- #61
ice109
- 1,707
- 6
i can't believe this hasn't been tossed into philosophy somewhere
Scientific method/rationalism = faith?
- Thread starter ice109
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Scientific
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the scientific method and faith, with participants debating whether science inherently requires faith in its ability to solve open problems. While science is based on repeatable results and testable hypotheses, some argue that the expectation for science to eventually explain all phenomena reflects a form of faith in rationality. Others highlight that science does not claim to provide absolute truth and advances through skepticism and questioning. The conversation also touches on the potential limits of human knowledge and the implications of relying on faith or religion for answers. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes the distinction between scientific inquiry and faith-based belief systems.
- #62
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,213
- 2,656
cyrusabdollahi said:
Prove it.
QED.
- #63
Cyrus
- 3,237
- 17
Prove the scientific method? That's what it comes down to.
- #64
ice109
- 1,707
- 6
cyrusabdollahi said:
yes, that is the crux of the debate
- #65
Cyrus
- 3,237
- 17
I don't have to prove it, you only have to disprove it and it fails always. So, *you* disprove it. There are libraries of books that prove it works up until now.
- #66
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,213
- 2,656
cyrusabdollahi said:
Prove that the scientific method can produce a TOE that completely models the universe. And as you know, arm waiving doesn't count.
Last edited:
- #67
ice109
- 1,707
- 6
cyrusabdollahi said:
no the burden of proof is on you not me; that's logic 101
ahh this has gotten way to nebulous someone please lock
- #68
Cyrus
- 3,237
- 17
Thats a bogus claim to make. Unless you can live for the next 100, 1,000 or 10k years to see someone possibly prove or disprove it.
I could have made the same claims your are making right now about some process we now understand today that would have been inconceivable in their day.
I could have made the same claims your are making right now about some process we now understand today that would have been inconceivable in their day.
- #69
Cyrus
- 3,237
- 17
ice109 said:
I don't have to prove anything to you.
- #70
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,213
- 2,656
cyrusabdollahi said:
No one is saying that it can be proven that a TOE can't exist.
The burden is on you since we don't have a model - we can show where physics fails - but you assert that a TOE can exist. Prove it.
You are using induction improperly here. And it doesn't all work, which is why physicists are working to find a TOE.
Last edited:
- #71
Cyrus
- 3,237
- 17
No, you improperly said that I assert that a TOE exists. I said, on the other hand, that it can be proven or disproven. Someday, in the future, the math may say it can be solved, or that it can't be solved. If you want me to predict the future, then that's absurd. Are there other formulas you want me to solve while were at it? Should I solve the Navier Stokes equations too? Is everything faith until someone has to come along and show you how it works?
- #72
Evo
Staff Emeritus
- 24,029
- 3,323
Cyrus is right, people have been putting words into his mouth.
Cyrus never said a TOE or GUT would be proven he said
Cyrus never said a TOE or GUT would be proven he said
Which as he clarified, the answer could prove or disprove it. How many times does he have to say that?cyrus said:
cyrus said:
Last edited:
- #73
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,283
- 3
Proof that the scientific method can provide a TOE would require demonstration of such a TOE, experimentally verified of course. Such a demonstration is not on offer since such a TOE does not exist at the moment. Therefore, the claim that the scientific method will eventually produce a TOE is a matter of assumption or faith, since there is no definitive proof on which to base such a claim.
If you approach the matter in terms of a provisional hypothesis that does not commit to the truth value of the claim one way or the other, then you are talking about something else altogether. The issue of "faith" only comes in once you have committed to the stance that the scientific method will provide a TOE. If you make no strong commitment to this stance, then of course the issue of faith does not arise.
If you approach the matter in terms of a provisional hypothesis that does not commit to the truth value of the claim one way or the other, then you are talking about something else altogether. The issue of "faith" only comes in once you have committed to the stance that the scientific method will provide a TOE. If you make no strong commitment to this stance, then of course the issue of faith does not arise.
- #74
Cyrus
- 3,237
- 17
I like how you said that second paragraph.
Also, I don't see why one needs a TOE to understand what's going on. The Navier Stokes equations have no solution, does that mean we don't know anything about the study of fluid flow? It means we don't have an exact closed form solution. But we still understand the physics very well.
What I am saying is that given enough time, money, and effort, a solution is highly *probable. If you want to bark at me "show me a solution, your wrong until I see a solution on my monitor RIGHT NOW!" then you're being unreasonable here.
Also, I don't see why one needs a TOE to understand what's going on. The Navier Stokes equations have no solution, does that mean we don't know anything about the study of fluid flow? It means we don't have an exact closed form solution. But we still understand the physics very well.
What I am saying is that given enough time, money, and effort, a solution is highly *probable. If you want to bark at me "show me a solution, your wrong until I see a solution on my monitor RIGHT NOW!" then you're being unreasonable here.
Last edited:
- #75
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,283
- 3
cyrusabdollahi said:
No one is barking at you like that. Most people here probably agree that ultimately the universe is explicable by scientific inquiry. The point is not to challenge the claim that it is likely that the scientific method can describe the universe completely. Rather it is to recognize the mere possibility that it cannot.
- #76
ice109
- 1,707
- 6
tractatus or philosophical investigations, take your pick. i pick the latter
- #77
Moridin
- 692
- 3
This might be a -huge- bump, but I recently discovered something and it relates to the earlier post I made in this topic here. I avoided addressing the point which would have been number 3 in the list. The argument is frequently used by various supernaturalists to try and discredit science and say that it is faith-based, just like their religion. Anyways, the argument goes like this:
"I have faith in the information I collect about my various type of supernaturalism. You have faith in much the same way about the scientific information you read."
or
"I have faith / believe in my type of supernaturalism and you have faith / believe in science".
So the question is if the scientific information you have learned that is not based on experiments performed by yourself is faith-based, just like supernaturalism. The answer is again, a solid no.
As it turns out, this argument is both a formal and informal logical fallacy called an equivocal fallacy. It is about using a specific word that has multiple definitions in situations where one context uses one definition and another context uses another one and then attempting to equate the two. I'll give an example of the equivocal fallacy:
"Either we hang together [cooperate], or we will hang separate [executed]"
The word 'belief' is one such word. The term is used to describe what a person's conviction is; what he or she is willing to bet on. Another meaning of it is that one assumes something is correct, but without the ability to know. Another example to illustrate the difference:
"I believe in democracy"
"I believe in supernaturalism"
The first one is defined with what one is willing to bet on; the other is one what one assumes to be true, but cannot motivate or know.
The key difference is that, generally, you either have a good reason to believe the things you do believe (evidence, reason etc.) or you don't (laking evidence, reason etc.).
There is good reason to be willing to bet on Science, whereas this does not apply to the supernatural (supernatural would fall under the assume to be true, but cannot know).
Score. I should write a book.
"I have faith in the information I collect about my various type of supernaturalism. You have faith in much the same way about the scientific information you read."
or
"I have faith / believe in my type of supernaturalism and you have faith / believe in science".
So the question is if the scientific information you have learned that is not based on experiments performed by yourself is faith-based, just like supernaturalism. The answer is again, a solid no.
As it turns out, this argument is both a formal and informal logical fallacy called an equivocal fallacy. It is about using a specific word that has multiple definitions in situations where one context uses one definition and another context uses another one and then attempting to equate the two. I'll give an example of the equivocal fallacy:
"Either we hang together [cooperate], or we will hang separate [executed]"
The word 'belief' is one such word. The term is used to describe what a person's conviction is; what he or she is willing to bet on. Another meaning of it is that one assumes something is correct, but without the ability to know. Another example to illustrate the difference:
"I believe in democracy"
"I believe in supernaturalism"
The first one is defined with what one is willing to bet on; the other is one what one assumes to be true, but cannot motivate or know.
The key difference is that, generally, you either have a good reason to believe the things you do believe (evidence, reason etc.) or you don't (laking evidence, reason etc.).
There is good reason to be willing to bet on Science, whereas this does not apply to the supernatural (supernatural would fall under the assume to be true, but cannot know).
Score. I should write a book.