Scientific method/rationalism = faith?

[ice109]

this isn't crack pottery or really that philosophical so that's why i posted it here.

obviously science itself isn't faith based, we expect repeatable results and testable hypotheses from our scientists.

but there are open problems and all the people that see all the good science has done expect them to eventually be solved ( all or some is irrelevant right now ). this expectation is a faith in the scientific method or science's ability to solve problems. deep down it is a belief that the universe plays by rational rules.

personally i have faith

 

[Chi Meson]

Is this day one of Philosophy 101?

Oh, I apologize right away for that.

 

[Hurkyl]

Empiricism and rationalism are very different things.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

this isn't crack pottery or really that philosophical so that's why i posted it here.

obviously science itself isn't faith based, we expect repeatable results and testable hypotheses from our scientists.

but there are open problems and all the people that see all the good science has done expect them to eventually be solved ( all or some is irrelevant right now ). this expectation is a faith in the scientific method or science's ability to solve problems. deep down it is a belief that the universe plays by rational rules.

personally i have faith

It wasn't until my senior year in college that I first considered that the universe might not be explainable by science. It was implicit in my thinking that the universe must make sense according to our reasoning - that a GUT was inevitable. It was only when a prof asked why it must be so, that my universe collapsed.

...and then the stars slowly began to wink out...

 

[Smurf]

What's GUT? General Unifying Theory? Something like TOE?

 

[Smurf]

this isn't crack pottery or really that philosophical so that's why i posted it here.

obviously science itself isn't faith based, we expect repeatable results and testable hypotheses from our scientists.

but there are open problems and all the people that see all the good science has done expect them to eventually be solved ( all or some is irrelevant right now ). this expectation is a faith in the scientific method or science's ability to solve problems. deep down it is a belief that the universe plays by rational rules.

personally i have faith

I don't really have that faith you speak of. I think it was Kuhn who first said that the scientific method is just a model built around an increasing amount of data. A lot of people think of science as getting closer and closer to the truth. It's slightly different from that. Personally, I'm a pragmatist, and the only reason science has any value is because of what it produces. Namely technology/technical knowledge. As for figuring out what the universe really is about - I don't think we really have a method for that yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What's GUT? General Unifying Theory? Something like TOE?

Yes, sorry; "GUT" goes back to Einstein's efforts to produce a Grand Unified Theory - effectively the same thing as a TOE.

 

[hypnagogue]

Any halfway decent biologist will tell you that a gut is not the same thing as a toe.

 

[Smurf]

What is it then? Do I need to call Moonbear? (she is the biology one, right? - it's been a while for me)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Any halfway decent biologist will tell you that a gut is not the same thing as a toe.

Sure, but a completely decent one would never mention it in public.

 

[Cyrus]

It wasn't until my senior year in college that I first considered that the universe might not be explainable by science. It was implicit in my thinking that the universe must make sense according to our reasoning - that a GUT was inevitable. It was only when a prof asked why it must be so, that my universe collapsed.

...and then the stars slowly began to wink out...

You forgot the word yet. Its not explainable by science...yet. Also, why does it have to make sense by our reasoning? There are lots of every day things in science that smacks our common sense reasoning in the face.

Its much easier to explain away things to religion than it is to grind it out and find the true answer through hard work and critical thinking.

 

[Smurf]

Yes, sorry; "GUT" goes back to Einstein's efforts to produce a Grand Unified Theory - effectively the same thing as a TOE.

Hey, I was close!

 

[hypnagogue]

You forgot the word yet. Its not explainable by science...yet. Also, why does it have to make sense by our reasoning? There are lots of every day things in science that smacks our common sense reasoning in the face.

Its much easier to explain away things to religion than it is to grind it out and find the true answer through hard work and critical thinking.

You miss the point. Your attitude is the same attitude Ivan had *before* his senior year in college. The contrary idea is that perhaps it is not explicable in scientific terms, even in principle. No "yet".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You forgot the word yet. Its not explainable by science...yet.

I didn't forget the word "yet". The idea was that it may not ever be explainable due to either the fundamental limits of our mental capacity, or for other reasons that, perhaps, in themselves are beyond our current and potential scope of knowledge and/or understanding.

Edit: Yes, as indicated by Hyp.

 

[Cyrus]

You miss the point. Your attitude is the same attitude Ivan had *before* his senior year in college. The contrary idea is that perhaps it is not explicable in scientific terms, even in principle. No "yet".

But you are basing this on nothing but speculation. I mean, it took us 3500 years to get to where science is today. And most of it really took off in the last 200 years. In the big picture, this is not even a grain of sand in a sandbox. You can't expect the answers to GUT overnight. It might happen a thousand years from now, but eventually it will happen - provided we don't kill ourselves first.

 

[hypnagogue]

But you are basing this on nothing but speculation.

I am explaining the concept, not arguing for it.

 

[Cyrus]

Also, you have to factor in that soon computers are going to be able to 'think'. Once that happens, it opens up a world of possibilities. A computer does not have to sleep, it can grind out a solution non stop for years if you make it. I think I saw a program, maybe Kaku, where he said soon (next 100 years) computers will be able to process things as fast as the human brain.

Plus, you never know. We might get help from some little green men out there in space. Personally, I feel 99.9% confident that we are not the only planet with life on it. The universe is far too big and far too old for us to be that special.

 

[Smurf]

It's fair to assume, i think, that cyrus has faith.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It comes down to this: Until we know the fundamental nature of the universe, that is, until we have a set of equations that describe everything within a single consistent model, we don't know that the universe can be reduced to such a set of equations. Of course we all assume that it can be [or at least some theoretical physicists must], but we have no way to know if this is true until done.

 

[wolram]

My fear is that money will run out before all the theories we have are tested,
space science is expensive and needs stable economies to fund it.

 

[Cyrus]

Even if we can't figure it out, what reason does that give us to say it must therefore be religion that has the answers? The church used to kill people that said the sun went around the earth, until it was shown otherwise. Quite frankly, religion never has the answers.

What is the alternative? We can give up science all together and grow out beards and live in caves like those nut jobs in Afganistan. Thats what happens when you surrender to religion.


The moment I hear someone turn to religion, I see someone taking the easy way out to finding the answer to a hard question because you look in your bible and there is the answer. How convenient. Now I don't have to think for myself, the bible can think for me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if we can't figure it out, what reason does that give us to say it must therefore be religion that has the answers? The church used to kill people that said the sun went around the earth, until it was shown otherwise. Quite frankly, religion never has the answers.

What does this have to do with the discussion?

What is the alternative? We can give up science all together and grow out beards and live in caves like those nut jobs in Afganistan. Thats what happens when you surrender to religion.


The moment I hear someone turn to religion, I see someone taking the easy way out to finding the answer to a hard question because you look in your bible and there is the answer. How convenient. Now I don't have to think for myself, the bible can think for me.

Um, Cyrus, I suggest that you use science as an anti-religion, which is why this thread bothers you. Is your religion is being attacked?

This is not about religion. It is about the potential limits of knowledge.

 

[ice109]

What does this have to do with the discussion?



Um, Cyrus, I suggest that you use science as an anti-religion, which is why this thread bothers you. Is your religion is being attacked?

This is not about religion. It is about the potential limits of knowledge.

it's quite funny, he's using the perennial logical fallacy of the theists: false dichotomy.

yes at its root it is about the limits of human knowledge. superficially though it's kind of a poll asking what have you chosen.

 

[Mk]

My fear is that money will run out before all the theories we have are tested,
space science is expensive and needs stable economies to fund it.

That's something to think about.

It is about the potential limits of knowledge.

I don't see why there is any more reason that there are practical limits to knowledge than there aren't.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't see why there is any more reason that there are practical limits to knowledge than there aren't.

The point is to recognize that the possibility exists. Nothing was said about it being likely or not.

 

[ice109]

The point is to recognize that the possibility exists. Nothing was said about it being likely or not.

preach brother preach!

 

[George Jones]

What's GUT? General Unifying Theory? Something like TOE?

Standard terminology:

GUT - grand unified theory of electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear (colour) force; does not include gravity.

TOE - theory of everything, including gravity.

 

[Moridin]

I have a few objections to some of the things said and discussed in this thread.

First of all, the term 'the scientific method' does not exist. A experimental biologist uses a completely different methodology than a theoretical physicist for example. The only thing in common is limiting themselves to natural causes, but if evidence is acquired for something supernatural, such as unicorns in the natural world, they are obviously natural.

Anyway, the core question is about if and how science related to faith. I'd like to split this into two categories.

1. Does science require faith? Even if one performed experiments, doesn't scientists have to use faith to trust the correctness of their methodology?

2. Is the expectations of scientific theories and knowledge on the future faith-based?

The short answer is No and no.

The reason being is that science has never claimed to produce absolute truth or certain knowledge, whether related to its theories or its methodologies. Scientific knowledge advances by making experiments to test old approximations and making them better.

Science is discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, questing with logic, evidence and reason to draw conclusions. Science proceeds by setting up hypothesis and then attempts to falsify them. A (good) scientist is always asking questions and being skeptical.

Faith, by star contrast, requires a suspense of critical faculties. It is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth by the power of institution and the passage of time (eg. many Aristotelean ideas on nature). Reason is the strongest enemy of faith. Science does not require faith. It had required faith if it was asserting that it provides absolute certainty, but it doesn't.

Secondly, it is not correct to say that expectations of scientific theories and knowledge on the future are faith-base, because again, science does not claim that, say, conservation of momentum represents absolute truth for all eternity. What it says is that the conservation law represents scientific knowledge right now and that it has mountains of evidence in its favor. By applying this conservation law to a system during experiments one can see if the data supports the prediction. If is does, great. If it doesn't, even better, because that is how science proceeds.

Science is not stuck in defense for its own existence either. It is open to new ideas and data. If some better or updated methodology comes into play, then of course it will replace older, less good ideas or approximations. A good example of this is the improvement in the accuracy of measuring equipment.

If there ever was a cure from dogmatic faith, this is it.

 

[ice109]

I have a few objections to some of the things said and discussed in this thread.

First of all, the term 'the scientific method' does not exist. A experimental biologist uses a completely different methodology than a theoretical physicist for example. The only thing in common is limiting themselves to natural causes, but if evidence is acquired for something supernatural, such as unicorns in the natural world, they are obviously natural.

Anyway, the core question is about if and how science related to faith. I'd like to split this into two categories.

1. Does science require faith? Even if one performed experiments, doesn't scientists have to use faith to trust the correctness of their methodology?

2. Is the expectations of scientific theories and knowledge on the future faith-based?

The short answer is No and no.

The reason being is that science has never claimed to produce absolute truth or certain knowledge, whether related to its theories or its methodologies. Scientific knowledge advances by making experiments to test old approximations and making them better.

Science is discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, questing with logic, evidence and reason to draw conclusions. Science proceeds by setting up hypothesis and then attempts to falsify them. A (good) scientist is always asking questions and being skeptical.

Faith, by star contrast, requires a suspense of critical faculties. It is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth by the power of institution and the passage of time (eg. many Aristotelean ideas on nature). Reason is the strongest enemy of faith. Science does not require faith. It had required faith if it was asserting that it provides absolute certainty, but it doesn't.

Secondly, it is not correct to say that expectations of scientific theories and knowledge on the future are faith-base, because again, science does not claim that, say, conservation of momentum represents absolute truth for all eternity. What it says is that the conservation law represents scientific knowledge right now and that it has mountains of evidence in its favor. By applying this conservation law to a system during experiments one can see if the data supports the prediction. If is does, great. If it doesn't, even better, because that is how science proceeds.

Science is not stuck in defense for its own existence either. It is open to new ideas and data. If some better or updated methodology comes into play, then of course it will replace older, less good ideas or approximations. A good example of this is the improvement in the accuracy of measuring equipment.

If there ever was a cure from dogmatic faith, this is it.

you've completely missed the point of the topic.

the term scientific method does exist, as expressed by francis bacon and descartes. a biologist and a physicist don't use the same instruments but they do use the same methodology: observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. that is the scientific method.

"doesn't[sic] scientists have to use faith to trust the correctness of their methodology?"

yes that is the central question and you did not address that, you addressed whether science finds meaning, which was not the question.

additionally the second part of the question is not whether theories will last forever but whether science will solve all problems/find all answers.

my contention is that at it's beginning rationalism is faith based.

 

[siddharth]

"doesn't[sic] scientists have to use faith to trust the correctness of their methodology?"

yes that is the central question and you did not address that

my contention is that at it's beginning rationalism is faith based.

But, the scientists don't need to use any "faith". They can experimentally verify the predictions they make and ensure it's consistent within the domain of applicability, right? I don't understand where faith enters the picture?

 

[Moridin]

A theoretical physicist does not need to perform experiments. Scientific methodology surely exist, but I doubt that many scientist uses the term 'the scientific method' in professional circles.

doesn't scientists have to use faith to trust the correctness of their methodology?

I though I answered that question? Scientists does not have to use faith because they are not claiming that their methodology represents absolute truth, but an approximation that is getting better and better through experimental observations.

additionally the second part of the question is not whether theories will last forever but whether science will solve all problems/find all answers.

They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are almost the same. Can science solve all problems or find all answers is very much connected to if science can explain all results, so my answer is applicable to both. The opinions of individual scientists may require faith, but science is open minded for both solving all problems and not solving all problems. Of course, philosophical materialism in its very basic application requires faith.

 

[Moridin]

But, the scientists don't need to use any "faith". They can experimentally verify the predictions they make and ensure it's consistent within the domain of applicability, right? I don't understand where faith enters the picture?

I think that the most common philosophical objection is 'why assume that experimental data' makes any sense in reality. It is an appeal to The Matrix, I guess, but there are ways to refute that appeal.

 

[ice109]

I think that the most common philosophical objection is 'why assume that experimental data' makes any sense in reality. It is an appeal to The Matrix, I guess, but there are ways to refute that appeal.

and would be some of those ways

 

[hypnagogue]

As I understand it, this thread is about whether all open problems in science will eventually succumb to scientific inquiry. This is an open question. If one strongly believes that the answer is "yes," then this belief has something of the flavor of faith, since we cannot conclusively rule out the other possibility, that some problems will not succumb to scientific inquiry.

 

[ice109]

As I understand it, this thread is about whether all open problems in science will eventually succumb to scientific inquiry. This is an open question. If one strongly believes that the answer is "yes," then this belief has something of the flavor of faith, since we cannot conclusively rule out the other possibility, that some problems will not succumb to scientific inquiry.

you could say an opinion either way is faith based

 

[Moridin]

and would be some of those ways

The solution to the question 'So science says it is like this [scientific explanation of something]. How do you know it is not The Matrix doing it to confuse you?' is simply that science does not claim to assert things as absolute truth and there is of course the burden of evidence being on the one making the The Matrix assertion in accordance with Russel's Teapot.

It could also could be worth while to read the analogy by Carl Sagan on the Dragon in My Garage

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

Of course, saying that current scientific methodologies will solve all problems without modification is an absolute statement with the lack of evidence. Saying that the current scientific methodologies will not solve all problems is an absolute statement that lacks evidence. Science is open to both and right now, both are faith-based, but it boils down to probability. So in this sense, science does not require faith, and if certain individual scientists holds faith-based ideas (absolute truth of religion, absolute GUT forever etc.) then they are obviously faith-based, but sort of beside the point of the attitude of science itself.

In addition, if certain individual scientists say that they think science can answer all questions, then you have your answer right there. He or she thinks it.

 

[ice109]

The solution to the question 'So science says it is like this [scientific explanation of something]. How do you know it is not The Matrix doing it to confuse you?' is simply that science does not claim to assert things as absolute truth and there is of course the burden of evidence being on the one making the The Matrix assertion in accordance with Russel's Teapot.

It could also could be worth while to read the analogy by Carl Sagan on the Dragon in My Garage

its not true. your claim, and russel's, is basically that statements who truth value is indeterminate are meaningless, is not necessarily so.

wittgenstein in philosophical investigations argues, probably pretty well, that meaning is consensual, as in if everyone agrees then so it is.

 

[siddharth]

As I understand it, this thread is about whether all open problems in science will eventually succumb to scientific inquiry. This is an open question. If one strongly believes that the answer is "yes," then this belief has something of the flavor of faith, since we cannot conclusively rule out the other possibility, that some problems will not succumb to scientific inquiry.

Thank you, hypnagogue. That's what I understood as well.

wittgenstein in philosophical investigations argues, probably pretty well, that meaning is consensual, as in if everyone agrees then so it is.

But everyone believing that the Earth is flat, isn't going to mean that the Earth is actually flat.

Anyway, this thread is becoming too philosophical for my liking, so I'm off

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't forget the word "yet". The idea was that it may not ever be explainable due to either the fundamental limits of our mental capacity, or for other reasons that, perhaps, in themselves are beyond our current and potential scope of knowledge and/or understanding.

Edit: Yes, as indicated by Hyp.

No, that still looks like a "yet" to me. Our mental capacity increases via accumulation of knowledge, evolution, and technology.

The only reason that it could be fundamentally impossible to know how the universe works is if the universe does not follow set laws. Ie, if there is a God up there just pulling strings and screwing with us. Assuming that that is not the case is the pretty much only assumption required by science.[see post 42] And you seem to be saying that here:

It comes down to this: Until we know the fundamental nature of the universe, that is, until we have a set of equations that describe everything within a single consistent model, we don't know that the universe can be reduced to such a set of equations. Of course we all assume that it can be [or at least some theoretical physicists must], but we have no way to know if this is true until done.

But you aren't a religious person, are you? So I don't understand why you would not believe simply that there is order and consistency in the universe.

 

[ice109]

No, that still looks like a "yet" to me. Our mental capacity increases via accumulation of knowledge, evolution, and technology.

The only reason that it could be fundamentally impossible to know how the universe works is if the universe does not follow set laws. Ie, if there is a God up there just pulling strings and screwing with us. Assuming that that is not the case is the pretty much only assumption required by science. And you seem to be saying that here: But you aren't a religious person, are you? So I don't understand why you would not believe simply that there is order and consistency in the universe.

why do you not think that that is just an assumption, just like the assumption that god did it. whatever kind of meaning you attribute to the things you see is assumptive. you cannot know the truth

 

[russ_watters]

Even if we can't figure it out, what reason does that give us to say it must therefore be religion that has the answers? The church used to kill people that said the sun went around the earth, until it was shown otherwise. Quite frankly, religion never has the answers.

What is the alternative? We can give up science all together and grow out beards and live in caves like those nut jobs in Afganistan. Thats what happens when you surrender to religion.


The moment I hear someone turn to religion, I see someone taking the easy way out to finding the answer to a hard question because you look in your bible and there is the answer. How convenient. Now I don't have to think for myself, the bible can think for me.

Yes, the two choices are essentially choosing the scientific mindset, which may not be able to provide all the answers (ever, in my lifetime, whatever), choosing the religious mindset, in which one assumes they already have all, but really have none of them.

 

[russ_watters]

why do you not think that that is just an assumption, just like the assumption that god did it. whatever kind of meaning you attribute to the things you see is assumptive. you cannot know the truth

That what is an assumption? Belief in the scientific process?

Just to clarify (perhaps correct) my statement in post 39 a little, Morodin is right about the scientific process not having any aspect of belief or faith. To me the question of belief/faith in science really is a question of belief or faith in one's-self. A scientist may believe he or she is smart enough to come up with a new theory or the scientific community will find the GUT in the next 30 years. But the idea that the universe follows set laws is itself a theory and a falsifiable one, so it really isn't a belief. Every time an experiment succeeds, it throws another piece of evidence on the mountain of data that says the universe has order.

 

[ice109]

That what is an assumption? Belief in the scientific process?

Just to clarify (perhaps correct) my statement in post 39 a little, Morodin is right about the scientific process not having any aspect of belief or faith. To me the question of belief/faith in science really is a question of belief or faith in one's-self. A scientist may believe he or she is smart enough to come up with a new theory or the scientific community will find the GUT in the next 30 years. But the idea that the universe follows set laws is itself a theory and a falsifiable one, so it really isn't a belief. Every time an experiment succeeds, it throws another piece of evidence on the mountain of data that says the universe has order.

i like that

 

[russ_watters]

As I understand it, this thread is about whether all open problems in science will eventually succumb to scientific inquiry. This is an open question. If one strongly believes that the answer is "yes," then this belief has something of the flavor of faith, since we cannot conclusively rule out the other possibility, that some problems will not succumb to scientific inquiry. [emphasis added]

The way you word that is 'begging the question': it is faith because it is belief. But why is it a belief and not just a prediction of a theory?

If you drop a rock off a building, what do you say beforehand about what it will do?

-I believe it will fall.
-I predict it will fall.
-I believe my prediction that it will fall.
-I have no idea what will happen. Past performance is no indication of future performance.
-It will do whatever god wants it to do. Past performance is no indication of future performance.

 

[hypnagogue]

Just to clarify (perhaps correct) my statement in post 39 a little, Morodin is right about the scientific process not having any aspect of belief or faith.

The discussion is not about the scientific process per se, but whether it can be successful in solving all the problems to which it could possibly be applied. We know of course that it is successful in solving some of the problems to which it has been applied, so in that sense it is trivially true that it is not a matter of faith that the scientific method is efficacious for some purposes. But quantifying this over the set of all problems for which a scientific approach could be applied is of course another matter altogether.

But the idea that the universe follows set laws is itself a theory and a falsifiable one, so it really isn't a belief. Every time an experiment succeeds, it throws another piece of evidence on the mountain of data that says the universe has order.

Disagree that the claim that the universe follows set laws is falsifiable. For any supposed demonstration that some phenomenon does not follow lawlike behavior a skeptic could simply hold that the proper law has not yet been discovered. The specific claim that some phenomenon P is described by some specific set of laws L could easily be falsified, but the general claim that some phenomenon P is described by some arbitrary set of laws L' could not.

 

[hypnagogue]

The way you word that is 'begging the question': it is faith because it is belief.

Allow me to rephrase. Replace "strongly believes" with "claims."

If you drop a rock off a building, what do you say beforehand about what it will do?

Your example demonstrates that there exists some phenomenon that follows lawlike behavior. But the question at hand is whether all phenomena follow lawlike behavior. If I show you a white swan it does not imply that all swans are white.

 

[russ_watters]

Disagree that the claim that the universe follows set laws is falsifiable. For any supposed demonstration that some phenomenon does not follow lawlike behavior a skeptic could simply hold that the proper law has not yet been discovered. The specific claim that some phenomenon P is described by some specific set of laws L could easily be falsified, but the general claim that some phenomenon P is described by some arbitrary set of laws L' could not.

No. This has nothing to do with the success of theories, but of experiments. If an experiment is repeated with identical starting conditions, it should produce identical results, to within it's inherrent error margin. If it does not and there is no identifiable reason for it, then the reason might be that the universe is inconsistent. In fact, some scientific theories incorporate elements of randomness and unpredictability. The HUP sets a limit to how precisely we can know certain things, for example. But for that there is, shall we say, consistency to the inconsistency.

But as there is a mountain of data that shows the universe to be consistent, this would be an extrordinary conclusion and would require extrodrinary and clear evidence. God showing up one day and performing miracles on request would qualify, but little short of that would.

 

[hypnagogue]

No. This has nothing to do with the success of theories, but of experiments. If an experiment is repeated with identical starting conditions, it should produce identical results, to within it's inherrent error margin. If it does not and there is no identifiable reason for it, then the reason might be that the universe is inconsistent.

Same logical fallacy. Demonstrating that something is true in some cases (even most cases, or all cases heretofore discovered) does not imply that it is true in all cases. Some swans are white. In fact most swans are white. But we know this does not imply that all swans are white because in fact some swans are not white. In other words, it is logically consistent that most phenomena follow lawlike behavior but not all do. All it takes is one counterexample to falsify the universal claim.

 

[Moridin]

Demonstrating that something is true in some cases (even most cases, or all cases heretofore discovered) does not imply that it is true in all cases.

Correct, but science doesn't assert that it is true in some or all cases. The point is that the more experiments that supports the conclusion are gathered, the higher probability the conclusion has of being factual. At most, we could say that evidence currently favors one of the conclusions over the other. Even though this seems like a weak statement, it isn't.

 

[BobG]

this isn't crack pottery or really that philosophical so that's why i posted it here.

obviously science itself isn't faith based, we expect repeatable results and testable hypotheses from our scientists.

but there are open problems and all the people that see all the good science has done expect them to eventually be solved ( all or some is irrelevant right now ). this expectation is a faith in the scientific method or science's ability to solve problems. deep down it is a belief that the universe plays by rational rules.

personally i have faith

Believing science can solve all problems and that the universe plays by rational rules aren't the same thing. Solving all the problems is a subset of the universe playing by rational rules. Regardless, the truth of either has some deep philosophical implications that affect humans' self identity.

The universe could play by rational rules (i.e. event A causes event B 100% of the time and all events have causes). All information could be eventually obtainable. That would make it possible to solve all problems eventually. Just having 100% causality has some deep implications on human self identity. It's equivalent to saying fate determined a person's life the instant that the universe was created. You were so scared at the expression on Death's face when you saw him in the town square that you fled to Samarra. The expression of shock on Death's face was because he didn't expect to see you in town when he had an appointment with you later that evening in Samarra.

The universe could play by rational rules, but not all information is obtainable, either because it's destroyed or because it's simply permanently out of reach. That means that not all problems are necessarily solvable. All of life's events were determined at the moment of creation, but no human can understand the workings of God (or the universe, or whatever). You just have to have faith that there was an important or rational reason reason that you were run over by that bus.

The universe doesn't necessarily play by rational rules. At best, physical laws describe probabilities, not absolute certainties or rational rules don't apply to all things; just most things. The unpredictability of the universe isn't just because of limitations in measuring the universe - it really is unpredictable. That means it's impossible to solve every problem because there is no such thing as having all information. It also gives the possibility that a person acts out of free will, not just as a result of a long chain of events completely beyond the control of a person. If there is any possibility of any human choosing between two different actions, then there is no way to know the future with 100% certainty and no way to know for sure whether a given action will solve a problem or make it worse.

At the current point in time, I agree that faith is as good a reason as any other to choose one option over the other.