Is Science Just Another Belief System?

[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 probabilty 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 probabilty 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.

 

[Smurf]

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

? If a thing has been "proven to work", then you have 0.0 % faith that it works, but you have some high percentage of uncertain knowledge that it works. For example, one does not hold by faith that gravity on Earth has been "proven to work", one holds it via knowledge gained by scientific method.

Sorry for taking awhile to respond, I just saw this.

You might not have understood my meaning. I am saying that faith grows in us naturally through our experiences, so there is experience-supported faith and blind faith (i.e., faith in that with which we have insufficient experience to warrant the level of faith we have).

There is no need to make faith and knowledge competitors, they are different things. Faith is really a certainty acquired from experiencing something consistently. I have faith the sun will dawn tomorrow. That doesn't mean I know it will, but it so consistently appears each morning that my faith is well established. It is similarly so with my meditation.

With conscious faith I rely on my accumulated experience with gravity, for example, to count on it to keep functioning so I can go about on this planet. With unconscious faith, say that I can fly if I pray hard enough, I might jump off a cliff to my death (unless I am lucky enough to have guessed correctly lacking any experience to base my faith on).

Likewise, one does not hold by faith that meditation has been proven to work, one holds it by knowledge gained via observation and experimentation on the human brain.

This is off topic, but you won't learn much about the experience of meditation through experimentation on the human brain.

I post again my philosophy on this: if what you hold to be true is based on 100 % faith, then you have 0.0 % knowledge of that which in reality is true.

Like I suggested above, this is non sequitur. Without faith you couldn't budge without worrying if something is going to work the way it has in the past. Without faith in empiricism, you couldn't continue to conduct your experiments. The empirical method produces knowledge, and faith is what allows you to trust the epistemology you are using.

 

[Rade]

There is no need to make faith and knowledge competitors, they are different things. Faith is really a certainty acquired from experiencing something consistently. I have faith the sun will dawn tomorrow. That doesn't mean I know it will, but it so consistently appears each morning that my faith is well established...The empirical method produces knowledge, and faith is what allows you to trust the epistemology you are using.

I find that you confuse "faith" with "reason". For example, I do not hold by faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, I hold it by reason. What is reason ? Reason is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by human senses" (Ayn Rand). Clearly my lifelong observations of rising sun as a material object is provided to me by my senses and I have integrated these longterm facts via reason into a predictable pattern---0.0 % faith involved in the thought process, 100 % reason; but as you state, less than 100 % certainty (knowledge), which thus allows for a definition of science, e.g., knowledge without certainty. It is "reason" that allows me to trust the epistomology that I use, not faith. Clearly you base YOUR epistomology on "faith" (which is defined by Webster as "unquestioned belief" ) and not "reason", but I do not follow your philosophic bent.

 

[deepak9191]

what i think is that faith and experimentationare just 2 sides of a coin. there are people who use their brains in investigation and there are people who are centralised on their hearts to think. faith is just a measure to console yourself if your mind/ brain doesn't work. i recently heard that a man crucified himself and his wounds healed in an hour. that was the power of faith but this certainly can be the power of some new science tomorrow. so faith and science are equally powerful but it depends on your working frame, your center of thinking, that which side you feel.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I find that you confuse "faith" with "reason". For example, I do not hold by faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, I hold it by reason. What is reason ? Reason is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by human senses" (Ayn Rand). Clearly my lifelong observations of rising sun as a material object is provided to me by my senses and I have integrated these longterm facts via reason into a predictable pattern---0.0 % faith involved in the thought process, 100 % reason; but as you state, less than 100 % certainty (knowledge), which thus allows for a definition of science, e.g., knowledge without certainty. It is "reason" that allows me to trust the epistomology that I use, not faith.

Singling out a narrow meaning of faith doesn't allow for much of a philosophical discussion. The word is derived from the Latin fidere, meaning "to trust" or more accurately, to "bide." To bide is to continue some state or condition, specifically because one trusts that state or condition from past experience with it. Admittedly, today faith has come to be associated with religion or religious-like belief. But whether we acknowledge it or not, everyone acts on faith in things they don't know are absolutely certain will continue because there is very little that we can know absolutely.

Your claim that it's all reason for you makes no sense. Are you saying that every morning you awaken before dawn you reason out the probability that the sun will soon be present? Do you put on layers of polar fleece just in case it's gone missing? Haven't you learned to trust reality in those ways that it has been consistent, or do you have to reason out every single time why reality should be some way? When we take actions without 100% knowledge that reality is waiting as it always has, we have lept into darkness to one degree or another. And if you don't reason out every single step you take like that, then I am defining your trust in reasonable probabilities as faith.

I am not arguing against reason in any way here; I am merely suggesting that there can be reasonable faith and ignorant faith, and that in fact reasonable people regularly act on faith/trust that reality will continue as it has. Also, if we have experience with something that has worked consistently in one area, it can give us reason to trust it to work in another related area.

Clearly you base YOUR epistomology on "faith" (which is defined by Webster as "unquestioned belief" ) and not "reason", but I do not follow your philosophic bent.

Have I failed to reason with you or anyone else around here? I am simply pointing out that science gives us reason to both have faith that it will continue to produce results in areas it already has, and that it deserve faith it will produce results in kindred areas where it hasn't been tested yet. From things you've said it seems you'd like the idea of reason-based faith.

 

[Rade]

what i think is that faith and experimentationare just 2 sides of a coin. there are people who use their brains in investigation and there are people who are centralised on their hearts to think. faith is just a measure to console yourself if your mind/ brain doesn't work.

It is my view that when someone says that they hold something true "from the heart", (rather than mind), what they are saying is that they function at the level of "perception", which is a neurological process that occurs within the primitive vertebrate brain stem (often called the reptilian brain). When you hold something "from the heart" you hold it 100 % via faith (which is defined by Webster as "unquestioned belief"). There is no integration of what you preceive via consciousness and reason to the next level, which is concept formation. Thus, I do not agree with you that "faith" and "reason" are two sides of the same coin, they are in my philosophy two different coins (penny and one dollar). I do agree with you that "faith" does provide comfort when as you say "your mind/brain does not work" (which is the conceptual process of reason that I refer to above), but definitions are critical to this discussion, faith is unquestioned belief, whereas reason always involves a process of thinking.

 

[Rade]

Singling out a narrow meaning of faith doesn't allow for much of a philosophical discussion.

I disagree. Narrow and clear "definitions" of "concepts" are critical to philosophic discussions. As you know, most likely all disagreements between philosophies derive from lack of agreement on definitions. "Faith" and "reason" are two completely different concepts and have two non-contradictory definitions, yet here you attempt to build a philosophy where you mix the two into a new concept that you call "reason-based faith". However, I hold that such a concept is a contradiction of terms, thus no logical argument can be derived from it. Sorry if you disagree, but this is what makes philosophy so interesting...the fact that you can build if you wish a philosophic bent based on a contradiction, but of course many such philosophies exist thoughout history (witness Hagel and his dialectic which demands that only contradictory reality exists).

But whether we acknowledge it or not, everyone acts on faith in things they don't know are absolutely certain will continue because there is very little that we can know absolutely.

Again, I hold this to be false. As I stated in my previous post, "everyone" does not act on "faith" in things they don't know (you do use the word "everyone"). I would suggest that more than a few people act on pure "reason", yet clearly YOU act on some mixture of reason-faith whatever it my be (which is OK with me), it is just not how I act. Note: I do not agree with the argument of Kant and his objection to the possibility of pure reason, perhaps another thread.

Are you saying that every morning you awaken before dawn you reason out the probability that the sun will soon be present? Do you put on layers of polar fleece just in case it's gone missing? Haven't you learned to trust reality in those ways that it has been consistent, or do you have to reason out every single time why reality should be some way? And if you don't reason out every single step you take like that, then I am defining your trust in reasonable probabilities as faith.

Here again, you confuse action based on faith (which is defined as unquestioned belief) with action based on reason (which always has some level of questioning going on). When I say that I hold from reason the thought that the sun will rise, I mean what I say, no faith is involved. Personally, I have not seen many sun rise events, but the few I have observed I recall that my counsciouness mind was very active in anticipation of the raising event in time and place on the horizon, and it is not clear to me that, for a moment of time, I did not think such a thought as (wow, what if today the sun does not rise). Let me provide another example of how pure reason is involved in the experience of future objects raising...I recently traveled by airplane, and in anticipation of the plane rising event you can be sure that I did not hold by any "faith" whatsoever that it would rise, there was a full mental integration of reasoning going on of the very small probability involved that it would NOT rise. It was pure reason alone that allowed me to put my head back and close my eyes during take off. If I were a religious person, I could see how this pure reasoning event could even lead to prayer, which in this situation for me would thus be an action from pure reason, not faith. Now, like you, I do not attack faith based action any more than you attack reason based action. I see around me many people that act via 100 % faith and refuse to activate reason in the choices they take.

From things you've said it seems you'd like the idea of reason-based faith.

Goodness no, this is a statement derived from a contradiction of terms, such a concept does not exist in my philosophy, that is, contradictory logic cannot be the basis of a philosophy worthy of humans.

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . faith (which is defined by Webster as "unquestioned belief") . . . definitions are critical to this discussion, faith is unquestioned belief, whereas reason always involves a process of thinking.

If you were as philosophically astute as you present yourself, then it seems you would know that dictionary definitions are not considered the defining standard for philosophy. Rather, the standard is to talk about something in the different ways it is actually related to by humans.

It is my view that when someone says that they hold something true "from the heart", (rather than mind), what they are saying is that they function at the level of "perception", which is a neurological process that occurs within the primitive vertebrate brain stem (often called the reptilian brain).

Well, you are entitled to your theories, but you apparently know nothing about the potentials of the "heart." One can feel, not with emotions, but simply by being sensitive to reality, and that feeling realm will teach one without reason ever having to enter into things. It is a completely different type of learning than what is done through reason, and not in conflict with the reasoning process either.

When you hold something "from the heart" you hold it 100 % via faith. . .There is no integration of what you preceive via consciousness and reason to the next level, which is concept formation. Thus, I do not agree with you that "faith" and "reason" are two sides of the same coin, they are in my philosophy two different coins (penny and one dollar).

Nonsense. What is "held" from the heart can be totally based on experience. The heart can "know" just as well (better if you ask me) as the intellect can.

 

[Royce]

As I posted much earlier Merriam Webster On line defines "faith" as belief without proof not "unquestioned belief" which is far to narrow. Never the less even that narrow of a definition does not preclude reasoning, feeling or knowing. If one knows something one no longer questions it. As an Example none of us question that 2+2=4 yet few of us could prove it or even understand the number theory that can prove it providing one accepts (believes without question) certain assumptions and axioms. Rade, your position is every bit as much faith based, faith that your position is true and reasonable without question, as any belief system reasoned or not.

 

[reasonmclucus]

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.

Unfortunately, scientists haven't been limiting themselves to those subjects which involve verification through experimentation and observation. Moreover there is a tendency for some scientists to make the strongest claims for "theories" that are the least susceptible to verification. For example, I support the basic idea of the Big Bang, but recognize that other possibilities exist including the steady state model supported by Fred Hoyle and the Burbidges.

Many scientists fail to recognize that a higher level intelligence might not be detectable directly. God or Gaia would be more likely to use existing physical processes rather than change them for specific situations.

 

[reasonmclucus]

But that doesn't make science a faith, it just means science isn't finished yet. Huh? Wait - when science doesn't know something - when evidence hasn't been found or a theory hasn't been worked out yet, scientists admit they don't know. Scientists do not revert to faith in that situation (except in that they someday will figure it out, but again, that isn't the same thing). You're citing a difference and calling it a similarity! No. What we know, we know, and what we don't know, we admit we don't know! We do not claim to know what we don't know. The very word "theory" means 'tentative explanation awaiting confirmation'. A scientist can't be acting on faith unless he is actually lying when he uses the word!

Scientists have been reverting to faith for beliefs about the origins of the universe and biological life on Earth neither of which can be verified through observation or experimentation. I don't believe that some E.T. brought biological life to earth, but recognize that the hypothesis is at least as valid as claims by both evolutionists and creationists that life developed on Earth rather than being brought from some other planet.

Faith is also used for claims that CO2 is causing global warming. I have yet to see anyone present scientific evidence to support the claim. Such evidence would include calculations of the energy radiated by the Earth that is absorbed and converted to heat by CO2 molecules. Instead of presenting such evidence advocates talk about how indirect measurements of past climatic conditions supposedly prove their theory.

 

[reasonmclucus]

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.

So why do some insist that Darwinism must be taught as proven fact in public schools instead of allowing questions including Intelligent Design which only questions the aspect of Darwinism that involves life developing without the intervention of some Intelligence? Many advocates of I.D. such as Michael Behe believe in a Darwinist type development process.

Personally I don't believe the issue of origin of life should be taught in public schools because there is insufficient data to make it anything close to being science.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Is there a "law of gravity"? It is a fact that if you drop something near the Earth's surface it will fall toward the earth. The concepts that attempt to explain what happens are theories. What counts with the scientific theories are how well they predict what happens, not what they suggest are the causes of the actions.

Einstein suggested that gravity warped space. Perhaps it is mass that warps space and the warpage causes objects to move toward each other.

 

[Rade]

If you were as philosophically astute as you present yourself, then it seems you would know that dictionary definitions are not considered the defining standard for philosophy. Rather, the standard is to talk about something in the different ways it is actually related to by humans.

I am here at the forum not to present myself, but to learn. I am not a professional philosopher, never claimed such. I like to think, I like to think about why I think. I like to argue with people when I do not understand how or why they think. Nothing is standard in philosophy, you may say "good morning" to me, I will begin an argument. I hold that definitions and concepts go hand in hand (we can argue about which dictionary we all should use), but that ALL concepts MUST BE defined. Now, definitions may change over time as we gain new information about the concept, but the essence of the concept must be maintained by the new definition, otherwise a new concept emerges. Perhaps what you say is true, but I do not agree with this point of view about the importance of definitions and their relationship to concepts

Well, you are entitled to your theories, but you apparently know nothing about the potentials of the "heart." One can feel, not with emotions, but simply by being sensitive to reality, and that feeling realm will teach one without reason ever having to enter into things. It is a completely different type of learning than what is done through reason, and not in conflict with the reasoning process either.

But what you just said is my theory. That is, when you say the human heart is "sensitive to reality", that is my theory of the reptilian heart that exists within the human mind, which allows neurons to be "sensitive" (via pure perception, no reason) to "reality" (that which exists out there). And I agree, this type of "learning" is completely different than what is done via reason since reason involves concept formation conducted by the consciousness and this process is not found in the reptilian brain area of the human mind.

Nonsense. What is "held" from the heart can be totally based on experience. The heart can "know" just as well (better if you ask me) as the intellect can.

Again we agree, what is held by the reptilian brain (your concept of heart) is of course 100 % from experience, and clearly we gain knowledge via pure perception, in the same way the modern reptiles (turtles, snakes, etc.) gain "knowledge" of reality. But I would not take the position that knowledge gained via pure perception as being "better" than knowledge gained from concept formation, e.g., the process of differentiating and integrating pure perception into concepts, but it is an interesting thing to think about. Does not the mathematician that identifies a new proof never known to mankind using intellect get the same type of mental rush as the mystic that allows only the beauty of a sunset to enter his reptilian brain (your heart) as pure perception ? I read that Tesla was sitting on a park bench when the concept of the alternating current came to him while he was inventing new gear ratios in his mind, he described the experience as overwheming. Thus, perhaps an interesting question is if the sensational experience of pure perception (from your concept of heart, my concept of reptilian brain) is really any different than the sensation of pure conception (from the consciousness via intellect) ?

 

[Rade]

Rade, your position is every bit as much faith based, faith that your position is true and reasonable without question, as any belief system reasoned or not.

I just do not agree. I take nothing on faith (which you claim to be reasonable knowledge without question). For me, knowledge is always gained "with question", thus no faith involved. If you hold something in your mind to be true without question, you have 0.0 % knowledge of what you hold. As to axoims used in philosophy, they are not held without a priori questioning, only after the fact of the mental exercise involved in their formation (which includes much questioning to serve as a proof of the argument) does the axiom (or plural) emerge and you just say, OK, I start my philosophy from here, this concept is a logical "given"...but this has nothing to do with faith (unquestioned belief, or belief without proof).

 

[Blahness]

*pops into topic*
You know why science is not faith-based? You can test it!
*pops out*

 

[Royce]

Blahness, we can test any belief system, religion, philosophy or science. As an example faith healing works, not always but it does work and can be verified. There are those who swear that prayer works regardless of who or what they may pray to, tested and verified by them. There are those who know that meditation works wonders, tested and verified.

No its not tested in a Lab by "scientists." Its tested in real life and has been for thousands of years by thousands of peoples.

Are you going to tell us that since it wasn't in a lab done by scientists that it doesn't count?

Test it yourself. It may take as long to get results as it does to get a PHD in science or even longer.

 

[Royce]

I just do not agree. I take nothing on faith

Every time you read a scientific paper or book by an author you may know only by reputation, every time you attend a class and learn from a professor or teacher that you don't know personally you are acting on faith. Faith that what you read and learn is true.

(which you claim to be reasonable knowledge without question).

I claim no such thing. That is why your definition is not just too narrow and inadequate it is wrong. Faith is rarely unquestioned. Every major religion on Earth has thousands of books and papers written about it yet every religion is faith based by definition.

Faith is belief without proof. If you believe in the Big Bang Theory, it is an act of faith. If you believe in string theory, it is an act of faith and if you believe in gravitational theory (not just the mechanics of gravity) then that too is an act of faith.

For me, knowledge is always gained "with question", thus no faith involved.

Then our beliefs, Les' and mine for instance, is also not faith based.

As to axioms used in philosophy, they are not held without a priori questioning, only after the fact of the mental exercise involved in their formation (which includes much questioning to serve as a proof of the argument) does the axiom (or plural) emerge and you just say, OK, I start my philosophy from here, this concept is a logical "given"...but this has nothing to do with faith (unquestioned belief, or belief without proof).

From Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

axiom

Main Entry: ax·i·om
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

Belief without proof - Faith.

 

[Son Goku]

Royce, I don't disagree with anything you said in particular, but this whole argument invokes a feeling of "So?".

Yes, I am going on faith that results from the LIGO are real, that results from binary neutron star collision are real, e.t.c.

However it is an extremely weak form of faith, so much so that it doesn't matter.

Yes, Science is a faith system, but in such a weak way, being a faith system is very far down on its list of qualities.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Every time you read a scientific paper or book by an author you may know only by reputation, every time you attend a class and learn from a professor or teacher that you don't know personally you are acting on faith. Faith that what you read and learn is true.

False. When I did Newtonian mechanics I knew it was just an approximation of relativistic mechanics at low speeds. So tell me what exactly I was taking on faith.

Faith is belief without proof. If you believe in the Big Bang Theory, it is an act of faith. If you believe in string theory, it is an act of faith and if you believe in gravitational theory (not just the mechanics of gravity) then that too is an act of faith.

True. The difference is that no professor worth his salt would demand that you 'believe' the big bang theory, general relativity, and certainly not string theory. If you incorporate that into your own personal belief system, that's your prerogative, but that is not science and it is not what you will (should) be taught.

What you are expected to do is to accept that the big bang theory and the general theory of relativity have evidence supporting them and so are worthwhile and acceptable theories. If you are studying string theory, you're expected to accept why string theory may be worthwhile. No faith involved.

 

[russ_watters]

False. When I did Newtonian mechanics I knew it was just an approximation of relativistic mechanics at low speeds. So tell me what exactly I was taking on faith.

Royce is talking about faith in the sense of trust - trust that the writer of the paper didn't falsify his data, trust that your professor knows what he's talking about, etc.

He's right, but that's irrelevant to the conversation (and we've been over it before - and others, like son goku have noted: so what?): this trust/faith in people being honest with you has nothing at all to do with the process of the scientific method and is not necessary anyway, because anyone can, if they choose, repeat scientific experiments for themselves. That is distinctly different from religious trust/faith in that you have to trust the various writers of the Bible (for example) that they weren't pulling your chain and you have absolutely no way to personally verify that they aren't. It is also a triviality for science, because it doesn't just require any scientist to be lying to you, but every scientist in the history of science must be a co-conspirator in an effort to deceive only you for that trust in science itself to be violated. And that isn't even physically possible.

I don't have to trust that Newton and Einstein and everyone else who helped formulate celestial mechanics wasn't pulling my chain - I was a navigator in the navy and I calculated the position of the sun and stars myself! And they were where they were supposed to be. I also own a telescope with computer guidance and it is verifying those same theories every time I use it.

 

[russ_watters]

Blahness, we can test any belief system, religion, philosophy or science. As an example faith healing works, not always but it does work and can be verified. There are those who swear that prayer works regardless of who or what they may pray to, tested and verified by them. There are those who know that meditation works wonders, tested and verified.
No its not tested in a Lab by "scientists." Its tested in real life and has been for thousands of years by thousands of peoples.
Are you going to tell us that since it wasn't in a lab done by scientists that it doesn't count?
Test it yourself. It may take as long to get results as it does to get a PHD in science or even longer.

That post is riddled with contradictions and is just plain wrong in general. If faith healing doesn't work consistently or predictably, then it doesn't work by an objective criteria, it is simplly a matter of...well...faith. If it works once in a hundred times, that is not a successful "test" - it is still only a matter of faith that it was the faith healing that caused the effect seen, because there is no way to positively correlate the two - as you said, it can't be tested in an objective way...

...As a matter of fact, though, it's a little worse than that: these things can and are objectively, scientifically tested (you can test anything using the scientific method) and they fail. So really what you are saying is that successful tests only occur if you remove the requirement that the test be objective and scientific! Well sure - when I dropped my remote on the floor, I can certainly call that a successful test of my new "hand-of-god" faith system, but that doesn't make it true!

More to the point:

Are you going to tell us that since it wasn't in a lab done by scientists that it doesn't count?

YES! Jeez, this whole argument (again) comes down to people who are trying to knock science down a peg saying faith can be tested while simultaneously saying that science requires faith. Besides being self-contradictory on several levels, it's just plain wrong.

Royce, please tell me how I can independently verify that the writer of the book of Job in the bible didn't just make the whole story up after drinking some contaminated beer. That is true faith - faith in something that is completely unverifiable.

 

[Royce]

YES! Jeez, this whole argument (again) comes down to people who are trying to knock science down a peg saying faith can be tested while simultaneously saying that science requires faith. Besides being self-contradictory on several levels, it's just plain wrong.
Royce, please tell me how I can independently verify that the writer of the book of Job in the bible didn't just make the whole story up after drinking some contaminated beer. That is true faith - faith in something that is completely unverifiable.

russ, that's exactly what I am trying to do " knock science down a peg."
Knock it down off of the Mount or Ivory Tower that so many people (young people here?) seem to have placed it. I'm trying to get people to open up their minds a bit. Science is not the "One and Only Truth" nor is it carved in granite and gilded with gold. It is a tool that we use to broaden and acquire knowledge. It can be and often has been wrong and will no doubt be found to be wrong again.

I am also trying to get people to realize that virtually everything we know is at some level based on faith as we do not and cannot do it all ourselves to verify the truth of it. There are those whose faith in science is just as blind and just as absolute as any Christian or Islamic fundamentalist. Just as with the religionists we don't dare to question that faith or belief in science without incurring their wrath just as Les and I and "the friend" have here in this thread and every time we dare question the sanctity and sacristy of the "Holy Grail of Science. Just reread your response to my post. Nothing I said contained a contradiction but since it wasn't science and since it is perceived that I am attacking the sacred cow of science then that warrants attack and false accusations. Nor does Science invalidate any other faith system nor does it prove or disprove anything about any religion or belief system as has been said here in the past.

 

[Royce]

Yes, Science is a faith system, but in such a weak way, being a faith system is very far down on its list of qualities.?

I agree that it is way down on the list but I disagree that it is such a weak way. There are those who belief science has supplanted every other human search for knowledge in importance and validity. They have replaced faith in a god or religion with their faith in science and technology relegating other forms of study to the trash bin as unworthy and not worthwhile.

Just as the attitude here of faith based systems of belief is even scorned and science is so far above all that nonsense. It isn't. Science too is faith based. It was in the beginning. It is now and always will be.

 

[Royce]

False. When I did Newtonian mechanics I knew it was just an approximation of relativistic mechanics at low speeds. So tell me what exactly I was taking on faith.

You are one of the lucky few. The first time I took a physics course in high school I'd never heard of Relativity. Later when I took physics in college I knew more about relativity than the instructor and Newtonian mechanics was taught as Gospel. Of course it was only a technical college so that probably doesn't count either.

True. The difference is that no professor worth his salt would demand that you 'believe' the big bang theory, general relativity, and certainly not string theory. If you incorporate that into your own personal belief system, that's your prerogative, but that is not science and it is not what you will (should) be taught.
What you are expected to do is to accept that the big bang theory and the general theory of relativity have evidence supporting them and so are worthwhile and acceptable theories. If you are studying string theory, you're expected to accept why string theory may be worthwhile. No faith involved.

Shhhhh! Not so loud the guys in the physics and cosmology forums might hear you. It's okay to talk like that here. We won't tell; but for God's sake don't go there and repeat this heresy.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Until religion can prove science wrong, i don't see the argument here. Science and reasoning (not to mention your eyes and the ability to see the night sky) prove religion wrong... and science can prove science wrong... science does seem to be on a taller mountain here, as it's the only thing that can give us the answers we desire, whether they be wrong or right, through testing. Religion is completely faith based... it's an ideology. If I were to claim i was Gods son in todays time and place... hung out with drunkards, told people to steal donkeys(cars) for me because "I am the Lord".. (contradiction? what happened to not stealing?) preched to people not to drunken their minds... but drank myself... and gave some wedding recipients enough wine to drunken themselves for a week at a time. Everyone would pretty much say I'm a crazy fool... Religion has emotional attatchments... that's the difference here... science does not. No one is scaremongered into believing science based on the belief that if they don't they're going to hell.

 

[Rade]

Every time you read a scientific paper or book by an author you may know only by reputation, every time you attend a class and learn from a professor or teacher that you don't know personally you are acting on faith. Faith that what you read and learn is true.

Sorry, I do not agree. All of these things I hold by "reason", none by "faith".

Faith is rarely unquestioned. Every major religion on Earth has thousands of books and papers written about it yet every religion is faith based by definition. Faith is belief without proof.

We go round and round with definitions here, you cannot just make a statement that "my definition is incorrect", thus logically I must accept that "your definition is correct". So, now I go to the Webster Unabridged Dictionary, and nowhere in any of the recognized meanings of the word by the English speaking people of the world, both past and present, do I find that "faith" = belief without proof. Here are the recognized definitions of the concept "faith" as found in the unabridged Webster:
1. unquestioned belief
2. unquestioned belief in god, religion, etc.
3. a religion
4. anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence
6. faithfulness, loyalty, allegiance
7. credibility or truth [rare]
Thus, "proof" is not a criterion of faith in any way.
Now, let me suggest that if I accept your definition faith = belief without proof, then using your argument I will offer that science = knowledge without proof. I hold this true following the logic of Popper that the methods of science never lead to a prove, only to a falsification. Now, if the above is held by reason, then we can conclude that science is never faith based, because faith is held by "belief" (by your definition) while science is held by knowledge (via Webster : science = scire = to know). Thus I conclude that, even though your definition of faith is logically incorrect, it is also a moot point vis-a-vis science even if held to be true. Thus I reach an answer to the question of this thread, "is science faith based"--the answer is no.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Faith is rarely unquestioned. Every major religion on Earth has thousands of books and papers written about it yet every religion is faith based by definition.
Faith is belief without proof. If you believe in the Big Bang Theory, it is an act of faith.
Belief without proof - Faith.

I agree. I support the basic concept of the Big Bang Theory, but not the popular model in which a perfect explosion or "expansion" creates a uniform disbursement of material. I recognize that the Theory must be accepted by faith because it cannot be verified through experimentation and observation.

Incidentally, the concept of the Big Bang didn't originate with 20th Century astronomers. It is mentioned in the Secrets of Enoch which also appears to be the original source of the Genesis account of creation.

 

[reasonmclucus]

(you can test anything using the scientific method)

I wish that were true. Reliable testing isn't always practical particularly in medicine. The complexity of the human body and differences between people mean that chemicals may have a different impact on different people, reducing the accuaracy of any test results.

 

[reasonmclucus]

There are those who belief science has supplanted every other human search for knowledge in importance and validity. They have replaced faith in a god or religion with their faith in science and technology relegating other forms of study to the trash bin as unworthy and not worthwhile.
Just as the attitude here of faith based systems of belief is even scorned and science is so far above all that nonsense. It isn't. Science too is faith based. It was in the beginning. It is now and always will be.

Such people fail to recognize that science is very limited in what it can study. For example, science can only reliably answer the question "What IS real?" the question "What WAS real?" cannot be dealt with scientifically because there is no way to experiment with the past. Science can only suggest possibilities that might or might have occurred. Science cannot make a definitive statement about how the universe can to exist or whether life was transferred to Earth by some E.T. or developed here without or without the assistance of some intelligence.

Science also cannot make reliable statements about the nature of the universe as a whole because of insufficient data. For example, science cannot say what is happening in distant parts of the universe in absolute time because data is limited to relative time. If a galaxy whose light is received 2 billion years after it left the galaxy began moving toward Earth a billion years ago, there will be no way for Earth scientists to determine that for another billion years.

Science cannot directly determine the existence of higher order beings such as the God of Abraham. If God is a higher dimensional being than any intervention into our physical dimensions would only exhibit the characteristics of our dimensions according to the math of higher dimensions. The actions of God would appear natural except perhaps for the timing of the actions.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Such people fail to recognize that science is very limited in what it can study. For example, science can only reliably answer the question "What IS real?" the question "What WAS real?" cannot be dealt with scientifically because there is no way to experiment with the past. Science can only suggest possibilities that might or might have occurred. Science cannot make a definitive statement about how the universe came to exist or whether life was transferred to Earth by some E.T. or developed here without or without the assistance of some intelligence.

Science also cannot make reliable statements about the nature of the universe as a whole because of insufficient data. For example, science cannot say what is happening in distant parts of the universe in absolute time because data is limited to relative time. If a galaxy whose light is received 2 billion years after it left the galaxy began moving toward Earth a billion years ago, there will be no way for Earth scientists to determine that for another billion years.

I don't agree with everything you say.. but skipping right ahead... i want to ask.. and religion can? And if science can prove "What IS real"... then why can't it prove "what is NOT real?" or was real... i don't get it. kind of contradictive. If you can prove what IS real... then you obviously are proving what is believed to be real...to be wrong.. or in this case... what ->WAS<- believed to be real. We can never prove what WAS real right... that's why we cannot prove dinosaurs ever walked this Earth. (sarcasm) And someday science may be able to make a definitive statement about how life formed here on Earth... but i don't see religion making any efforts. They seem to have it all figured out.

 

[Royce]

Sorry, I do not agree. All of these things I hold by "reason", none by "faith".
We go round and round with definitions here, you cannot just make a statement that "my definition is incorrect", thus logically I must accept that "your definition is correct". So, now I go to the Webster Unabridged Dictionary, and nowhere in any of the recognized meanings of the word by the English speaking people of the world, both past and present, do I find that "faith" = belief without proof. Here are the recognized definitions of the concept "faith" as found in the unabridged Webster:
1. unquestioned belief
2. unquestioned belief in god, religion, etc.
3. a religion
4. anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence
6. faithfulness, loyalty, allegiance
7. credibility or truth [rare]
Thus, "proof" is not a criterion of faith in any way.
Now, let me suggest that if I accept your definition faith = belief without proof,

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

faith
5 entries found for faith.
To select an entry, click on it.
faith[1,noun]faith[2,transitive verb]article of faith faith healing good faith

Main Entry: 1 faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

Okay which reference do you want to use? Your pick.
IMHO belief without question is a good definition for blind faith.

then using your argument I will offer that science = knowledge without proof. I hold this true following the logic of Popper that the methods of science never lead to a prove, only to a falsification. Now, if the above is held by reason, then we can conclude that science is never faith based, because faith is held by "belief" (by your definition) while science is held by knowledge (via Webster : science = scire = to know). Thus I conclude that, even though your definition of faith is logically incorrect, it is also a moot point vis-a-vis science even if held to be true. Thus I reach an answer to the question of this thread, "is science faith based"--the answer is no.

Yet if we use Merriam Webster Online's definition my argument holds and science is faith based as are virtually all human endeavors.

Faith is not a dirty word nor is it always referring to religion; although, to some Science appears to have taken the place of god based religion. The point is really ridiculously trivial. I am just trying to get people to see that Science is not ABSOLUTE but a tool we use to gather knowledge. Yes it is a great tool when used properly and for the right job; but, when used or sited improperly it is a false god.

I site dgoodpasture2005's post #86 just brfore your post quoted here as a prime example of what I am talking about.

 

[Royce]

I agree. I support the basic concept of the Big Bang Theory, but not the popular model in which a perfect explosion or "expansion" creates a uniform disbursement of material. I recognize that the Theory must be accepted by faith because it cannot be verified through experimentation and observation.

Thanks for the support, and here is where Science stops and Philosophy goes on.

Incidentally, the concept of the Big Bang didn't originate with 20th Century astronomers. It is mentioned in the Secrets of Enoch which also appears to be the original source of the Genesis account of creation.

Thanks again, I didn't know this. As Spock would say "Fascinating!"

 

[Rade]

Yet if we use Merriam Webster Online's definition my argument holds and science is faith based as are virtually all human endeavors.

But I did use your Merriam Webster definition to show that your argument does not hold, that is:
faith = belief without proof (Merriam Webster)
science = knowledge without proof, or "uncertain knowledge" (Unabridged Webster)
therefore, by elimination of constant "proof"
faith = belief
science = knowledge
conclusion, science is not faith (e.g. belief) based, it is based on knowledge

 

[Royce]

faith = belief
science = knowledge
conclusion, science is not faith (e.g. belief) based, it is based on knowledge

I concede your point with the following condition. If unproved knowledge is of any use it must be believed to be true within the circumstances of its use.

Also physics makes a few necessary assumptions at the very beginning as I have mentioned. These assumptions are not provable and known to be false under extreme conditions. For example, the assumption that the laws of physics hold and are the same everywhere in the universe. It is known at least mathematically that inside a singularity the laws of physics fall apart. Yet for the most part it is believed or assumed that they are true.

I agree that it is stretching the point but such beliefs without proof is by definition faith. True it is not religious faith; but, faith that our knowledge is true and that our understanding are valid through out the universe.

(I conceded your point. and it was a very good point too. You can't expect complete capitulation from me. )

 

[russ_watters]

I concede your point with the following condition. If unproved knowledge is of any use it must be believed to be true within the circumstances of its use.

No. Besides the many other errors already pointed out, you misunderstand the concept of "proven" as applied to science. There are many different standards of proof. The phrase "not proven" means that a theory is not 100% proven. It is obvious that nothing that involves prediction can be 100% proven, because you would have to know the outcome of every experiment ever to be performed in the future to have that 100% proof. But you must understand that not 100% proven does not mean theories are 0% proven. Indeed, theories must be able to explain a significant fraction of the data already collected, so they must have a significant body of proof.

So this does not mean a theory must be believed because there is proof that theories are right - there must be, otherwise you have an hypothesis, not a theory. "Proof" (the noun) is another word for data or evidence and for a theory to exist, there must be data supporting it. Gravity may not be completely proven, but it is well proven. That is why it doesn't require faith to expect/predict that when I drop my remote it'll hit the ground. I don't have a belief in a theory that is unproven, but rather a confident expectation that a the remote will behave in a way that a well-proven theory says it should.

It almost seems like you are purposely changing definitions of words in order to use a word (faith) that does not apply in the way you want it to. Purposeful or not, your entire argument is based on butchering definitions in order to apply words to science that don't apply. I don't know if you understand what you are arguing about or not, but either way, you need to step back and learn what science actually is before you try to apply words like faith to it - you may just come to understand that science isn't what you think it is.

The ironic thing is that because you don't understand science, it very well may be a matter of faith for you! But for people who understand what science is, it is not a matter of faith.

 

[russ_watters]

Also physics makes a few necessary assumptions at the very beginning as I have mentioned. These assumptions are not provable and known to be false under extreme conditions.

Once again, not correct. You need to learn how science works before you can really tackle this argument. The assumptions that theories are based on are tested by the theory (ie, the assumption that the speed of light is constant) and even in cases where the assumptions are known to be false (Newton's gravity), those theories are used only as special-case approximations, so the false-ness of the assumption does not affect the operation of the theory.

For example, the assumption that the laws of physics hold and are the same everywhere in the universe.

Indeed, that's the other postulate of Einstein's Relativity. But that postulate, too, is tested! It is tested every time a GPS satellite flies over, every time a space probe goes to another place, scientists test that postulate and say "yep, the laws of physics hold there too!"

It is known at least mathematically that inside a singularity the laws of physics fall apart. Yet for the most part it is believed or assumed that they are true.

No! Not believed. Assumed yes, not believed. They are two very different things. An assumption in science requires real-world verification to be valid.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, that's exactly what I am trying to do " knock science down a peg."
Knock it down off of the Mount or Ivory Tower that so many people (young people here?) seem to have placed it. I'm trying to get people to open up their minds a bit. Science is not the "One and Only Truth" nor is it carved in granite and gilded with gold. It is a tool that we use to broaden and acquire knowledge. It can be and often has been wrong and will no doubt be found to be wrong again.

Well, what you are arguing has nothing to do with how science really works, only to do with your misunderstandings of science. It isn't that science needs to be knocked down a peg, it's that your understanding of science needs to be raised up a peg. This argument-from-ignorance thing you are doing is just not productive. It seems like you are trying to avoid dealing with some perceived threat to your belief system and as a result are presenting all of these inaccurate characterizations of what science is all about. Ie - in the above quote:

Science is not the "One and Only Truth" nor is it carved in granite and gilded with gold.

Who says it is?! Certainly scientists would not! Only someone who doesn't understand what science is would think that's what scientists believe. You are arguing against a perceived - in this case, nonexistant - threat.

It can be and often has been wrong and will no doubt be found to be wrong again.

Again - no scientist would argue otherwise. You are arguing against a nonexistent threat here too.

I am also trying to get people to realize that virtually everything we know is at some level based on faith as we do not and cannot do it all ourselves to verify the truth of it.

Certainly, that was already conceded, but that is such a weak version of faith that it has no usefullness in this discussion or in life in general. Worrying about such things would cause a person to never get out of bed in the morning for fear of the floor breaking under his feet!

There are those whose faith in science is just as blind and just as absolute as any Christian or Islamic fundamentalist.

The only "scientists" who are like that are the crackpots and they are typically ostracized because of it. People like Pons and Fleischman who'se belief in cold fusion was so strong it caused them to become dishonest in their effort to convince others they were right - perhaps even without realizing they were being dishonest, so strong was their belief. But once again, that is not a flaw in the process of science, but rather a human flaw of not adhering to what science is all about.

Just as with the religionists we don't dare to question that faith or belief in science without incurring their wrath just as Les and I and "the friend" have here in this thread and every time we dare question the sanctity and sacristy of the "Holy Grail of Science.

You are putting science up on this pedistal yourself, Royce, so that you can then shoot it down. This problem exists only in your head because you either don't understand or refuse to accept what science really is.

Just reread your response to my post. Nothing I said contained a contradiction but since it wasn't science and since it is perceived that I am attacking the sacred cow of science then that warrants attack and false accusations.

No, Royce - it is because your facts are wrong that people are arguing against you. You aren't arguing against what scientists believe - you created this "sacred cow" you are trying to kill and it exists only in your head. And you are welcome to believe what you want - even to be wrong and never learn why. I'll help you learn if you want, but I really don't much care if you do: The only reason I am here is so others don't read your misunderstandings and think they are correct. The misunderstanding of what science itself is is one of the biggest educational problems this country is facing and it is an important issue to me.

Nor does Science invalidate any other faith system nor does it prove or disprove anything about any religion or belief system as has been said here in the past.

Once again - you are attaching an assertion to science that it doesn't have. No good scientist would say that science proves God doesn't exist, because it can't. Many scientists are athiests, not because they think science disproves God, but because science makes belief in god superfluous. And that is what I think you are really afraid of. You set up these strawmen to knock down because you are afraid of your beliefs being irrelevant.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

science is having faith that you will find the answers, religion is having faith that you know the answers. There, just so everyone is happy... now they both consist of faith... but you see the difference as well :)

 

[Royce]

No. Besides the many other errors already pointed out

I don't accept what you pointed out as errors. Disagreements, different view point or understandings yes but, not errors.

you misunderstand the concept of "proven" as applied to science.

I do not misunderstand the concept of proven as applied to science or any other application.

Indeed, theories must be able to explain a significant fraction of the data already collected, so they must have a significant body of proof.

You are misusing the word "proven" and "proof." The word you should be using is empirical evidence or support. If you want to quibble over semantics at least get your terms straight.

So this does not mean a theory must be believed because there is proof that theories are right - there must be, otherwise you have an hypothesis, not a theory. "Proof" (the noun) is another word for data or evidence and for a theory to exist, there must be data supporting it. Gravity may not be completely proven, but it is well proven.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: 1proof
Pronunciation: 'prüf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove -- more at PROVE
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Main Entry: prove
Pronunciation: 'prüv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or prov·en /'prü-v&n, British also 'prO-/; prov·ing /'prü-vi[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French prover, from Latin probare to test, approve, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bEon to be) -- more at PRO-, BE
transitive senses
1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard -- sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)
3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)

Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: hI-'pä-th&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put -- more at DO
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

theory
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>

My understanding is that:

A hypothesis if the formulation of a speculation in order to test perform experiments and make predictions to test.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and sufficient empirical evidence found to support it as probably true but not yet proven to be absolutely (100%) true.

A law is a theory that is found to be true and predictable 100% of the time such as Newtons Laws of Motion, which are as we know not true 100% of the time but extremely accurate approximations below relativity speeds.

The so called Big Bang Theory isn't a theory at all, not even a hypothesis but a speculation. It can't be tested and makes no testable predictions. There is of course some evidence to support it if we are allowed to make extreme extrapolations. String Theory and all of its manifestations or versions such as Super string theory and M theory are the same way.

Give me a break, russ. You are being semantically pedantic in the extreme. If this is your interpretation, fine. Welcome to it. It is not mine nor a number of others including a number of working well reputed scientist whose work I have read or read about. That does no make me wrong, ignorant, unschooled or self-contradictory. It simply means that I see thing a little different than you. I am not attacking Science or you or your beliefs. I am merely point out that there is another way of looking at things.

Anyway, nuff said. I (we've) belabored this triviality long enough. Just to get out of here I will concede all of your points, even capitulate to your greater wisdom and education, resign the game. You will not however get me to admit that I am wrong!