Why Is Science Based On So Much Faith?

[PFanalog57]

We might as well also ask what 'faith' is.

Religious faith appears to be mostly based on the unobserved.

Scientific faith appears to be based on redundancy, in that the measurements, observations & experiments can be repeated over and over.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Religious faith appears to be mostly based on the unobserved.

Scientific faith appears to be based on redundancy, in that the measurements, observations & experiments can be repeated over and over.

The religionist who has observed something religious, eg God, over and over is then placing the second kind of faith in that something.

EDIT: Nerid: are you essentially saying that about science, you are certain that you are not certain? Let's examine that a bit.

i am certain that i am not certain.

am i certain of that statement?

better: i am only certain that i am not certain of anything.

am i certain or not certain of the "better" statement? well
1. if i am certain of the "better" statement, then the "better" statement is false for "i am not certain of anything" is no longer the *only* certain statement. since the "better" statement is false, "i am not (only certain) that (i am not certain of anything)" is true. then either "i am not certain of anything" is not the only thing i am certain of or i am not certain of "i am not certain of anything." i will handle the second case below. since "i am not certain of anything" is not the only thing i am certain of, i am certain of something besides "i am not certain of anything," which contradicts the statement "i am not certain of anything." so we have either a contradiction or the second case which is
2. i am not certain of "i am not certain of anything" contradicts the statement i am certain of "i am not certain of anything" and, therefore, it contradicts the statement, "i am only certain of 'i am not certain of anything'," which is the premise.

Therefore, I am certain that I am not certain is a strange loop and is paradoxical.

But perhaps you would say neither certain nor not certain. Let's examine this case. Well, I'm assuming the law of the excluded middle: A v ~A is true for all A (including A=I am certain). Assuming this law, you're either certain or not certain.

 

[PFanalog57]

The religionist who has observed something religious, eg God, over and over is then placing the second kind of faith in that something.

The religionist did not observe a natural phenomena, otherwise the non-religionist could also observe it. It was a subjective experience FOR the religionist, which would not survive scrutiny of the scientific method.

 

[phoenixthoth]

The religionist did not observe a natural phenomena, otherwise the non-religionist could also observe it. It was a subjective experience FOR the religionist, which would not survive scrutiny of the scientific method.

I'm a non-scientist and I don't have a particle detector in my backyard. Why should I put any stock in QM? (If your answer is to suggest that QM was necessary for computers and such, I'd like you to make a case for that because I don't believe it.)

A non-religionist likewise doesn't have a "God detector" and therefore quite reasonably doubts the results obtained by those that do.

I just deleted a long post realizing that we're already off topic. We mean to speak of how faith is involved in or is the basis for science.

 

[PFanalog57]

I'm a non-scientist and I don't have a particle detector in my backyard. Why should I put any stock in QM?

Both religionists and non-religionists can observe the wave-particle experiments of QM.

There is no experiment to detect God

 

[honestrosewater]

I however, define faith as belief in something that cannot or has not been proved.

If something cannot be proven, it will never be the case that it has been proven, right? So can you just say "faith is belief in something that has not been proven"? (I see the distinction you're making, but I think it is implied in the shorter definition.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "proof", but, at least as far as I'm concerned, it would fall under "justification". That is, formal deductive proof, formal inductive proof (or argument), common sense, subjective evidence, objective evidence, material/physical evidence, intuition, direct observation, divine revelation, a sixth sense, "feeling lucky"- basically any reason other than "I don't know" or "just because" that one could give for believing something- could all be considered justification, for starters. The debate begins, and people part ways, in clarifying and eliminating some kinds of justification. It sounds like you want to eliminate everything but formal deductive proof. Right?

I define belief as mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

Sounds great. You either believe or you don't believe something. So "not believing" must include assuming, being undecided, etc.

And since no science theory can be proved, though there is material evidence for it, a scientist who believes a theory is placing faith in it.

Possibly, but only by your definition- because you have eliminated certain kinds of justification. People have different standards of proof, definitions of justification, whatever you want to call it. Your big bang thread is a great example of those differences.
I said possibly, because I'm a bit confused about what constitutes a physical theory. It seems there are two parts: 1) the formal system and 2) the interpretation. The interpretation would be what establishes meaning or the relevance between the math and observations. I'm a bit confused about the nature of the interpretation and if it's just another pure abstraction and if it can be "purified", so to speak.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Russell: This is not the place, IMO, for that discussion. I'd be happy to discuss with you in another thread somewhere.

If something cannot be proven, it will never be the case that it has been proven, right? So can you just say "faith is belief in something that has not been proven"? (I see the distinction you're making, but I think it is implied in the shorter definition.)

I see what you mean. Yes, that is a more elegant way to state it: faith is belief in something that has not been proven, as you indicated.

I'm not sure what you mean by "proof", but, at least as far as I'm concerned, it would fall under "justification". That is, formal deductive proof, formal inductive proof (or argument), common sense, subjective evidence, objective evidence, material/physical evidence, intuition, direct observation, divine revelation, a sixth sense, "feeling lucky"- basically any reason other than "I don't know" or "just because" that one could give for believing something- could all be considered justification, for starters.

Right. There are different notions of what constitutes a proof. You forgot proof by self-evidence although that may fall under 'common sense.' So you don't, then, think faith is involved except when you have no reason at all (I don't know or just because) to believe? Faith is when you believe something for which you have no reason to believe it? Do I have your definition right, before I continue?

The debate begins, and people part ways, in clarifying and eliminating some kinds of justification. It sounds like you want to eliminate everything but formal deductive proof. Right?

Want to? No. Feel mathematically obliged to? Yes. I'd love it if all of the above really did constitute proof but they don't, IE, not all of the above are deduction.

Sounds great. You either believe or you don't believe something. So "not believing" must include assuming, being undecided, etc.

Assuming would seem to me to be a mental acceptance of the validity of something and therefore belief. Maybe this seems different to you? Any time you don't accept the validity of something, you don't believe in it; so, being undecided is not believing, yes.

Possibly, but only by your definition- because you have eliminated certain kinds of justification. People have different standards of proof, definitions of justification, whatever you want to call it.

I think this is a wonderful observation.

I said possibly, because I'm a bit confused about what constitutes a physical theory. It seems there are two parts: 1) the formal system and 2) the interpretation. The interpretation would be what establishes meaning or the relevance between the math and observations. I'm a bit confused about the nature of the interpretation and if it's just another pure abstraction and if it can be "purified", so to speak.

I think it can be purified somewhat in the context of language theory and metaphor theory. One would model the situation as the math being a metaphor for the observed. The idendification between the formal system and the interpretation is a map/function with domain and range. You could look at it that way.

 

[honestrosewater]

I think the key is that in principle such and such is observable by everyone. Even so, what people can observe in principle is still debatable.

If the scientific method cannot provide justification, then scientific claims that use the scientific method as justification are not justifiable. Fine, but the statement is conditional- if A, then B. Don't expect everyone to agree with A, or even to agree that logic can provide justification. (I should have spelled that out better, but you get the point.)

 

[honestrosewater]

So you don't, then, think faith is involved except when you have no reason at all (I don't know or just because) to believe? Faith is when you believe something for which you have no reason to believe it? Do I have your definition right, before I continue?

I was just giving the broadest definition of justification. You can certainly narrow your definition as much as you want to. Personally, I'm not sure what I consider justification. Direct observation (as in my own personal subjective experience of something) and logical consistency, perhaps.
I can assume your definition for the sake of argument.

Assuming would seem to me to be a mental acceptance of the validity of something and therefore belief. Maybe this seems different to you?

The difference I would draw between assumption and belief concerns truth. I'm not sure exactly how I would phrase the definitions, but postulates, axioms, hypotheses, premises, etc. would all be assumptions until they are believed to be true. It would be a matter of certainty and context, I suppose. There is some subtlety I can't put my finger on. For instance, do you believe Modus Ponens is true? I'm not yet sure how that makes sense.

I think it can be purified somewhat in the context of language theory and metaphor theory. One would model the situation as the math being a metaphor for the observed. The idendification between the formal system and the interpretation is a map/function with domain and range. You could look at it that way.

Thanks, I'll look into that.

Edit: BTW, I don't mean to sound like I'm revealing any profound knowledge either. Surely anyone who's been around PF for a while knows that any argument is based on definitions anyway. I'm just saying that everyone may not have realized that the definitions of some of the terms being used here are actually quite contentious, so it's necessary to clarify them to avoid a pointless argument.

 

[Nereid]

Cool, I go away for a day or three, and the thread has moved on to much deeper and interesting things, and poor ol' Nereid is still stuck pondering 'belief'

So, FWIW, a post that all will no doubt wish to post ...

In terms of what phoenixthoth said, I believe it's pretty circular ... ('faith' = 'trust' = 'belief' = ...). But then, for me, there's a cline between emotion and thinking ... 'I think Mandrake is a pompous fool' or 'I feel Les is a really cool dude' or 'I really lost my cool talking with that blockhead phone company CSR'. But it seems to me this doesn't help, because I can take a deep breath, apologise for my rudeness, and the nice CSR (in Bangalore, no doubt) and I may end the call getting on just fine (and me promising to drop an email to her super recommending her for a promotion) ... or Mandrake in his next post may confess to being (formerly) an obnoxious racist, but he's seen the error of his ways because he's fallen madly in love with someone from Nigeria with an IQ of 2000 ... or ... you see? In phoenixthoth's intent, there seems to be some kind of timelessness or permanence to 'belief' and 'faith' - it just won't do to change my mind as to what I 'believe in' six times before breakfast!

So then I thought, what are the timeless things I 'believe'? Here's a partial list:
1 if I jump off the top of the Eiffel Tower (without a parachute, etc), I will die
2 I cannot avoid the taxman
3 sauvignon blanc from New Zealand is usually very good to drink
4 I will never write a paper that unifies GR and QM
5 in the past year, my moods have swung quite a lot
6 love isn't all you need

But this doesn't help much, because 'science' is whatever it is no matter what Nereid (or phoenixthoth?) believes (or doesn't believe) ... and this thread starts with the assumption that 'science is based on (so much) faith'.

So is 'science' something which exists independently of 'scientists'?

To answer this we could turn to the leading philosophers of science ... Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend ... and their (philosopher) critics.

If I understand Paul, there's no essential difference between 'science' and magic (or religion), and belief 1 above is just a matter of taste. TENYEARS seems, in this sense, to be a fan of Paul.

If I understand Karl, belief is irrelevant - the first good observation that's inconsistent with a theory, law, hypothesis, ... and only a fool would continue to 'believe' it.

Thomas, however, seems to be saying that belief is a bit of a fad ... in normal times, it's OK, it's what scientists do; at times of paradigm shift, the best minds may be respected for flipping and flopping every second Sunday.

And what about Imre?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a non-scientist and I don't have a particle detector in my backyard. Why should I put any stock in QM? (If your answer is to suggest that QM was necessary for computers and such, I'd like you to make a case for that because I don't believe it.)

A non-religionist likewise doesn't have a "God detector" and therefore quite reasonably doubts the results obtained by those that do.

There is a pretty key difference there: if you choose to, you can learn about QM and know the things we are saying are true. You can choose to learn how a laser works. You can choose to learn why the double-slit experiment does what it does (you can perform one if you choose!), etc. The same cannot be said about a "God detector" - which, does not exist.

Closing your eyes and ears and choosing ignorance does not support your position.

 

[honestrosewater]

poor ol' Nereid is still stuck pondering 'belief'

Belief is whatever you believe it to be.

So, FWIW, a post that all will no doubt wish to post ...

You and your flippin acronyms- WTFDFWIWM? I know I'll figure it out as soon as I post this.

4 I will never write a paper that unifies GR and QM

I don't think anyone's buying this one.

I guess I should add something constructive. Perhaps belief can be clarified by making it more intere$ting: You believe X if you would bet your life that X is true. That seems extreme, but is that what belief really means?

 

[Nereid]

You and your flippin acronyms- WTFDFWIWM? I know I'll figure it out as soon as I post this.

for what it's worth, I try not to invent them, simply use what I've seen others use

I don't think anyone's buying this one.

:!)

I guess I should add something constructive. Perhaps belief can be clarified by making it more intere$ting: You believe X if you would bet your life that X is true. That seems extreme, but is that what belief really means?

Yes, that's sort of in the direction I was going ... the most 'permanent beliefs' that I think I have relate to 'black&white' cases of staying alive, such as 1, my Eiffel Tower example. It also deals rather neatly with at least some aspects of phoenixthoth's questions/challenges - putting faith in 'science' is different than putting faith in anything else because it preserves your life ('this pill will cure you of {dreaded illness}', 'a tsunami will hit the coastal areas of Y at 25:67 tomorrow'). An interesting negative example is the outbreak of BSE and vCJD in the UK ... the Department of Agriculture (as I think it was then) ignored science and said beef from infected cattle was safe to eat - faith in government pronouncements dropped.

But this doesn't help much, because the issue isn't whether Joan G&T or Joe Sixpack have faith in science, it's the extent to which science itself is based on faith.

And that's where I was trying to go ... we need to reach some sort of consensus on what science is before we can properly discuss this (ditto 'faith', but phoenixthoth and others have already started to deal with that).

So, any takers? Bacon, Hume, Berkely, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Dennett, ... which one(s) - if any - are on the right track?

 

[Les Sleeth]

But this doesn't help much, because the issue isn't whether Joan G&T or Joe Sixpack have faith in science, it's the extent to which science itself is based on faith.

I think it would be useful to distinquish between three types of faith.

1. There is what we might call pragmatic faith. Pragmatic faith is trusting something that has consistantly "worked" in the past, and it is the successes of that past performance which has naturally given one faith it will continue to work in the future. I think science engenders this sort of faith.

2. There is spiritual faith, which in the West has primarily descended from the apostle Paul's interpretation of it. Let's assume for the moment Paul described something that one really can have faith in. Whatever it is, it isn't available to the senses. Back then what was still around was a feeling Jesus had made prevalent in the hearts of those who were open to it. Paul had allowed himself to feel that, and taught that it is ironclad faith in that feeling as the "way" which will unite one with God. Faith in this case means to trust something that is very subtle and internal to guide one. In other words, don't let the much more apparent and sometimes overwhelming circumstances of the external world pull you into its "ways." It has its pragmatic aspect too because the feeling of it (when it is real) gives internal rewards such as contentment and wisdom, which most people could do with a bit more of.

3. Lastly there is blind faith. Blind faith seems to go on quite a bit in religion. Instead of having faith in the original experience the teacher brought alive in people, over time "articles of faith" develop, which are the devices of religion--from rituals, dogma and artifacts to scripture--developed by the religious over the centuries. But blind faith isn't restricted to religion. One can be "blinded" by unjustified faith in science, for example, too (which I've claimed that some physicalists do).

I'd sum up by saying faith is good when what we have faith in benefits us overall. But it is also important one's faith be proportional to the efficacy of our faith object; when one goes beyond that, it can result in deluding us.

And that's where I was trying to go ... we need to reach some sort of consensus on what science is before we can properly discuss this (ditto 'faith', but phoenixthoth and others have already started to deal with that).

So, any takers? Bacon, Hume, Berkely, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Dennett, ... which one(s) - if any - are on the right track?

I'm a Locke, A.J. Ayer, and Peirce fan myself.

Locke: “Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience. In that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself.”

Ayer: “All propositions which have factual content are empirical hypotheses; and the foundation of a empirical hypothesis is to provide a rule for anticipation of experience.”

Peirce: "All the evolution we know of proceeds from the vague to the definite. . . . Many a man has cherished for years as his hobby some vague shadow of an idea, too meaningless to be positively false."

 

[phoenixthoth]

Nerid...putting faith in 'science' is different than putting faith in anything else because it preserves your life...

I agree. My goal is to show that some kind of faith is involved in science. Now that we're getting down to it a bit more, I'll rephrase my claim: there is at least one scientist who puts faith in at least one scientific theory. This would prove, if correct, the other claim I made which is that faith is involved in science. I didn't then make a distinction between different kinds of faith and neither did, tmk, TENYEARS. So any type of faith will do as long as there is some in science. Where TENYEARS and I part ways is that I don't think I can prove science is based on faith.

But this doesn't help much, because the issue isn't whether Joan G&T or Joe Sixpack have faith in science, it's the extent to which science itself is based on faith.

As you struggled with what belief is, I am struggling with this distinction. I know and I don't care right now about Joe Sixpack having or not having faith in science. To me, Joe Sixpack (assuming he's not a scientist), that has nothing to do with whether faith is involved in science.

What does it even mean for science to be based on faith? Faith to me (correct me if I'm wrong) must involve a being, an observer, a person. A person has faith, a subject (eg history or math or science) does not. So to what extent is science based on faith? To me, that means that the people involved have faith. Therefore, for science to be based on faith means that the people involved (and I think it must be scientists) have faith in science and that science is based on this faith.

So to discuss this you suggest that we need to define what science is. I'm not a scientist so I won't even try to define it. If I were to venture a guess:
Science is the meticulous observation of the universe in which an integral component is making theories of those observations and testing those theories with experiments which involve more meticulous observations.

I'd personally like TENYEARS to fix a definition of science with us, fix which version of faith he's meaning, and then show how science as defined is based on that version of faith.

My claim is not as strong as TENYEARS' but to convince you of my claim I have to fix definitions, too.

 

[TENYEARS]

Ok phoenixthoth:

Faith = Belief = Trust In

At every moment of our relative existence in all that we interelate we have trust,faith and belief. It is impossible for a relative object to do anything other that that. That is pure logic that is realization beyond the relative for a knife cannot cut itself. When I experience reality in 1987 I needed to understand how such a thing was connected with reality. If I am part of the whole conscious what was it's connection with the physical reality. In 1991 it came to me it was a direct realization of what the universe was made, what gravity is and magnetism. When I understood this it came to me how much of science is based on belief. The question was still floating around what the universe was made of and it was already stated in relativity. LoL what a joke. Relativity = String Theory. All belief. That was my laugh. I LoLed far to much over it. You see they cannot connect the dots because what they have is faith, beleif and trust but they do not understand. It is not that they cannot it is that they believe it is above them beyond them. No, it is that they are afraid like we all are of the truth, but only the truth will set you free. Magnetism is a facet of gravity which polarizes the vibration of conciousness itself. Static electricy the same thing. The big LoL is that in an instant of realization one would instantly understand the reality of what is possible from such function of universe. You would understand humans can see the future, they can fly, they are more than their skin, they can see all waves of existence and are themselves part of this awsome vibrating whole. Some of these things I have personal experince in and some I do not, but I in the moment of realization all the of what can be came to me. To believe anything I have said here would be faith. The view of the realitive world through relative objects will always be faith. Even the viewing through ones own eyes or the multitide of the eyes of others. It is still indeed faith. I cannot show eyes that refuse to open. To see the truth only requires for one to look without the aid of another. There and only there will one see the stark truth of reality. In the moment of witnessing you will indeed bethrown down only to rise up in a clarity unmatched throughout the history of your experience.

How in the name of God could science not have known that string theory was indeed relativity. Simple faith and lack of thought, lack of understanding. Hawking himself screwed up royally in multiple statements of reality. What a joke and yet at any moment the conciousness of a human fluxes and our perception of things is altered at any given instant and yet the truth is unchangable and when it comes to proclaimations of truth as an abolute one should be simply be certain. Who of you I dare any of you to say that relativity is different than string theory. After I discovered the nature of reality I read an article a couple of years later. It was of one who was said to be the discover or great proponet of the string theory. LoL it was his friend who uncovered the theory in his own realization. Faith in other. Good choice for once. Lol

For science to have been in the dark for so long when reality was aleady here surrounding us. Note: Did you know that Mr E became a christian scientist. Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol Of course that is faith for I do not know it is true. In fact, no fact in history for all I know is real. That is absolute truth. I can say I believe with a fairly high degree of probability and yet it is indeed faith. Faith of those who present that history, the picture before my eyes.

 

[loseyourname]

Science and the Chruch are one and the same.

Ten, what is this even supposed to mean? Science and church are not even in the same category of being. Science is a processual method. Church is any variety of institutions that ritualize spirituality. Are you simply trying to say that at some basic level, the scientist and theologian use the same techniques to acquire knowledge; that is, they both trust in their experience? The only difference being that the scientist trusts only sensory experience, whereas the theologian trusts in some other category, whether it be divine revelation or simply a feeling of truth associated with texts said to be divinely inspired? Is that even a meaningful comparison? All it seems that you are saying is that any attempt to acquire knowledge necessarily requires that one trust in one's own experience. Are you under the impression that you've come up with a revolutionary idea, or even one that not everyone is aware of, by doing so?

 

[Nereid]

There is a pretty key difference there: if you choose to, you can learn about QM and know the things we are saying are true. You can choose to learn how a laser works. You can choose to learn why the double-slit experiment does what it does (you can perform one if you choose!), etc. The same cannot be said about a "God detector" - which, does not exist.

There's a sense in which such a thing may exist ... in the 22nd or 23rd century.

Just as we can look at science through the lens of 'what scientists do', so we can examine religious belief, etc by studying those folk who state they have such (and those who state that they don't). For a (weak) analogy, think of depression, or romantic love ... psychologists, neuro-scientists, evolutionary biologists, etc are beginning to get a handle on these things (from an 'external' POV; they are NOT addressing the nature of the subjective experience itself, AFAIK). And in the popular literature, I've seen references to a 'god gene'; IIRC, there's been some interesting work done on religious hallucinations and epilepsy; and so on (I'm NOT saying that any of this work is good - or not - or that these results per se provide a good understanding).

So maybe in another 100 years or so it will be possible to make a 'god detector' - it will show the extent to which a person is 'wired for religion' (genes, brain chemistry, neuron wiring, ... I don't know), and maybe even some Pharma will make a pill which you can take to change your wiring - either way (Prozac for depression; why not cazorP for religion? zoPcar to stop religion?)

 

[russ_watters]

Ehh, should have answered this before:

So then would you say that "The Laws of Physics" are universal, even if we'll never be sure we have them? I suppose since we'll never be sure we have them that this is a pointless question but let's suppose we discuss it anyway.

You got it - though I wouldn't consider it a pointless question. Its a question never addressed by scientists because it, in a way, is the one article of faith that science is based on: the belief that there is a set of Universal Laws and if we try hard enough and are smart enough, we can figure them out.

The fact that our theories work does seem to be evidence that the universe obeys some Universal Laws, but we really don't and can't ever know for sure that God isn't up there somewhere screwing with us.

Would then they be universal basically by definition and, if not, how does one (like myself) independently verify, at least in theory, that "The Laws of Physics" are universal?

Well that's just it - (if they exist )they are universal by definition and we can never really know if we have them.

 

[Philocrat]

Why does science have such faith? I don't like faith. You take instruments made by someone else, made of parts of multiple people, calebrated by formulas equations and other instruments all working in unisone to provide an approximation of an answer you cannot see. You work with formulas which generate boxes of boxes which house a reality that is comprehended because it is taught to be so and provable within the box and yet out of all the words you see nothing. Science should not be based on faith as well as relgion. There is one way to understanding and one way alone...

LOGIC IS THE GIVER OF 'TRUE' OR 'REAL' FAITH!

Now, think of all the institutions ever existed in this world and ask your self these questions:

(1) HOW MUCH LOGIC DOES EACH OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS USE IN THEIR THOUGHTS AND DEEDS?

(2) IF EACH ONE OF THEM USES LOGIC AT ALL IN THIER THOUGHTS AND DEEDS, WHAT KIND OF LOGIC DOES IT USE AND HOW CONSISTENT ARE THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES?

As far as Logic is concernced, having faith in something implies that you have given a great deal of thought to it using logically consistent arguments. Every statement of fact is logically deduced to the finest and clearest detail without dubious, unaccountable, intervening variables. That is, given anything, event or invention, regardless of the number of logical and quantitative devices involved, regarless of the number of people, machines, measurements, sensors, maximisers, minimisers, enhancers and contributory mechanisms involved, the sum totality of the outcome must be such that it is in the end wholly construed as being 'LOGICALLY AND QUANTITATIVELY CONSISTENT.

The 'DEGREE OF CONSISTENCY' of the resulting consequence or outcome supervenes upon the 'DEGREE OF CONSISTENCY' of everyhting that went into it and everything that took part in its production. How long anything lasts without change of its form suggests how logically consistent the means of its production or creation. Anything that comes into existence, remains the same, and permanently survives destruction, in the world ruled by logic and logic alone, is deemed to be 100% logically and quantitatively consistent.

We know that science uses the highest percentage of logic in the production of things and knowledge in general, with high degree of logical and quantitative consistencies, the question now is, how much logic is used in other institutions or disciplines? We need to measure them!

The production of knowledge and things for the benefit of all mandkind is a very serious business. When you put yourself forward in the world society as the producer of knowledge and things for the sustainment of the human life as a whole, you had better be Good because you are taking responsibility that is so life-critcal that you cannot afford not to appeal to Logic, the very type of Logic that allows you to be always CLEAR in your thoughts and deeds.

The time has now come for us to quantify and measure how much logic and what type of logic is used in the production of all our life utilities and knowledge in general, especially the type of knowledge that we all rely on to help the human race not only to structurally and functionally progress but also, and above all, to finally survive physical destruction!

 

[phoenixthoth]

Although Nereid and others are not willing to admit they believe anything they cannot prove (quite possibly because they don't believe anything they cannot prove), here are some scientists who believe what they cannot prove:

http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html

ALEXANDER VILENKIN
Physicist; Institute of Cosmology, Tufts University

There are good reasons to believe that the universe is infinite.

If so, it contains an infinite number of regions of the same size as our observable region (which is 80 billion light years across). It follows from quantum mechanics that the number of distinct histories that could occur in any of these finite regions in a finite time (since the big bang) is finite. By history I mean not just the history of the civilization, but everything that happens, down to the atomic level. The number of possible histories is fantastically large (it has been estimated as 10 to the power 10150), but the important point is that it is finite.

Thus, we have an infinite number of regions like ours and only a finite number of histories that can play out in them. It follows that every possible history will occur in an infinite number of regions. In particular, there should be an infinite number of regions with histories identical to ours. So, if you are not satisfied with the result of the presidential elections, don't despair: you candidate has won on an infinite number of Earth's.

This picture of the universe robs our civilization of any claim for uniqueness: countless identical civilizations are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. I find this rather depressing, but it is probably true.

Another thing that I believe to be true, but cannot prove, is that our part of the universe will eventually stop expanding and will recollapse to a big crunch. But this will happen no sooner than 20 billion years from now, and probably much later.

Therefore, there are some scientists who have faith.

 

[honestrosewater]

Sure, a scientist having faith in science is possible, but is it necessary? To prove it isn't necessary, we only need to find one scientist who doesn't have faith in science, right? So we need to either start looking for such a scientist or prove that such a scientist can't exist, right?

 

[phoenixthoth]

Sure, a scientist having faith in science is possible, but is it necessary? [1] To prove it isn't necessary, we only need to find one scientist who doesn't have faith in science, right? [2]So we need to either start looking for such a scientist or prove that such a scientist can't exist, right?

[1]
Give me a definition of science and I'll point out the beliefs that cannot be proved (which I am taking to be the definition of faith). The things I will point out will sound absurd to many "reasonable" people but they are still there.

[2]
Unnecessary to do either one because we shall see that faith is necessary in science.

 

[honestrosewater]

[1]
Give me a definition of science and I'll point out the beliefs that cannot be proved (which I am taking to be the definition of faith). The things I will point out will sound absurd to many "reasonable" people but they are still there.

Whoa, what happened to nonbelief, assumption, being undecided, etc.? People can still not believe something, right? So what does it matter if X can't be proven if, at least, not everyone has to believe X anyway?

 

[phoenixthoth]

Whoa, what happened to nonbelief, assumption, being undecided, etc.? People can still not believe something, right? So what does it matter if X can't be proven if, at least, not everyone has to believe X anyway?

I don't know. Ask that of religion.

 

[honestrosewater]

I don't know. Ask that of religion.

I don't understand. I wasn't trying to be an ***. I just wanted to make sure you weren't jumping to conclusions.
I did some searching for a definition of science and found one point of consensus: Science is open to revision. People disagree on the methods of scientific discovery, progress, analysis, and so on. I'm not a practicing scientist so I don't have any personal experience to speak from.

I would still like to know how you intend to prove all scientists believe in science (or believe whatever it is about science you propose they must believe).

 

[phoenixthoth]

I don't understand. I wasn't trying to be an ***. I just wanted to make sure you weren't jumping to conclusions.

Sorry if I came off as being curt. I just wanted one who readily agreed with your statement involving X's to consider the replacement X=religion. I find it thought provoking either way.

I did some searching for a definition of science and found one point of consensus: Science is open to revision. People disagree on the methods of scientific discovery, progress, analysis, and so on. I'm not a practicing scientist so I don't have any personal experience to speak from.

So what is believed in today (eg's may include, or not, GR, ST, SR, QM, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, conservation of mass/energy, DNA is integral in how life is, etc.) is not believed tomorrow. Still, what is believed today can't be proved and is in my opinion, then involving faith.

I would still like to know how you intend to prove all scientists believe in science (or believe whatever it is about science you propose they must believe).

I don't claim that. My claim is that faith is involved in science, not that science is based on faith. By that I mean that at least one scientist believes at least one aspect of science. The proof was given a couple of posts ago when scientists were asked to state things they believe which they cannot prove.

 

[loseyourname]

So what is believed in today (eg's may include, or not, GR, ST, SR, QM, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, conservation of mass/energy, DNA is integral in how life is, etc.) is not believed tomorrow. Still, what is believed today can't be proved and is in my opinion, then involving faith.

Sure, but it is not necessary to believe any of the theories of science true in order to conduct science.

I don't claim that. My claim is that faith is involved in science, not that science is based on faith. By that I mean that at least one scientist believes at least one aspect of science. The proof was given a couple of posts ago when scientists were asked to state things they believe which they cannot prove.

Of what relevance is that claim? I think Descartes effectively proved that belief in anything other than one's own existence requires some leap of faith. This thread was started on the premise that science itself is based on faith. The question then becomes whether the methodology (because science is only a method) itself requires faith. I would answer yes to that question with the caveat that it requires no more faith than is required to believe that when you hit the "A" key on your keyboard and the cursor is in the text box, an "A" will appear in the text box - a rather trivial amount of faith, certainly not amounting to a critique of the method.

 

[FZ+]

My claim is that faith is involved in science, not that science is based on faith. By that I mean that at least one scientist believes at least one aspect of science.

Surely that is a very pedantic claim. By that definition, science involves:

Terrorism
Sex
Murder
Socialism
Conservatism
Genocide

and indeed, all the goods and evils of mankind. The fact is, all you are saying is that scientists are at least occassionally human. One would think that science is not defined by the union of the properties of all scientists, but by the intersection which crosses their various differences. That should not include faith - not intentionally, for any case.

In short, scientists are allowed to have faith in things. But if they deal with these things with faith, then they are not dealing with them particularly scientifically in the strict sense.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Where is the definition of science you're referring to? Surely not in what you quoted. You are surely stretching things.

What is the correct definition of science? Based on your definition of science, I may be able to tell you where the nontrivial faith lies. It appears to be pointless to use my definition of science (above somewhere) because it will seem as though I'm making stuff up to suit my argument's needs.

 

[FZ+]

Science is wonder and scepticism. If we define faith as belief without scepticism, then the belief of a scientist for a given idea is not really faith, because he is making an effort to prove it wrong or not-wrong.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Science is wonder and scepticism. If we define faith as belief without scepticism, then the belief of a scientist for a given idea is not really faith, because he is making an effort to prove it wrong or not-wrong.

First of all, I don't agree that that is the definition of science. I was thinking more along the lines of "a body of theories, derived from either meticulous observation or thought experiments, which are continually tested against more observation and experiments; the body of theories are essentially meant to elucidate patterns in the observations/experiments as well as to have predictive and postdictive power." Something along those lines...

Anyways... I also disagree on your definition of faith. To me, faith is belief in something one cannot prove.

If we can't agree on definitions, we can't really chat about this subject.

 

[honestrosewater]

Sorry if I came off as being curt.

No problem. I was more concerned you weren't taking my objection seriously.

I just wanted one who readily agreed with your statement involving X's to consider the replacement X=religion. I find it thought provoking either way.

I think that is the crucial point in some religions- that a person chooses to believe.

So what is believed in today (eg's may include, or not, GR, ST, SR, QM, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, conservation of mass/energy, DNA is integral in how life is, etc.) is not believed tomorrow. Still, what is believed today can't be proved and is in my opinion, then involving faith.

The source of disagreement wasn't over any particular theory but methodology. It's mostly philosophers saying "science is this and only this and only works this way..." and practicing scientists telling the philosophers to get a real job. Well, that's the more entertaining way of viewing it.

I don't claim that. My claim is that faith is involved in science, not that science is based on faith. By that I mean that at least one scientist believes at least one aspect of science. The proof was given a couple of posts ago when scientists were asked to state things they believe which they cannot prove.

Then faith is involved in deduction if at least one logician believes at least one aspect of deduction. What's that expression? Hoisted by your own petard?

 

[loseyourname]

First of all, I don't agree that that is the definition of science. I was thinking more along the lines of "a body of theories, derived from either meticulous observation or thought experiments, which are continually tested against more observation and experiments; the body of theories are essentially meant to elucidate patterns in the observations/experiments as well as to have predictive and postdictive power." Something along those lines...

Nope. Science is the method by which these hypotheses are tested, not the theories derived from the results of the tests.

Anyways... I also disagree on your definition of faith. To me, faith is belief in something one cannot prove.

If we can't agree on definitions, we can't really chat about this subject.

If that's the definition of faith, then it's a trivial definition. I will again contend that Descartes proved that any belief other than the belief in one's own existence requires faith by that definition.

 

[phoenixthoth]

No problem. I was more concerned you weren't taking my objection seriously.
I think that is the crucial point in some religions- that a person chooses to believe.
The source of disagreement wasn't over any particular theory but methodology. It's mostly philosophers saying "science is this and only this and only works this way..." and practicing scientists telling the philosophers to get a real job. Well, that's the more entertaining way of viewing it.
Then faith is involved in deduction if at least one logician believes at least one aspect of deduction. What's that expression? Hoisted by your own petard?

Yes and there is a rule that my reply is at least 10 characters.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Nope. Science is the method by which these hypotheses are tested, not the theories derived from the results of the tests.

Of course, dictionary.com is wrong. Doh! "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." So Newton's Law of gravity is not science? E=mc^2 is not science? Science is the method by which E=mc^2 is tested? Well, that's news to me.

If that's the definition of faith, then it's a trivial definition. I will again contend that Descartes proved that any belief other than the belief in one's own existence requires faith by that definition.

I agree, it is trivial. It remains nonetheless that science involves faith. As I said many posts ago, this is not a profound or new fact.

 

[loseyourname]

Of course, dictionary.com is wrong. Doh! "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." So Newton's Law of gravity is not science? E=mc^2 is not science? Science is the method by which E=mc^2 is tested? Well, that's news to me.

Nope. They are laws of science. They are not science. Science is just the method by which we determine, test, and falsify these laws.

I agree, it is trivial. It remains nonetheless that science involves faith. As I said many posts ago, this is not a profound or new fact.

Okay, then why state it? It seems to me that TEN was attempting to belittle science. I'm glad you agree with me that he has no case.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Nope. They are laws of science. They are not science. Science is just the method by which we determine, test, and falsify these laws.

So your saying the laws of science are not science and that science is just the method you mentioned?

How do you define faith?

Okay, then why state it? It seems to me that TEN was attempting to belittle science. I'm glad you agree with me that he has no case.

I don't know.

TENYEARS didn't seem to me to back up his case at all. I suppose we were supposed to take it on faith. :)

I don't see why science being based on faith would belittle science. I guess he does strike a nerve when faith is at all linked to science.

 

[loseyourname]

So your saying the laws of science are not science and that science is just the method you mentioned?

Well, jeez, you just restated exactly what I already stated. Of course that's what I'm saying!

How do you define faith?

I suppose I define it as belief without scepticism, usually in things that are postulated to be unprovable (don't have to be, though). {Edit}: Not that I think I have the exclusive capacity to define the word, but that's at least what I mean when I use it. Obviously, this usage isn't consistent. I could try to build a case that my definition is more in line with common historical usage of the word, but I don't even know that that is necessarily the case. I could very well be using the word incorrectly for all I know. As long as I let you know what I mean by a given word before using it, does it really make a difference?

TENYEARS didn't seem to me to back up his case at all. I suppose we were supposed to take it on faith. :)

I don't see why science being based on faith would belittle science. I guess he does strike a nerve when faith is at all linked to science.

Science being based on faith, using your definition of faith, wouldn't belittle science. It just seemed like TEN was trying to belittle science - you know, "YOu Are aLl fools, Lol, loL, etc, etc." and all that crap. Hopefully he was banned for it and won't bother us any more.

 

[selfAdjoint]

loseyourname, would "belief in unfalsifiable claims" be a good definition, or part of a good definition? Then of course you would have to discuss your personal meaning of falsifiable. I for example don't think string theory is manifestly unfalsifiable since there is a real possibility that in the future some falsifiability test may be defined. But the Shroud of Turin is manifestly not falsifiable since every test that suggests it's a fake is always matched by another test that suggests the first one is wrong.

 

[loseyourname]

loseyourname, would "belief in unfalsifiable claims" be a good definition, or part of a good definition? Then of course you would have to discuss your personal meaning of falsifiable. I for example don't think string theory is manifestly unfalsifiable since there is a real possibility that in the future some falsifiability test may be defined. But the Shroud of Turin is manifestly not falsifiable since every test that suggests it's a fake is always matched by another test that suggests the first one is wrong.

That's a pretty good way of defining it, I suppose. A belief in something that is unfalsifiable in principle is a good one. Take, for instance, the claim that God loves us. When we speak of a human x loving another human y, we don't speak in the same terms. It is possible to demonstrate that claim to be false. If we observe human x to be neglecting or harming our doing mean things to human y, we can consider the original claim to be falsified. But to a religious person, no matter what God does to a person, it is done out of love. That claim is not falsifiable by any means whatsoever. It must simply be accepted on faith.

 

[phoenixthoth]

But to a religious person, no matter what God does to a person, it is done out of love. That claim is not falsifiable by any means whatsoever. It must simply be accepted on faith.

The claim that God does anything to a person is also not falsifiable.

Any time you use the word "God" in a claim, it is not falsifiable. This is pretty clear using most any definition of "God." Therefore, by these definitions, religion is based on faith.

Science, from what little I have learned, is just about what is falsifiable. Therefore, by these definitions, science is not based on faith.

I'm left wondering whether the following is falsifiable:
"The scientific method is valid."

 

[loseyourname]

I'm left wondering whether the following is falsifiable: "The scientific method is valid."

Sure. We test hypotheses using the scientific method. If functional knowledge were never produced using this method, the claim would be falsified. Of course, no scientist would ever make a claim like that. Scientific claims are far less ambiguous. At the very least, you'll need to state what you mean by "valid" and the context you mean it in.

 

[honestrosewater]

Self-evident truths aren't falsifiable, are they?

 

[phoenixthoth]

Sure. We test hypotheses using the scientific method. If functional knowledge were never produced using this method, the claim would be falsified. Of course, no scientist would ever make a claim like that. Scientific claims are far less ambiguous. At the very least, you'll need to state what you mean by "valid" and the context you mean it in.

Let me get something straight before I continue. What do you mean by "falsifiable?"

It doesn't matter how I define "valid" becaue if you disagree with my conclusion, you'll point to a definition of valid that is convienient for your position.

But here goes nothing anyway: valid:Producing the desired results; efficacious.

So inserting this back, I am wondering if the following statement is falsifiable:
The scientific method produces the desired results and is efficacious.

Implicit in this statement is the word always:
The scientific method always produces the desired results and is efficacious.

What do I mean by desired results? I mean that what is desired is to test a hypothesis.

So I can reduce what I'm wondering, hopefully in a clear enough language with enough common ground:
"The scientific method always tests hypotheses successfully."

Is that falsifiable? I haven't formed an opinion on it yet but I'm wondering if it is not falsifiable, then is it taken on faith? Is the scientific method itself viewed with incredulity and scepticism? Just curious; I'm not a scientist.

Also wondering, H., if you mean that "The scientific method always tests hypotheses successfully" is self-evident?

 

[loseyourname]

So I can reduce what I'm wondering, hopefully in a clear enough language with enough common ground:
"The scientific method always tests hypotheses successfully."

Is that falsifiable? I haven't formed an opinion on it yet but I'm wondering if it is not falsifiable, then is it taken on faith?

I would say that it is falsifiable. If the scientific method were used to determine that a given hypothesis is false, but later the hypothesis proved true, then the method would be falsified. You cannot say the latter, however, because the scientific method is incapable of proving the truth of a hypothesis; the best any hypothesis can hope to do is resist falsification and become ever more likely.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Notice that the scientific method is a social method, and its falsifications happen over time. It might seem for a while that experiment supported a given hypothesis, such as the appearance of the sun's motion seemed to support a geocentric astronomy. But continuing work over many generations falsified this hypothesis.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid here again, hoping that harking back to some earlier posts won't be taking this thread away from the interesting, new line it now seems to be moving in ...

Thanks Les, those 'faith' classifications are good ... as TEN doesn't seem to be participating though, and as phoenixthoth doesn't seem to have used these ... Do you have the names of the key works (one each would be nice) of your favourites (Locke, Ayer, Peirce), wrt the nature of science?

In terms of Les' categories of faith, it would seem that each scientist, as they do their science thing, has this in abundance. For example, that geologist astronaut collecting rocks on the Moon didn't check that he would die if he went collecting without his spacesuit; in labs all over the world, experimental scientists have pragmatic faith that breaking the safety codes will likely lead to injury or death. And as ordinary humans, scientists everywhere have pragmatic faith that the air they breath won't turn into HF or \tau neutrinos tomorrow.

I would think this is pretty uncontroversial, boring to discuss, and if it's all that there is to TEN's rant (and phoenixthoth's setting up of possible logical inconsistencies), then why are we wasting time on it?

Much more interesting is science itself. Good to see that there seems to be a consensus emerging that the core of science is the method, not the results. If we agree on this, then I can appreciate phoenixthoth's puzzlement ... how can you discuss the role of 'faith' in a method? Even worse, the method has a large social component; it's independent of the beliefs of the participants OK, at least it's more like an epiphenomenon.

To see this, two analogies may be helpful (like all analogies they break when stretched):

1) 'the market', as in economics. While individuals create a market (price) through their (individual) actions, and the beliefs and motivations of the players may be extraordinarily diverse, the market is particularly efficient at crunching all the relevant information.

2) language. Almost all of us are fluent speakers of at least one language. While in many ways it's early (neuroscience) days, the brain mechanisms for the conversion of the idea to speech sounds (and the reception of air pressure variations to 'understanding') are invisible to us ... we are conscious only of the result. (and BTW Les, introspection has apparently been of only limited help in working out the 'how' of language, in the sense I'm describing here).

So what? In the first analogy, the 'faith' (beliefs) of the players is irrelevant to the outcome; in the second, the brain mechanisms cannot be said - even by TEN - to have 'faith'.

Oh, and in case anyone is tempted to get carried away with the 'social' part (no, this is NOT a strawman; read Feyerabend, or some of the 'sociologists of science'), whether I believe that the source of ideas on astrophysics come from the voices of my ancestors whispering to me through the rustling of leaves in my favourite oak tree, or a desire to banish Newton's 'rape manual', is irrelevant.

 

[Alkatran]

Similar thing:

In computer science, you have increasing layers of abstraction. You have compilers running on code that was made by previous compilers etc... until you get down to the "1010001011" level.

You have to trust that all the layers below the one you're working on function correctly. I need to know that when I say "Print "HI"" In QBasic that on almost any computer "Hi" will pop up. etc etc...



It seems to work fine in computer science.

 

[honestrosewater]

Also wondering, H., if you mean that "The scientific method always tests hypotheses successfully" is self-evident?

No, I was just asking.