Scientist's use belief/faith too?

[xfinite]

First off let me say those are NOT my words. I'm debating someone who thinks that the statement in the thread title is true. I asked him to show me where the faith step is in the scientific method. He posted some definitions and a statement to follow it up which you can see below in quotes. Can anyone explain why he's wrong? I've heard a lot of people throw this idea around that science is a belief system too...I want some better debunking skills because my explanations dont' always come through it seems.

"Check out the definition of belief… 2 of the 3 definitions have nothing to do with religion. The belief a predetermined result will occur is a HYPOTHESIS. If the human brain has a 6 second delay behind what you think and when you are aware of it, then how can a scientist not affect the outcome of an experiment if they don’t believe it will yield a result.

An experiment is the observation of results. It’s the assumption of the result which sets the stage for the experiment. You start with a hypothesis(belief) and then analyze the result. Both parts require a belief system otherwise there would be no desire or justification to seek out the answer."

 

[Evo]

One relies on facts and results - Science.

One is a belief in the supernatural, no facts, no results - religion.

Not even close.

I'm going to go get my first cup of coffee and let someone explain it better. If no one cares to take the time, I'll try to dig up one of the old threads.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It all depends on your definition. I don't agree that a hypothesis is a belief, if somebody asked me what I thought caused X I can suggest reasons without believing that they are actually the reason. It's because of this that your friend's argument is flawed.

Better and more useful definitions:

Belief: Holding a premise to be true
Hypothesis: Proposed outcome to an event
Evidence: Data that indicates the truthfulness of a premise
Faith: Belief without and often in spite of evidence

Also whether or not individual scientists have faith is irrelevant to whether or not the scientific method employs it.

 

[micromass]

In my opinion, everything requires a belief, to a certain degree. I am looking at my computer screen, but does that computer screen really exist? Can I really trust my senses? I say yes, but it's a belief that I have.

The thing is (in my opinion) that science requires a minimum of belief. That is, you got to take a very small leap of faith, and everything follows. What is that leap of faith that you would have to make? Well, you'll have to belief that experiments you do will tell you something about reality. For example, if I throw a stone 1000 times in the air and it falls 1000 times, then I need a leap of faith to say that it will fall every time. However, that belief I need to make, is very very small.

When dealing with the paranormal, you need to make a much greater leap of faith. For example, you'll need to believe that ghosts really exist. It's not that you can actually test that ghosts exists, but I need to accept it. This is why ghosts are unscientific. Does that mean that ghost don't exist? No, it just means that ghosts cannot be studied by science. And in my opinion, if something cannot be studied by science, then it is irrelevant to think about.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think the difference between the beliefs you listed and belief in the paranormal micro is that you hold your beliefs due to evidence. You believe the computer in front of you to be real because you have experience with computers, experience with how they should act and experience of things being real. If I were to show you that your computer was not real, perhaps because I've put some pretty weird drugs in your food then you would alter your belief based on evidence.

Faith is the denial of evidence so that belief might be preserved. If you had faith your laptop exists then no matter how much I showed you that you were drugged, that you never bought a laptop and that laptops don't even exist you would still hold the belief.

 

[phinds]

The fundamental difference between science and religion is falsifiabliity. Scientific theories and hypotheses are falsifiable and religious ones are not.

Belief has nothing to do with science, it's based on evidence. Belief has EVERYTHING to do with religion, since it is not based on evidence.

 

[Evo]

Found an article that stays within our guideliens and basically sums up everything said above.

Science is *evidence* based.

Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural

<snip> everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn't require giving up religious faith.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Faith is the denial of evidence so that belief might be preserved. If you had faith your laptop exists then no matter how much I showed you that you were drugged, that you never bought a laptop and that laptops don't even exist you would still hold the belief.

That is false. Some people may apply faith in that manner but it is not a definition. Belief without proof is not the same as denial of evidence.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That is false. Some people may apply faith in that manner but it is not a definition. Belief without proof is not the same as denial of evidence.

It is a definition but it doesn't apply in all cases. All belief is without "proof" as we cannot prove anything beyond a priori statements, instead we have evidence that suggests one way or another. Faith is belief without evidence and often this manifests as belief in spite of evidence.

 

[Ken Natton]

The first point I would make xfinite – of course I do not know who your correspondent is and it is just possible that they might have an open mind, but the experience of dozens of similar exchanges on a multitude of different forums has to tell you that the strong probability is that they do not. Most who take that kind of line of argument are not interested in listening to reasoned argument, and if you are thinking you might persuade your correspondent to your view, the overwhelming likelihood is that you are heading for a big disappointment. Of course, I have encountered many who know fine well that they will not persuade those of the differing viewpoint, but derive some pleasure that escapes me from the argument. If you are of that kind then the best argument, it seems to me, lies in what science has achieved. There are around the world what – I don’t know – tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of highly qualified life scientists who have put in the hours of study over several years, but much more centrally, who have then applied what they have thus learned and achieved the most extraordinary things. That, surely is the tangible evidence that their efforts are based on much more than just beliefs. If you want a fine example of what I am talking about, Ryan has recently been telling us of his connection with the team that have been developing synthetic materials that point towards the genuine prospect of making artificial organs that might remove the problem of the shortage of organ doners. I just had a look but can’t find the thread – perhaps Ryan will be good enough to point you towards it. Ask your correspondent what he and his fellow believers have to equal that achievement.

But I warn you, don’t expect your correspondent to be persuaded by that argument.

 

[xfinite]

It all depends on your definition. I don't agree that a hypothesis is a belief, if somebody asked me what I thought caused X I can suggest reasons without believing that they are actually the reason. It's because of this that your friend's argument is flawed.

Better and more useful definitions:

Belief: Holding a premise to be true
Hypothesis: Proposed outcome to an event
Evidence: Data that indicates the truthfulness of a premise
Faith: Belief without and often in spite of evidence

Also whether or not individual scientists have faith is irrelevant to whether or not the scientific method employs it.

Those definitions seem more accurate. He pulled his defintions from websters I believe.

I actually had the same thought as your last sentence and mentioned it to him. That a scientist can believe anything he wants in terms of religion. But when it comes time to *do* science and use the scientific method those beliefs are checked at the door. If they aren't then typically what we have is "bad" science...I think Im' correct on that.

 

[xfinite]

In my opinion, everything requires a belief, to a certain degree. I am looking at my computer screen, but does that computer screen really exist? Can I really trust my senses? I say yes, but it's a belief that I have.

The thing is (in my opinion) that science requires a minimum of belief. That is, you got to take a very small leap of faith, and everything follows. What is that leap of faith that you would have to make? Well, you'll have to belief that experiments you do will tell you something about reality. For example, if I throw a stone 1000 times in the air and it falls 1000 times, then I need a leap of faith to say that it will fall every time. However, that belief I need to make, is very very small.

When dealing with the paranormal, you need to make a much greater leap of faith. For example, you'll need to believe that ghosts really exist. It's not that you can actually test that ghosts exists, but I need to accept it. This is why ghosts are unscientific. Does that mean that ghost don't exist? No, it just means that ghosts cannot be studied by science. And in my opinion, if something cannot be studied by science, then it is irrelevant to think about.

I'm not sure I agree. Believing that zeus will get me home safely tonight is very different then believing that if I bounce a ball 10 times applying the same force that it will rise to the same height every time.. Different types of belief I guess?

 

[xfinite]

The first point I would make xfinite – of course I do not know who your correspondent is and it is just possible that they might have an open mind, but the experience of dozens of similar exchanges on a multitude of different forums has to tell you that the strong probability is that they do not. Most who take that kind of line of argument are not interested in listening to reasoned argument, and if you are thinking you might persuade your correspondent to your view, the overwhelming likelihood is that you are heading for a big disappointment. Of course, I have encountered many who know fine well that they will not persuade those of the differing viewpoint, but derive some pleasure that escapes me from the argument. If you are of that kind then the best argument, it seems to me, lies in what science has achieved. There are around the world what – I don’t know – tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of highly qualified life scientists who have put in the hours of study over several years, but much more centrally, who have then applied what they have thus learned and achieved the most extraordinary things. That, surely is the tangible evidence that their efforts are based on much more than just beliefs. If you want a fine example of what I am talking about, Ryan has recently been telling us of his connection with the team that have been developing synthetic materials that point towards the genuine prospect of making artificial organs that might remove the problem of the shortage of organ doners. I just had a look but can’t find the thread – perhaps Ryan will be good enough to point you towards it. Ask your correspondent what he and his fellow believers have to equal that achievement.

But I warn you, don’t expect your correspondent to be persuaded by that argument.

Thank you for the response! I hear what you are saying. And I tend to fall into arguments where I catch myself trying to change a persons view by force. Which of course leads to a headache because really...how often does a person (especially on a public forum) fall down and admit they are wrong? I haven't seen it happen. So instead my hope is to just use examples to gently show someone they are incorrect without getting emotional. The problem with this particular person is that even when I point out examples of amazing discoveries he finds ways to make it support his view even more. I feel like I'm trapped in cobwebs at times with the amount of side topics he'll bring up trying to make a point. By the end I've forgotten what we originally disagreed on!

 

[micromass]

I'm not sure I agree. Believing that zeus will get me home safely tonight is very different then believing that if I bounce a ball 10 times applying the same force that it will rise to the same height every time.. Different types of belief I guess?

Different type of beliefs, for sure. Believing in Zeus takes more faith than believing that gravity works. But it's a belief nonetheless. Even if it's a very small belief.

All I'm saying is that religion and science are two separate entities and should stay separate. It makes no sense that religion starts talking about science (and vice versa), since religion and science have two very different methodologies.

The question if God exists can not be tested scientifically, so it's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question. The question if gravity behaves a certain way can be tested through the scientific method. Thus it is a scientific question, so it may not be answered by religion.

I like Evo's link by the way, it sums up everything I'm trying to say here.

 

[Evo]

Thank you for the response! I hear what you are saying. And I tend to fall into arguments where I catch myself trying to change a persons view by force. Which of course leads to a headache because really...how often does a person (especially on a public forum) fall down and admit they are wrong? I haven't seen it happen. So instead my hope is to just use examples to gently show someone they are incorrect without getting emotional. The problem with this particular person is that even when I point out examples of amazing discoveries he finds ways to make it support his view even more. I feel like I'm trapped in cobwebs at times with the amount of side topics he'll bring up trying to make a point. By the end I've forgotten what we originally disagreed on!

That's why it's pointless to get into an argument with someone that doesn't understand science and goes on faith alone. They can't/won't accept what you've said and will end up making word salad out of your explanation, making it useless to continue correcting them. They just keep spiraling into deeper levels of confusion. They're never going to accept what you're saying.

 

[xfinite]

Different type of beliefs, for sure. Believing in Zeus takes more faith than believing that gravity works. But it's a belief nonetheless. Even if it's a very small belief.

All I'm saying is that religion and science are two separate entities and should stay separate. It makes no sense that religion starts talking about science (and vice versa), since religion and science have two very different methodologies.

The question if God exists can not be tested scientifically, so it's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question. The question if gravity behaves a certain way can be tested through the scientific method. Thus it is a scientific question, so it may not be answered by religion.

I like Evo's link by the way, it sums up everything I'm trying to say here.

Are there separate definitions for beliefs then? In the example I gave of believing Zeus will get home - there is no evidence for. But there there is evidence that the ball will bounce back to the same height...

I agree with every thing else you said! Spot on.

 

[xfinite]

That's why it's pointless to get into an argument with someone that doesn't understand science and goes on faith alone. They can't/won't accept what you've said and will end up making word salad out of your explanation, making it useless to continue correcting them. They just keep spiraling into deeper levels of confusion. They're never going to accept what you're saying.

Yea, I need to stop getting involved in conversations/debates with people who think like that. I fall for it every time...

 

[phinds]

Ask your correspondent what he and his fellow believers have to equal that achievement.
.

Pointless line of argument. They have miracles.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Are there separate definitions for beliefs then? In the example I gave of believing Zeus will get home - there is no evidence for. But there there is evidence that the ball will bounce back to the same height...

I agree with every thing else you said! Spot on.

Going with the definitions I gave at first they would both be beliefs however one of them would be a faith belief.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Found an article that stays within our guideliens and basically sums up everything said above.

Science is *evidence* based.

Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural

<snip> everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn't require giving up religious faith.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

This is an excellent link(url) that I fully support. I've used it quite often. Very valuable information on that website. Naturally, I'm a big fan of U.C. Berkeley!
I also support this statement on that website:

Participants in science behave scientifically
Science is sometimes misconstrued as an elite endeavor in which one has to be a member of "the club" in order to be taken seriously. That's a bit misleading. In fact, science is now open to anyone (regardless of age, gender, religious commitment, physical ability, ethnicity, country of origin, political views, nearsightedness, favorite ice cream flavor — whatever!) and benefits tremendously from the expanding diversity of perspectives offered by its participants. However, science only works because the people involved with it behave "scientifically" — that is, behave in ways that push science forward.

Please read on . . .
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_09

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Science uses inductive reasoning. That is, you observe a series of events and if there's a pattern, you propose the pattern as a law. Such laws are only as good as your thoroughness in observing, and only hold tentatively pending the next observation. If you believe that the pattern is a real law, that is if you believe that the pattern cannot be broken, then you will not be in a good position to see it break if it does. For this reason, a scientist is better off without faith in the laws.

 

[Routaran]

I don't think that scientists use belief/faith, at least not in the way that most people mean when they use that word. To me, belief/faith is holding a premise to be true without sufficient evidence.

Its important to define these words clearly as they can be taken to mean different things. One could take belief to mean simply holding a premise to be true without any reference to why one believes something to be true. In that sense, yes, scientists can believe things. Scientists believe that gravity is an force that causes masses to attract each other, why is not addressed in this context.

But when belief/faith are used in an interchangeable manner then no. I view this as simply an attempt to project ones own faults onto another as a means to attack the others position. It's very similar to the tactic of accusing atheism to be faith based, saying it requires just as much faith to not believe as it does to believe.

If your friend does not respect the value of reason and evidence, there is no logical argument and no amount of evidence will change their mind. How can you reason with someone who does not understand why reason is important?

My sister is one of those new age nuts who believes in cosmic energies and consciousness which can show you enlightenment and unlock all the mysteries of the universe. "You need to go beyond logic and science to understand the cosmic truths." She has got to the point where she no longer believes that rational thought can get you the answer. If it does, its only an illusion because its limited and incomplete. It took a few, let's call it heated debates, for me to realize that there was no way for me to show her why it was unreasonable for her to expect me or anyone else to take her claims seriously.

There really is no reason to have the faith vs evidence debate with people who don't understand the value of evidence. That said, I do still once in a while ask, "well how do u know that?" Then watch how she tries to use reason to explain why reason is insufficient. The only reason I still engage in that dialog is in the hopes that someone else who is present and listening to the conversation might pick up on the contradictions and demand that claims must be properly supported to be taken seriously.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I had a few further thoughts on this, one of the biggest problems with the definitions is how the word "faith" insidiously becomes synonymous with other words. This really confuses the issue. My strictest definition of faith would be;

"Holding a proposition to be true regardless of evidence"

However confusingly use faith to mean;
- Belief
- Religion
- Spiritualism
- Trust

The first and last are where problems really start creeping in with the whole "scientists have faith" argument.

 

[FlexGunship]

Scientists hold the belief that evidence is the most significant indicator of facts.

I see no evidence for this belief.
(That second part is tongue-in-cheek.)

 

[Physics-Learner]

it really depends on how you define the word "belief".

i have seen on this thread the term belief without evidence.

in my way of thinking, this is redundant.

belief is the acceptance of a fact without any evidence.

once we have evidence, then we have the opportunity of making some sort of informed guess. and then it is no longer a belief.

personally, i believe in nothing. which also means that i disbelieve in nothing. i accept the fact that there is little that i know with 100% certainty, so that i attach some level of probability to most knowledge that i have .

although i have never done this, it would be interesting for someone to write down a list of 100 things "he knows". then go back and re-visit that list every 10 years or so. that would tend to open our eyes a bit - LOL.

 

[Physics-Learner]

I had a few further thoughts on this, one of the biggest problems with the definitions is how the word "faith" insidiously becomes synonymous with other words. This really confuses the issue. My strictest definition of faith would be;

"Holding a proposition to be true regardless of evidence"

However confusingly use faith to mean;
- Belief
- Religion
- Spiritualism
- Trust

The first and last are where problems really start creeping in with the whole "scientists have faith" argument.

i was raised catholic. i tend to think of "faith" as accepting something as true in which there is no evidence, not regardless of the evidence. although i do agree that people of most religions will state that they believe something even when there is evidence against it being true.

another thing i have observed to be true is that, due to brainwashing, people will continue to state that they believe in such and such as if they have no doubts. but in reality, they have doubts just like the rest of us.

i don't know how many people claim to be agnostics, but i suspect that most believers and atheists have some doubts about the existence of god. both stances are beliefs, since neither stance can give one iota of evidence to support their conclusion.

 

[FlexGunship]

belief is the acceptance of a fact without any evidence.

It is my belief that you are wrong.

be·lief/biˈlēf/Noun
1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

There is no indication of whether or not "acceptance of a statement" must not be based on fact for you to "believe" it. In actuality, I believe most things that are well proven; almost exclusively based on evidence.

It is my belief, based on the evidence provided by a brief Google query, that you are wrong in you understanding of the term "belief."

i don't know how many people claim to be agnostics, but i suspect that most believers and atheists have some doubts about the existence of god. both stances are beliefs, since neither stance can give one iota of evidence to support their conclusion.

Your reasoning is lacking here. A non-belief needs no justification except in the face of ample evidence. To say that because there is no evidence both sides are equally valid is nonsensical. Would you hold the same to be true of fairies? Given that there is no evidence for fairies are both postulates: "there is reason to believe fairies exist" and "there is no reason to believe fairies exist" equally valid?

A lack-of-a-belief is not a belief any more than a lack-of-an-idea is an idea.

 

[Physics-Learner]

the word believe is used so generally that it is hard to put an exact definition on it.

take a look at the following

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief

most uses of the word involve the "acceptance" of something with little to no proof of said something. but i do not intend to get into a big discussion regarding the definition of a word.

fairies, the easter bunny, etc. are things that humans have intentionally made up, so your example is a poor one.

 

[FlexGunship]

the word believe is used so generally that it is hard to put an exact definition on it.

take a look at the following

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief

most uses of the word involve the "acceptance" of something with little to no proof of said something. but i do not intend to get into a big discussion regarding the definition of a word.

be·lief[/PLAIN] (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

belief [bɪˈliːf]
n
1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc., accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc

Granted the word "faith" appears in the third definition of the second dictionary on that page, I don't see the trend you are describing: "acceptance of something with little to no proof." The reason you don't want to get into a "big discussion" is because you're wrong. It's a common tactic adopted by those who are unwilling to admit an error.

fairies, the easter bunny, etc. are things that humans have intentionally made up, so your example is a poor one.

Fairies were not intentionally made up, as you claim. They were a common park of folk lore for a large part of human history. In fact, some Celtic-region religions worshiped fairies as gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy#Origin_of_fairies") all the way up until Christianity was introduced; trading one belief for another.

Furthermore, it's ironic that you would rebut an argument comparing a god-belief to a fairy-belief by saying that "[fairies are] intentionally made up." If you don't see the irony of your declaration, then I suggest you look up "irony."

 

[Physics-Learner]

my belief (tongue in cheek) is that you like to argue with me about anything. if i said it was round, you would say it was square.

the word "fairy" most likely does not mean the same thing to the both of us.

perhaps you might interject your definition of the word, so that we can both be discussing the exact same thing. part of the reason why i dislike the use of certain words in discussions, because they have very different connotations, even if their denotations are similar.

the word "belief" is very definitely attached to the acceptance of something without proof. "do you believe in god" is an extremely common question that one is apt to get in one's life.

the word "acceptance" has definite connotations of allowing a process or condition, etc. without any effort to change, protest, etc. in other words, it did not come about from evidence.

when i was a kid, i "accepted" the fact that god exists.