Scientific method/rationalism = faith?

[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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

That is an assumption, as is the assumption that the universe can be modeled completely with physics and mathematics.

So I don't understand why you would not believe simply that there is order and consistency in the universe.

We assume that there is, but we don't know that there is at the most fundamental level. The distinction is clear.

Why should we leap to a belief? You are stating here that we should make a leap of faith, which is the basic requirement for religious beliefs.

 

[Cyrus]

But what he's saying is not a leap of faith. It is a hypothesis based on the last 3500 years of scientific evidence. It can be true, it can be false. But its not 'faith'. As to why, because its the most logical hypothesis to begin with.

 

[ice109]

But what he's saying is not a leap of faith. It is a hypothesis based on the last 3500 years of scientific evidence. It can be true, it can be false. But its not 'faith'. As to why, because its the most logical hypothesis to begin with.

come on dude you're just asking for it with that one

what a lot of people in this thread are missing is that science and language and math and basically everything anything else we as humans think up is at best only internally consistent. it cannot be otherwise because there are no a priori truths and we cannot discover any.

 

[Cyrus]

And how is religion externally consistent when it was written and recorded by man? What am I 'asking for it' by what I said?

 

[ice109]

And how is religion externally consistent when it was written and recorded by man? What am I 'asking for it' by what I said?

you're asking for a rebuttal. and absolutely no one in this thread is saying religion > science. no one is saying anything about religion so stop brining it up

 

[Cyrus]

Ivan had mentioned religion, so I was responding to what he said.

Also, stop yelling at everyone every time you post something *****in about you didnt ask this, you didnt say that, you didnt post this, stop doing that. Come on man, seriously. Let's act somewhat mature here. You know, the rest of us are not all a bunch of stupid idiots to talk down to constantly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But what he's saying is not a leap of faith. It is a hypothesis based on the last 3500 years of scientific evidence. It can be true, it can be false. But its not 'faith'. As to why, because its the most logical hypothesis to begin with.

The last 3500 years of science has not produced a TOE, and we don't know for a fact that it can. So until you can show me a either a complete theory, or a proof that the universe can be described completely by physics, any belief that a TOE can exist is a faith statement. This is a simple matter of definitions.

The point that seems to be elluding people is that recognizing potential limits is not the same as accepting those limits. No belief is required either way.

We have no fundamental reason to believe that a TOE is not possible, and the evidence that our physics works is very good, but until the fat lady sings... and even then, it will take a very long time [perhaps centuries] to have high confidence in a TOE.

Consider this: What if M Theory is correct, and the landscape problem is fundamentally not solvable?

 

[ice109]

Ivan had mentioned religion, so I was responding to what he said.

Also, stop yelling at everyone every time you post something *****in about you didnt ask this, you didnt say that, you didnt post this, stop doing that. Come on man, seriously. Let's act somewhat mature here. You know, the rest of us are not all a bunch of stupid idiots to talk down to constantly.

i've scanned the last 4 pages and this the first time I've said anything of the sort, unless you count me telling moridin that he misunderstood the topic, and the only reason i said it all is because you've been told before that no one is promoting religion here, that this is not a religion v science debate. so when you come in here and post irrelevant things, in my thread, about a question i wanted to discuss and derail things i think I'm fully justified in telling you to stop.

edit

there is one other mention of religious in this thread outside of your posts and my quotes of your posts and it is this

Why should we leap to a belief? You are stating here that we should make a leap of faith, which is the basic requirement for religious beliefs.

and it has nothing to do with religion.

The last 3500 years of science has not produced a TOE, and we don't know for a fact that it can. So until you can show me a either a complete theory, or a proof that the universe can be described completely by physics, any belief that a TOE can exist is a faith statement. This is a simple matter of definitions.

The point that seems to be elluding people is that recognizing potential limits is not the same as accepting those limits. No belief is required either way.

i don't follow

 

[ice109]

Consider this: What if M Theory is correct, and the landscape problem is fundamentally not solvable?

ooo what's that

 

[Cyrus]

The last 3500 years of science has not produced a TOE, and we don't know for a fact that it can. So until you can show me a either a complete theory, or a proof that the universe can be described completely by physics, any belief that a TOE can exist is a faith statement. This is a simple matter of definitions.

The point that seems to be elluding people is that recognizing potential limits is not the same as accepting those limits. No belief is required either way.

We have no fundamental reason to believe that a TOE is not possible, and the evidence that our physics works is very good, but until the fat lady sings... and even then, it will take a very long time [perhaps centuries] to have high confidence in a TOE.

Consider this: What if M Theory is correct, and the landscape problem is fundamentally not solvable?

Again, that's why I am being careful in using the word hypothesis. Its a hypothesis. It can be right or wrong. A belief is more of an absolute. If I believe in a TOE, then I am closing my eyes and saying yes, it will eventually come no matter what. But I am saying it can come, or it might not. But the evidence and math has to take you to the answer. Therefore, this is no longer a "belief"