Is Science Just Another Belief System?

[selfAdjoint]

Locrian
Okay, delete the word all and insert "many" or "most."
The point is still valid. Much of our knowledge, scientific or not is ultimately based on faith in that it is not proved or is not provable

Some theorists have an overweening faith in their own research programs, whithout any support from experiment. But it is not the case that "science believes" this, but rather that some scientists believe it. And other scientists are not shy about proclaiming the emperor is naked. Science is a human enterprise and the cultural anthropology of scientists is not much different from that of any other group, or for that matter, from chimpanzees.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You are making the common mistake of confusing philosophical interpretations and assumptions (which are routinely tossed for new ones) with scientific theorems, which are much more often still in use even after newer ones come along.

Come to think of it, it is you who are making a mistake here. You are confusing Newton's equations with Newton's theory. Newton's equations are still used in engineering applications. Not because they are correct, but because the errors are dwarfed by other sources of error in the application. Newton's equations of motion are only correct when there is no motion and his equations of gravity are only correct when there is no gravity. The real world does not work according to Newton's theory. Newton's theory is not used in the study of gravitation, except as a sanity check for weak field solutions where the errors in Newton's equations are expected to be small.

 

[Royce]

Some theorists have an overweening faith in their own research programs, without any support from experiment. But it is not the case that "science believes" this, but rather that some scientists believe it. And other scientists are not shy about proclaiming the emperor is naked. Science is a human enterprise and the cultural anthropology of scientists is not much different from that of any other group, or for that matter, from chimpanzees.

Agreed. I can't see, at least at the moment, how any human endeavorer could proceed or succeed without having some faith in it. As I said faith is not a bad thing nor does it lessen in anyway the integrity or validity of ones life or work. In the absence of absolute proof we are forced to go on with the belief that the basic laws and assumptions are true. Even Euclid could not have accomplished anything the without accepting his assumptions were true at least for the case he was studying.

Again I am not talking about religious faith in a god or book. I'm talking about belief and/or acceptance as true in something without proof. This is the definition of faith. As so many have said here, science has no absolute truths and science is based on a few assumptions such as the laws of physics are everywhere consistent. This makes science faith based, not proven fact based as so many would have us believe. In fact that belief is itself faith, faith in science.

 

[russ_watters]

How quaint it would seem if we read someone's statement from 100 years ago:

We would smile and say "He didn't know what he thought he knew." Got anything else?

What's the problem? The existing theory of gravity 100 years ago was correct about the buggy whip! The fact that it was not correct for other things is not relevant here because I did not say that it was correct for other things.

I repeat (the other way around, now): just because a scientist says science knows some things, he is not saying that science knows everything.

More later...

 

[Locrian]

Come to think of it, it is you who are making a mistake here. You are confusing Newton's equations with Newton's theory. Newton's equations are still used in engineering applications. Not because they are correct, but because the errors are dwarfed by other sources of error in the application.

All theories are only correct within whatever limits of measurement are involved. This does not invalidate any of them, including the equations we're discussing here. Newton's theory of gravity works within the regime it was tested in - which is all that can be asked of it - and your argument that we would view it as invalid within that area today is simply wrong.

Newton's equations of motion are only correct when there is no motion and his equations of gravity are only correct when there is no gravity.

This makes no sense. Newtons "equations of motion" (whatever you think you are referring to here) are valid in many cases where there is motion, and operate in some cases where there is gravity as well.

 

[Locrian]

The issue my posts are concerned with is not reasonable certainty. The issue is certainty.

Of course there isn't any difference when discussing science. If I've suprised you by bringing something reasonable to your argument, you have my apologies - if you'd prefer, why don't you discuss something unreasonable, such as absolute certainty? If you chose to do so you could quickly backpedal into a hypocritical epistemological wasteland and declare victory.

I certainly wouldn't stop you, though I might comment amusedly from the wayside.

 

[Locrian]

I find it... interesting... how many times this same https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56101", with tiny variations. Not that I'm not guilty of doing that from time to time I suppose.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What we know, we know, and what we don't know, we admit we don't know!

More like: What we reasonably know, we know. When does the admitting begin?

 

[russ_watters]

More like: What we reasonably know, we know. When does the admitting begin?

Go to the string theory forum and ask how strong the theory is - people there will readily admit that it is a weak one. Pick an appropriate forum and ask about the mechanism for gravity - people will readily admit there isn't one. Go to the Biology forum and ask about abiogenesis. People there will readily admit it is still highly speculative.

 

[Smurf]

But that doesn't make science a faith, it just means science isn't finished yet.

Is christianity finished yet?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Go to the string theory forum and ask how strong the theory is - people there will readily admit that it is a weak one.

When do you admit that you don't know what law governs a falling object, just the latest approximation. I'm putting you on notice, until you do, I think you are treating gravitation as if it were religion. Or at least as if it were string theory.

 

[russ_watters]

Is christianity finished yet?

Yes - and that is why it is a flawed way of exploring the natural world.

When do you admit that you don't know what law governs a falling object, just the latest approximation. I'm putting you on notice, until you do, I think you are treating gravitation as if it were religion. Or at least as if it were string theory. [emphasis added]

Huh? "Law"? You say that like that's a flaw in science. Jimmy, you fundamentally misunderstand the point of science: the point of science is to find better and better approximations of those natural laws. We know that our theories are probably only approximations of - if you like the analogy - laws that God has written on a stone tablet somwhere. That doesn't make them wrong or mean they aren't useful.

Once again, when I dropped my remote, it hit the ground. For that limited application, the existing theory of gravity is correct. I *know* that when I drop my remote - every time I drop my remote - it will hit the ground.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I *know* that when I drop my remote - every time I drop my remote - it will hit the ground.

This is different from your earlier statement. For one thing, now there are stars around the word 'know'. Why is that? Also, you have removed the phrase "as predicted by our current theory of gravity" even though it was this phrase that I had focused on. Why is that?

The original.

I know that when I dropped my remote, it fell to the ground, as predicted by our current theory of gravity.

[sorry - accidentally hit the edit button. -Russ]

 

[russ_watters]

This is different from your earlier statement. For one thing, now there are stars around the word 'know'. Why is that? Also, you have removed the phrase "as predicted by our current theory of gravity" even though it was this phrase that I had focused on. Why is that?

I'm adding emphasis, and rewording to see if you'll get it if it is phrased differently, that's all. I apparently need to do this because you are either ignoring or simply don't understand what I am saying.

You are not addressing my points, jimmysnyder. Your original response to that quote (post 20) didn't say anything useful, it was just a snide remark that utterly ignored/missed the content of my statement. No, you didn't focus on that phrase - you didn't even specifically cite it! Stop with the one-liners and make a reasoned argument for whatever your point is.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

No, you didn't focus on that phrase.

Yes. I did.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You are not addressing my points, jimmysnyder.

You make many points that I do not address. You make one point that I do address and I neither ignore nor misunderstand that point. You claim to know something. That alone makes me suspicious, as I only know one thing myself.

What is more, the thing that you claim to know is that matter in the real world falls according to our current understanding of gravity. I consider this a confusion between reality and model. I hope you understand my posts. But you removed that phrase from your latest version of what you know. I point that out because it looks to me like that which you knew last week, you no longer know this week. This is not how I use the word know. I don't put stars on it.

 

[russ_watters]

You make one point that I do address and I neither ignore nor misunderstand that point.

I really think you do, and by not elaborating on what you mean or discussing my follow-up points, you leave me nothing else to go on.

You claim to know something. That alone makes me suspicious,

Why?

...as I only know one thing myself.

What do you know and Why? You don't even know that the last time you dropped something, it hit the floor?

You aren't explaining yourself at all, here. These little one-liner jabs are not an argumet, jimmysnyder.

What is more, the thing that you claim to know is that matter in the real world falls according to our current understanding of gravity. I consider this a confusion between reality and model. I hope you understand my posts.

The only confusion I see is yours. This issue is pretty simple:

Einstein's (and Newton's) gravity predicted my remote would fall: prediction
My remote fell: reality
Conclusion: Einstein's/Newton's predictions were correct and therefore the theories are correct for this domain of applicability.

Therefore, I know that Einstein's and Newton's gravity accurately predicted my remote would fall.

But you removed that phrase from your latest version of what you know. I point that out because it looks to me like that which you knew last week, you no longer know this week.

No. That isn't what I was getting at at all.

This is not how I use the word know. I don't put stars on it.

Fine. Explain how you do use it!

I see three different uses, one for knowing what the theory says, one for knowing that the result happened, and one for knowing that the result matched the theory. The dictionary has 3 definitions that seem relevant to me:

1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.

-When I say I "know" my remote fell to the ground, that's definition 1. I directly perceived that my remote fell to the ground.
-When I say I "know" Newton's gravity predicted it would fall to the ground, that's #3. I understand that Newton's gravity predicts that the remote will fall to the ground.
-When I say I "know" that Newton's gravity is correct, that means I regard it as true beyond doubt, for this case, that the predictions matched the theory.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What do you know

I know one thing. The thing that I know is that I don't know any other thing.

and Why?

Because I am a skeptic. It's not that I doubt this or that piece of information, it is that I doubt my own ability to discern what is true and what is not true. Did you ever have a falling dream? I have. I dreamt that I was falling and it was real to me. Perhaps it was Newtonian or perhaps it was relativistic but I knew it was real and it was TRUE! But I awoke and it wasn't true after all. Dormio, ergo dubito. Science is different from religion, not because of its knowledge, but because of its doubt.

 

[quantumdude]

I know one thing. The thing that I know is that I don't know any other thing.

You seem to be arguing from a different epistemological framework than Russ is. According to the definition of knowledge that he gave, I do not see any reason to doubt his claim to knowledge.

Can you give a brief rundown of your theory of knowledge?

Because I am a skeptic.

That begs the question: Why aren't you skeptical about the one article of knowledge that you do claim to have?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That begs the question:

Look up the phrase "Begs the question" in a dictionary that has a definition for it and post what it says there.

 

[quantumdude]

OK, I've misused the phrase. I hope you don't use that as an excuse to ignore the other things I said.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

According to the definition of knowledge that he gave, I do not see any reason to doubt his claim to knowledge.

Then don't. But if religion is also allowed to use his definition then the difference between science and religion disappears.

Can you give a brief rundown of your theory of knowledge?

Probably not. However, I feel that you couldn't know if things always fall unless your experiment involved dropping all things. But even then, how would you know if it wasn't a time dependent phenomenon that won't continue in the future?

Why aren't you skeptical about the one article of knowledge that you do claim to have?

You got me there. I no longer make the claim. I don't see how whittling me down from one piece of knowledge to none strengthens the case that I know plenty. If I don't know that I don't know, it leaves open the possibility that I know something, but not the certainty. And it gives no clue as to what the thing is that I might know. If I had to pick one, then it would be that I exist, not that things always fall. But again, it's not that I definitely know something, just that I might.

Why isn't the Science Book Reviews subforum (under the Academic & Career Guidance forum) visible from the main page?

 

[Son Goku]

Does trusting empiricism or the ability of our models to reflect reality actual make science a faith system though?

Yes, I'm going on gut instinct by believing that science can actually describe the world, however I don't think that level of "trust" can be genuinely called faith.

We can argue if the fields that come under the noun "Science" have properties which allow them to be slotted under the category "Faith system", but all we've done is argue the particulars of the English language.

If Science does require "Faith" of any kind, it is an extremely weak form of Faith that simply amounts to acknowledging that the bedrock principles of science aren't provable, but deciding to go with it anyway.

 

[russ_watters]

Jimmy, sorry, but this discussion is going nowhere. You're being pedantic (imagine me, the forum pedant saying that!) to the point where you aren't discussing anything. You aren't explaining what you find wrong with my point of view, and you refuse to explain your point of view. So I'm out, and my previous assessment remains: that you don't understand what "science" is or what it's point is.

 

[russ_watters]

Final thought...

Does trusting empiricism or the ability of our models to reflect reality actual make science a faith system though?
Yes, I'm going on gut instinct by believing that science can actually describe the world, however I don't think that level of "trust" can be genuinely called faith.

Fairly minor quibble: Trusting in empiricism is only necessary for the future, not the past. For the past, we have data, so we can say with certainty that we know empiricism has worked in the past. And though I guess I can see why you would consider it trust, going forward, I'd call it a matter of probability.

A specific scientist pursuing a specific line of research should have a probability of success calculated in the back of his mind, with which he weighed his career choice. If a scientist thought there was only a 25% chance of success, but a huge reward if he succeeded, he may still go for it. Add up all the science being done, though, and you end up with a daily probability of near 100% that something will happen to advance science today.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Why aren't you skeptical about the one article of knowledge that you do claim to have?

You got me there. I no longer make the claim.

Tch, Jimmy. Why didn't you just say "I don't know"? It was the answer predicted by your own claim!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Tch, Jimmy. Why didn't you just say "I don't know"? It was the answer predicted by your own claim!

Because if I want people to agree with me that I know something, then I will have to agree that they do. I prefer to back down.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You're being pedantic (imagine me, the forum pedant saying that!) to the point where you aren't discussing anything.

It turns out that we are not the only pedants. The Wiki page for Epistemology (thank Tim for the vocabulary) speaks of skepticism in nearly the same terms I do (a matter of not trusting oneself). As for the current understanding of gravity, Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", is the same kind of pedant. He points out that the variables in Newton's equations of motion are not the same as those in Einstein's. For instance, for Newton, mass is a conserved quantity. Time and space are absolute.

To this, I add that Newton's equations are not even valid in their so-called range of applicability. You can't mean that nature follows two laws of gravity, Einstein for Mercury and Newton for the other planets.

Newton's equation for planitary orbits agrees with Einstein's equation except for a term quadratic in the velocity. Only when the term is zero, i.e. only when the velocity is zero do the equations even superficially agree. This is why I say: Newton's equations of motion are only correct when there is no motion. Newton's equations also assume a flat space and time. But in the presence of matter spacetime is not flat. So Newton's equations of gravity are only correct when there is no matter, i.e. when there is no gravity.

As for not discussing anything, I am discussing your statement "What we know, we know, and what we don't know we admit". When I asked you what science knows, the answer was that things fall according to the current theory of gravity. I can't imagine a universe that obeys any of our obviously flawed theories. You may not agree, but to say that it isn't anything seems an unfair and unanswerable charge.

 

[Critical_Pedagogy]

Hello,
A friend of mine has a very bitter attitude towards science. We've had numerous arguments and his main reason for this bitterness is that science is just another faith system, kinda like a religion. I failed to convince him that unlike faith, science's strength is the fact that it is backed up by experiments, but nonetheless he always managed to defend his point. I know that our argument is purely formal and more of a play on words than anything else, but I would still like to prove my point.
So his claim is that I believe the different theories of physics just because I go to class and my professors or my textbooks tell me so, which is no different than going to church and believing what a preacher says there. But I said that unlike the church, I am able to check what I am being told through scientific experiments. So he asked me: Do you believe in the theory of gravity and I said yes and told him that I can give him a lot of experimental evidence. So he asked me, well what if someone tells you that an object falls downward because it is god's will, then it is very easy to construct a hypothesis that could be tested with millions of experiements and every time it will prove that the hypothesis that god's will makes objects fall is always correct !
I argued saying that in this case all that you've done was give gravity a different name (i.e. god's will)...but you can find other situations where this reasoning doesn't work too good.
How can you argue against that?

find another friend

 

[loseyourname]

Look up the phrase "Begs the question" in a dictionary that has a definition for it and post what it says there.

Oh, come on! It doesn't fit the technical definition of the informal logical fallacy known as "begging the question," but it certainly begs the question that he said it did.