to me is where the uncertainty comes in. Not that the physics changes, but that as scientists, we don't have absolute control of our observations.

As for "faith" in science, I can't deny it's existence, and in some cases it may even help us to reach out and try new things... BUT, I don't think it should be confused with religious faith. They're definitely held to much different standards, and faith in religion is a lot more rampant than "faith" in science.

 

[Hurkyl]

As for "faith" in science, I can't deny it's existence, and in some cases it may even help us to reach out and try new things... BUT, I don't think it should be confused with religious faith. They're definitely held to much different standards, and faith in religion is a lot more rampant than "faith" in science.

Well, really, what is the difference? Belief in science is justified upon scientific grounds, is it not? And belief in Unitarianism is justified upon Unitarian grounds, is it not? What makes the former "better" than the latter? It's cheating to use empiricism (especially the strict variety) as an a priori for making this judgement!

 

[JoeDawg]

Well, really, what is the difference? Belief in science is justified upon scientific grounds, is it not? And belief in Unitarianism is justified upon Unitarian grounds, is it not? What makes the former "better" than the latter? It's cheating to use empiricism (especially the strict variety) as an a priori for making this judgement!

You don't have to be unitarian for science to apply to you.

 

[Moridin]

As a side note, the ball falling the n:th time can be established by deduction as well (implicitly stated earlier). Imagine you are standing there, ready to drop it the n:th time. If it will not fall to the ground, then all sorts of uncomfortable consequence should occur. Since ~[uncomfortable consequence] we can be sure that the ball will fall. The same argument can be made for the rise of the sun etc. I'd say this is a strict modus tollens, but I could be wrong.

 

[Moridin]

Well, really, what is the difference? Belief in science is justified upon scientific grounds, is it not? And belief in Unitarianism is justified upon Unitarian grounds, is it not? What makes the former "better" than the latter? It's cheating to use empiricism (especially the strict variety) as an a priori for making this judgement!

Everyone has to start with experience as their core epistemological standpoint. Only then comes method and attempts to justify method through experience. Empiricism is a method with experience as its main theory of knowledge.

 

[Hurkyl]

As a side note, the ball falling the n:th time can be established by deduction as well (implicitly stated earlier). Imagine you are standing there, ready to drop it the n:th time. If it will not fall to the ground, then all sorts of uncomfortable consequence should occur. Since ~[uncomfortable consequence] we can be sure that the ball will fall. The same argument can be made for the rise of the sun etc. I'd say this is a strict modus tollens, but I could be wrong.

Actually, that's a textbook logical fallacy; it's an appeal to consequences.

(Unless, of course, you can actually prove ~[uncomfortable consequence], which you haven't...)

 

[Hurkyl]

Everyone has to start with experience as their core epistemological standpoint.

Why is that so? Why can't they start with their religious teachings, or possibly strict rationalism? A quick wikipedia search also suggests constructivism.

 

[Moridin]

Why is that so? Why can't they start with their religious teachings, or possibly strict rationalism? A quick wikipedia search also suggests constructivism.

Strict rationalism is just another possible conclusion of experience. The same goes for religious teachings. When it comes down to it, you can only start from your experience (not necessarily the same as empiricism as there can be other ways of experience, such as revelation etc.). Then you can choose empiricism, rationalism or religious scripture etc. based on certain criteria or arguments, such as effectiveness in practice for your experience (ie. prediction power) etc. Empiricism is therefore based on and justified based on experience, not by itself and experience is something everyone must start with. So, in essence, empiricism is a conclusion, not the foundation of the things being discussed. Then the different types of epistemologies are investigated by the prediction power on your experience and then you move on to method, such as science.

Of course, then experience can be questioned with all sorts of though experiments, such as a Cartesian demon etc.

Actually, that's a textbook logical fallacy; it's an appeal to consequences.

(Unless, of course, you can actually prove ~[uncomfortable consequence], which you haven't...)

I seem to have been a bit fuzzy: By the [uncomfortable consequence], I means how the sudden disappearance of gravity would effect you. As long as you do not experience those effects, gravity works.

Take the whole sunrise tomorrow argument for example. If the sun will not rise tomorrow, we would all walk inclined, experience massive earthquakes and pretty much most of Norther Europe would be under water. As long as this does not occur, we can say that we know that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[Tony11235]

It seems ZZ shares Feynman's frustration with philosophers.

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong"

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

Funny observation.

 

[turbo]

It seems ZZ shares Feynman's frustration with philosophers.

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong"

Feynman also made some rather derogatory statements about the ways that science was conducted, in general. He called it "cargo-cult science", likening it to the behavior of some South Pacific islanders who built replica air-strips after WWII, complete with "control towers" and staff, to try to coax cargo planes to land there and bring back the "good times" they experienced when the US based troops and aircraft there.

Feynman's point was that if you don't understand the fundamentals of the field you are working in, you are taking the work of your predecessors as gospel, going through the motions, and may not be producing real science. I think that he would regard such scientific pursuits as "faith-based" since they rely more on form than function. Einstein insisted on the importance of epistemology and used this argument as the subject of his memoriam on the death of Ernst Mach - no small affair.

 

[Evo]

It seems ZZ shares Feynman's frustration with philosophers.

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong"

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

Funny observation.

I think that people that are highly logical and that prefer that things are expressed clearly and get to the point do not have the patience for "philosophy". Not saying there's anything wrong with those that do, I just know that I'm not one of them.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, really, what is the difference? Belief in science is justified upon scientific grounds, is it not? And belief in Unitarianism is justified upon Unitarian grounds, is it not? What makes the former "better" than the latter? It's cheating to use empiricism (especially the strict variety) as an a priori for making this judgement!

I don't mean to "justify" science upon "scientific grounds". I don't really know what that means, I don't think the existence of religion or science requires any justification. What requires justification is impeding on my rights. I generally don't accept religious doctrines as justification for such a situation. I require hard, physical proof.

I am not a raised atheist/scientist so my judgment/justifications aren't based on science, they're based on my mystical experiences as a teenager. I feel like I have a much better grasp of the world through physics than through Christianity. I can't speak for all of religion and all of science, but I have experience with those specific cases (and even some experience in other religions) and physics makes the most sense to me.

Christianity is absolutely more faith-based than physics. I'm not standing down on my statement that physics (as a science) has some faith in it... but it's generally clearly marked (by the words like 'phenomenological' and 'anecdotal' usually)

I think Christianity and physics both handle their faith differently too. For Christianity, it's the meat of the community... for physics, it's handled carefully like a radioactive substance... useful, but dangerous.

 

[Sorry!]

woah my quote started quite the debate :D haha nice nice.

I think that people should step back and just think 'what does faith MEAN' because after skimming through the arguments for BOTH sides it seems that no one is denying science has faith they just assign it different names or they are using a completely different definition of faith and assigning it to belief of the supernatural etc. etc. (which if you look at the definition i think on page 10 ISN'T what faith means at all...)

 

[JoeDawg]

Take the whole sunrise tomorrow argument for example. If the sun will not rise tomorrow, we would all walk inclined, experience massive earthquakes and pretty much most of Norther Europe would be under water. As long as this does not occur, we can say that we know that the sun will rise tomorrow.

You have not addressed the problem of induction here. You have simply stated the conditions which would occur if your understanding of the past is correct and if that past does indeed predict to the future. This is just another probability argument and that is not the issue.

 

[Moridin]

You have not addressed the problem of induction here. You have simply stated the conditions which would occur if your understanding of the past is correct and if that past does indeed predict to the future. This is just another probability argument and that is not the issue.

I have used deduction, not induction. In fact, I have never appealed to inductive reasoning at all. It is basic modus tollens:

A -> B
~B
Therefore, ~A

 

[JoeDawg]

it seems that no one is denying science has faith

I am denying that. Its puerile rhetoric meant to equivocate religion and science.

Reasoned belief is not faith, calling it such is just dishonest. Redefining 'faith' to include reasoned belief is no better than redefining science to include the god-magic that is 'intelligent design'.

And I think the reason scientists have failed in the PR war against religious propaganda is plain to see in this thread. Without an understanding of the history of ideas... philosophy... its easy for the religious apologists to equivocate and play with definitions.

The problem of induction does not mean 'faith is necessary'. It simply sets limits on 'certainty'. This is important, because scientific method is designed to address our limited view on the universe, science is not about 'truth', its about what is observed.

 

[JoeDawg]

I have used deduction, not induction. In fact, I have never appealed to inductive reasoning at all. It is basic modus tollens:

A -> B
~B
Therefore, ~A

I'm a big fan of falsification, but it doesn't really address the problem of induction.
Obviously I'm not explaining it well enough though, so... its still not faith...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
"As Stephen Hawking explains, "No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."[8] While it may be pragmatically useful to accept a theory until it is falsified, this does not solve the philosophical problem of induction. As Bertrand Russell put it, "the general principles of science . . . are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed."[9] In essence, Popper addressed justification for belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, not justification for the fact that it will, which is the crux of the philosophical problem. Said another way, Popper addressed the psychological causes of our belief in the validity of induction without trying to provide logical reasons for it. In this way, he sidesteps the traditional problem of trying to justify induction as "proof.""

 

[Hurkyl]

Reasoned belief is not faith, calling it such is just dishonest.

So just how did you solve the regress problem?

 

[JoeDawg]

So just how did you solve the regress problem?

Was that on page 10 too?

 

[Moridin]

JoeDawg, read what I have posted: I do NOT make use of induction, but deduction.

 

[Hurkyl]

Was that on page 10 too?

No, I'm referring to the famous philosophical problem where you give a justification for your beliefs, which prompts you to justify the principles upon which that justification was based. And then you're prompted to justify the principles upon which that justification is based, and so forth.

If, as you claim, you have only "reasoned belief", then that suggests you have solved the regress problem -- despite the best efforts of millenia of philosophers.

 

[JoeDawg]

No, I'm referring to the famous philosophical problem where you give a justification for your beliefs, which prompts you to justify the principles upon which that justification was based. And then you're prompted to justify the principles upon which that justification is based, and so forth.

If, as you claim, you have only "reasoned belief", then that suggests you have solved the regress problem -- despite the best efforts of millenia of philosophers.

Oh, actually I was thinking you meant the god-infinite-regress problem.

I think Descartes did a good job on the epistemological side, at least in the beginning of his meditations. Which part are you disagreeing with?

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, read what I have posted: I do NOT make use of induction, but deduction.

Then you're not addressing the problem of whether the future will resemble the past. What you have described is what Karl Popper tried to do with falsification. Its a very compelling argument, but ultimately falls short.

If you meant something else, you will have to explain it further.

 

[Moridin]

Then you're not addressing the problem of whether the future will resemble the past. What you have described is what Karl Popper tried to do with falsification. Its a very compelling argument, but ultimately falls short.

If you meant something else, you will have to explain it further.

No, it does not "fall short" since how I have shown how we can be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow by deduction.

 

[Hurkyl]

Oh, actually I was thinking you meant the god-infinite-regress problem.

I think Descartes did a good job on the epistemological side, at least in the beginning of his meditations. Which part are you disagreeing with?

Summarizing my understanding, foundationalism and coherentism are the leading responses to the regress problem. The foundationalists simply stop rationalizing and say "we will accept these postulates". The coherentists stop rationalizing and say "we will accept this belief system". (And based on my experience with formal logic, I would actually assert that the two philosophies are the same)

My point is that both philosophies admit defeat, and give up the notion that their beliefs can always be justified in terms of "higher" principles: the foundationalists simply write down a list of principles they will accept without justification, and the coherentists argue that their beliefs, taken as a whole, are coherent and thus self-justifying.

(I'm not familiar with what Descartes actually wrote, so I can't comment on that)


For many (most?) religions, a religious person can cast their belief in their religion as foundationaist, coherentist, or possibly some blend of it.

You argue that the scientist's belief in science is a "reasoned belief", and thus somehow different than the religious person's belief -- so I'm asking you to please elaborate.

 

[baywax]

To say "Uncertainty over-rules faith" would be an incorrect statement... although it would also explain what you guys keep repeating.

The statement would be incorrect because "faith" is a condition bourn of the cognitive processes and has nothing to do with "external" events.

The statement would be correct only because it is the short form of "not knowing if the rock with fall, the nose will be picked, the sun will rise" next time history dictates that it will.

Therefore I'd ask that you people remember how "faith" is a carefully developed cognitive state, belonging only to the individual who has decided to develop it... with whatever help they seek out.

Science is a specific approach to the study of internal and external conditions and is based only on the specific tenants of those disciplines that comprise science. To ask if science is "faith-based" in any way is like asking if science is "hope-based" or "stress-based" because each and every individual that practices scientific inquiry will approach their study differently. The diversity of methods of coping with the disciplines involved in the sciences should illustrate that there is no "hope-based", "stress-based", "faith-based" or other basic cognitive condition required to study science.

Science, itself, is "science-based" and nothing more.

 

[JoeDawg]

the foundationalists simply write down a list of principles they will accept without justification, and the coherentists argue that their beliefs, taken as a whole, are coherent and thus self-justifying.

Descartes was a foundationalist I suppose, in the sense he claimed one thing as being 'self-evident'. This claim is generally understood with the phrase: I think therefore I am.
Or more specifically: thought exists
(ref. Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy)

He believed all knowledge is built on this 'first principle'. I agree, although we part ways later on...

That said I'm not an ardent rationalist, I'm very much in agreement with classical empiricism, but Descartes is the undeniable starting point, in my opinion.

You argue that the scientist's belief in science is a "reasoned belief", and thus somehow different than the religious person's belief -- so I'm asking you to please elaborate.

Once you have the 'thinking' foundation, then one can start distinguishing between modes of thought and then perception. Then science comes into play as a measure of what, if anything, is consistent amongst perceptions. This may be where coherentism comes in, although from what I have read both terms are used in a variety of ways.

Now that is all a gross oversimplification, but I'm summarizing.
The important part is that it does have a logical progression.

Religion by its nature has no logical progression, religion is 'revelation'. Gods tell us unquestionable truth and we are asked to believe.
Kill your son because god commands it.
Love your neighbor because god commands it.
Seek salvation...etc...

I believe that is a huge difference.

 

[JoeDawg]

No, it does not "fall short" since how I have shown how we can be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow by deduction.

Yes it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

"Karl Popper, an influential philosopher of science, sought to resolve the problem in the context of the scientific method, in part by arguing that science does not rely on induction, but exclusively upon deduction, in effect making modus tollens the centerpiece of his theory. On this account, when assessing a theory, one should pay only heed to data which is in disagreement with the theory rather than to data which is in agreement with it. Popper went further and stated that a hypothesis which does not allow for experimental tests of falsity is outside the bounds of empirical science.

Wesley C. Salmon critiques Popper's solution to induction by arguing that by using corroborated theories induction is being used. Salmon stated "Modus tollens without corroboration is empty; modus tollens with corroboration is induction" [3]"

 

[click]

Do you have any evidence for this? And science is based on evidence by the way. Evidence does not equal faith.

The Greater the evidence, the greater the faith you will have... You have faith in science, don't you? Why? Because it gave you evidence... You will trust anything that gives you evidence... But some people don't bother looking for evidence, resulting in worthless faith... You need evidence to have faith that actually has some worth...

 

[fleem]

The Greater the evidence, the greater the faith you will have...

Although we certainly have not well defined the word "faith" in this thread, I doubt this is a common definition. In this context, it appears you are using the word "faith" to mean "belief in that which is most probable".

 

[Moridin]

Yes it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

"Karl Popper, an influential philosopher of science, sought to resolve the problem in the context of the scientific method, in part by arguing that science does not rely on induction, but exclusively upon deduction, in effect making modus tollens the centerpiece of his theory. On this account, when assessing a theory, one should pay only heed to data which is in disagreement with the theory rather than to data which is in agreement with it. Popper went further and stated that a hypothesis which does not allow for experimental tests of falsity is outside the bounds of empirical science.

Wesley C. Salmon critiques Popper's solution to induction by arguing that by using corroborated theories induction is being used. Salmon stated "Modus tollens without corroboration is empty; modus tollens with corroboration is induction" [3]"

For the gazillionth time, I have just deduction, not induction. Copy-pasting from Wikipedia () will not change that fact, Furthermore, critic of induction rests on induction itself, so it is pretty much useless.

My point is that both philosophies admit defeat, and give up the notion that their beliefs can always be justified in terms of "higher" principles: the foundationalists simply write down a list of principles they will accept without justification, and the coherentists argue that their beliefs, taken as a whole, are coherent and thus self-justifying.

The problem here is that they actually do not give up; people claiming the justification regress will then also have a justification regress to justify their own claims of justification regress. How can you justify your support of justification regress?

 

[fleem]

For the gazillionth time, I have just deduction, not induction. Copy-pasting from Wikipedia () will not change that fact, Furthermore, critic of induction rests on induction itself, so it is pretty much useless.

All induction and deduction must be based at some point on inductively obtained statements--because everything is empirical.

 

[Moridin]

All induction and deduction must be based at some point on inductively obtained statements--because everything is empirical.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the deductive argument I posted. The premise has a massive amount of evidence in its favor and none against it. Only a lunatic would say: "well, I still think the sun will not rise tomorrow".

 

[JoeDawg]

For the gazillionth time, I have just deduction, not induction. Copy-pasting from Wikipedia

At least I'm providing support for my point of view, instead of just repeating myself endlessly. But you're right, you are wasting my time. Its called induction.

 

[Moridin]

At least I'm providing support for my point of view, instead of just repeating myself endlessly. But you're right, you are wasting my time. Its called induction.

A -> B
~B
Therefore, ~A

is deduction, which is what I have done. Induction, on the other hand, is

A -> B
B
Therefore, A

Or is Wikipedia your only source of information?

 

[fleem]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the deductive argument I posted. The premise has a massive amount of evidence in its favor and none against it. Only a lunatic would say: "well, I still think the sun will not rise tomorrow".

At one point we (and I have the temptation in me as well) found it easy to say things like, "only a lunatic would think there were tiny animals swimming in a drop of pond water" and "only a lunatic would think a doctor washing his hands between patients would reduce the spread of disease". Now you may accuse those scientists of being unscientific because they didn't do a good job of estimating the probability of truth in the statements, or they simply didn't have the data to realize they were wrong. And maybe modern science is a bit wiser in that respect. But consider this: There are some pretty smart people in the world arguing over a lot of things "religiously" (by that I mean they each are convinced the other is a lunatic). This should be proof enough that we are still susceptible to bias, faith, arrogance, etc. (myself included). Its certainly OK to make sweeping statements in casual conversation when the probability of them being false is extremely remote, but all I ask is that we do spend just a little time now and then staring out a window and contemplating whether 2+2 really does equal 4, or whether that statement even has that much meaning.

 

[siddharth]

For what it's worth, here's my 2 cents.

At one point we (and I have the temptation in me as well) found it easy to say things like, "only a lunatic would think there were tiny animals swimming in a drop of pond water" and "only a lunatic would think a doctor washing his hands between patients would reduce the spread of disease"

There's a difference between lack of knowledge and contradictory evidence. Back then, there was no way for people to experimentally verify if there were tiny animals actually swimming in a drop of pond water. So, whatever claim someone made about tiny animals swimming in a drop of pond water, it's irrelevant from a scientific point of view, because people didn't have the means to verify the claim. Once people had microscopes and were able to perform experiments, it become clear that there were tiny organisms swimming around.

But, this is different from what most religious people argue. People may say that they believe praying to a personal deity cures illness. However, when rigorous controlled tests are done to test this claim, it's seen that prayer doesn't cure illness. Yet, people still believe that prayer cures illness. I call this an example of faith, which is very different from science.

Also, I don't think there's any "faith" involved in the claim that the universe has some structure and that science is attempting to find laws which describe that structure.

 

[Moridin]

What exactly are you trying to argue? I have made a deductive statement, thus freeing the question from the problem of induction.

 

[fleem]

For what it's worth, here's my 2 cents.

There's a difference between lack of knowledge and contradictory evidence. Back then, there was no way for people to experimentally verify if there were tiny animals actually swimming in a drop of pond water. So, whatever claim someone made about tiny animals swimming in a drop of pond water, it's irrelevant from a scientific point of view, because people didn't have the means to verify the claim. Once people had microscopes and were able to perform experiments, it become clear that there were tiny organisms swimming around.

But take a look at the timeline. For a long time microscopes were readily available while there was substantial resistance to the microbe theory. Likewise for a long time soap was available to doctors while there was substantial resistance to the microbial theory of disease.

But, this is different from what most religious people argue. People may say that they believe praying to a personal deity cures illness. However, when rigorous controlled tests are done to test this claim, it's seen that prayer doesn't cure illness. Yet, people still believe that prayer cures illness. I call this an example of faith, which is very different from science.

I provided an example of a large number of scientists being wrong for a long time to prove that a large number of scientists can be wrong for a long time (because of faulty logic and arrogance--not lack of knowledge), and thus we might well be susceptible to the same thing. Providing an example of commonly believed low-probability statement (assuming your claim is correct) does not change the fact that a lot of scientists can be wrong for a long time or that we might be susceptible to the same thing. If anything, it reinforces it--its human nature.

Also, I don't think there's any "faith" involved in the claim that the universe has some structure and that science is attempting to find laws which describe that structure.

Good point, My eyes are opened. I've been making the statement "nothing is provable because everything is empirical", but now I must admit that "I think therefore I am" proves absolutely (100%) the truth in the statement, "there is at least some order". But also note that proving beyond doubt there is some order does not prove anything about the nature of that order--which is where our arrogance and faith in other axioms (my own arrogance included) can still bite us in the end, like it did those scientists I mentioned.

 

[baywax]

Can you have faith in uncertainty?

 

[wave]

Summarizing my understanding, foundationalism and coherentism are the leading responses to the regress problem.

I am very interested in your response to the regress problem. In addition, do you think science and theism are compatible and why?

 

[JoeDawg]

What exactly are you trying to argue? I have made a deductive statement, thus freeing the question from the problem of induction.

HAHA. Well as long as you say so, I guess it must be true.

 

[Sorry!]

i'm just wondering does the scientist not believe that when he applies the scientific method he applies it to SOMETHING physical? So then without 'faith' the scientist would just be finding out information what a mass of people consider to be 'reality.' They don't say that though they say it more as if it is TRUTH of the physical world. So faith must exist?

and i don't understand why people are ignorant enough to say faith ONLY applies to 'religious' beliefs. I don't see how you can back that up given the definition of faith...

 

[JoeDawg]

I don't see how you can back that up given the definition of faith...

Define faith.

 

[Moridin]

i'm just wondering does the scientist not believe that when he applies the scientific method he applies it to SOMETHING physical? So then without 'faith' the scientist would just be finding out information what a mass of people consider to be 'reality.' They don't say that though they say it more as if it is TRUTH of the physical world. So faith must exist?

and i don't understand why people are ignorant enough to say faith ONLY applies to 'religious' beliefs. I don't see how you can back that up given the definition of faith...

Please read up on 'Instrumentalism'.

 

[JoeDawg]

Please read up on 'Instrumentalism'.

But don't dare use wikipedia.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am very interested in your response to the regress problem.

I think foundationalism is the right idea. Regress is not something to be overcome; it is an essential flaw in the naive way of viewing things, and compels us to adopt a more sophisticated treatment.

In addition, do you think science and theism are compatible and why?

Yes. For the religions I'm familiar with, there is no (known) fundamental incompatability, and no emergent incompatability has been demonstrated.