How much of science is faith based?

[Moridin]

Surely, attempts to claim that science is based on faith is pointless circle-jerk? If everything is based on faith, the then claim that everything is based on faith is itself based on faith ad infinitum, thereby undermining the entire project to begin with.

Nothing in mathematics is based on faith, since it works by definitions and if-conditionals. Theoretical physics doesn't really mean that much without experimental evidence. The reason we adopt the principle of non-contradiction is because it works. In science, those would be tentative, becoming better and better approximations as time goes by.

 

[JoeDawg]

One of the big questions in philosophy is 'what can we know'. Science doesn't answer this question. We value scientific method because in our world we have observed a certain consistency to things and scientific method is a useful way to measure a world that is consistent.

When we come across an apparent inconsistency in our observations, scientists use scientific method to try and figure out what is happening. They try and find a way that in fits into the world so it is consistent.

Could it be that paradoxes exist? We can't rule this out.
However that doesn't mean we need faith (belief without evidence or in spite of evidence) in consistency, or in science.

We simply need to take things as they come and continue to look for evidence for things we don't understand. Even if we recognize that we may never find it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Surely, attempts to claim that science is based on faith is pointless circle-jerk? If everything is based on faith, the then claim that everything is based on faith is itself based on faith ad infinitum, thereby undermining the entire project to begin with.

And therefore, we conclude the claim "your belief is based on faith!" is an essentially contentless proposition.

Nothing in mathematics is based on faith, since it works by definitions and if-conditionals.

Mathematics is, IMHO, quite beyond the rest of the intellectual pursuits in this respect, since it has actually formalized many of the issues that arise in these types of discussions. There is no essential difference between studying the consequences of axioms and the consequences of articles of faith -- IMO the sooner non-mathematicians realize this, the better. Words like "truth" and "faith" are usually used in a fallacy of loaded terms -- the usage is denotatively correct, but the intent is the connotation, which arguers rarely justify.

 

[JoeDawg]

Mathematics is...

Logic and critical thinking doesn't require equations.

 

[baywax]

There was great faith in the idea that ulcers were caused by too much work, stress, bad habits and generally bad lifestyle. This went on for as long as ulceration was taking place in the bowels of humans... until, in Australia, a doctor found that a common anti-bacterial agent stopped the ulcer long enough for healing to take place.

How many surgeons, MDs, nurses, the general public and research scientists believed ulcers were caused by stress? All of them. All based on what they were told and how their observations matched their beliefs. They didn't see a bacteria at work, causing an ulcer. They saw everything they were told to look for and neglected to look for other clues. Today ulcers are treated with anti-biotics... end of story.

There is a similar story emerging today. For, I don't know how many years, MS (multiple sclerosis) has been a big bad voodoo disease that can only be addressed with steroids and (yes, bee stings) and not much else. People are left to deal with the symptoms on their own until death comes as a relief to them. Today a common pharmaeceutical that was used to stop acne in teenagers, minocycline, is showing promise in elieviating, if not irradicating the onset of MS.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/6/1297

We will always be in the dark about certain conditions unless we look outside of the given norm and what we're told about the condition. There is always another way to approach a challenge in life and it is not always the way it has been approached in the past. Solutions are found where no one else has looked or, as an old saying goes..."you always find what you're looking for in the last place you look".

 

[fleem]

There was great faith in the idea that ulcers were caused by too much work, stress, bad habits and generally bad lifestyle. This went on for as long as ulceration was taking place in the bowels of humans... until, in Australia, a doctor found that a common anti-bacterial agent stopped the ulcer long enough for healing to take place.

How many surgeons, MDs, nurses, the general public and research scientists believed ulcers were caused by stress? All of them. All based on what they were told and how their observations matched their beliefs. They didn't see a bacteria at work, causing an ulcer. They saw everything they were told to look for and neglected to look for other clues. Today ulcers are treated with anti-biotics... end of story.

There is a similar story emerging today. For, I don't know how many years, MS (multiple sclerosis) has been a big bad voodoo disease that can only be addressed with steroids and (yes, bee stings) and not much else. People are left to deal with the symptoms on their own until death comes as a relief to them. Today a common pharmaeceutical that was used to stop acne in teenagers, minocycline, is showing promise in elieviating, if not irradicating the onset of MS.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/6/1297

We will always be in the dark about certain conditions unless we look outside of the given norm and what we're told about the condition. There is always another way to approach a challenge in life and it is not always the way it has been approached in the past. Solutions are found where no one else has looked or, as an old saying goes..."you always find what you're looking for in the last place you look".

I'm not familiar enough with the history of these particular things (for example, what known facts might have been ignored and for how long) to know the degree of guilt in the medical community, but I'm sure there is some guilt. I can think of worse crimes though, and your point is taken. But we should remember, of course, that the word "science" has two popular definitions. One is "how people with science degrees often behave" and the other is "using logic to obtain the truth". These are certainly different things and we should not mix those definitions in our dialog without specifying which definition we mean. (I'm not suggestion you were trying to mix them--I just wanted to make the point). So the title of this thread can be interpreted using either or both definitions. If the first definition, obviously people with science degrees often have faith in some assumption that contradicts presently known fact. If the second definition, we're still talking about faith in the axioms.

 

[Hurkyl]

But we should remember, of course, that the word "science" has two popular definitions. One is "how people with science degrees often behave" and the other is "using logic to obtain the truth". These are certainly different things and we should not mix those definitions in our dialog without specifying which definition we mean.

We should use neither -- we should be using an accurate definition of science.

 

[Rade]

We should use neither -- we should be using an accurate definition of science.

Science = uncertain knowledge. There is no faith in science.

 

[baywax]

I'm not familiar enough with the history of these particular things (for example, what known facts might have been ignored and for how long) to know the degree of guilt in the medical community, but I'm sure there is some guilt. I can think of worse crimes though, and your point is taken. But we should remember, of course, that the word "science" has two popular definitions. One is "how people with science degrees often behave" and the other is "using logic to obtain the truth". These are certainly different things and we should not mix those definitions in our dialog without specifying which definition we mean. (I'm not suggestion you were trying to mix them--I just wanted to make the point). So the title of this thread can be interpreted using either or both definitions. If the first definition, obviously people with science degrees often have faith in some assumption that contradicts presently known fact. If the second definition, we're still talking about faith in the axioms.

Yes, I'm simply pointing out that people have faith... science only has (known) facts. The unknown simply can't be banked on until it is brought to light.

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.

 

[fleem]

We should use neither -- we should be using an accurate definition of science.

Correct. And I wish we would! Its just that I often meet people (more IRL than in these forums) that mix the two definitions as if they are one, and it is frustrating. Its the "Since scientists often ignore the facts, science is bad" sort of attitude. Of course, they aren't scientists when they ignore facts.

 

[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.