Why Is Science Based On So Much Faith?

[KaneOris]

Knowledge is belief, you don't know anything, you believe it, people that believe in science and its explanations because it is more believable to them, there is more evidence.

 

[Drayakir]

Look. There is a truth that exists. Scientists are working to achieve it. There are thing called axioms. We accept them to be true because the test of time showed them to be. If you want, you can take each axiom independently, and check whether it works or not.

Tools are like that as well. You may choose to test them, if you want; to calibrate them. If they conform to what other people before you have discovered, they are calibrated. If not, then they might be wrong, or you might discover something.

Science is not based on faith, because faith would require complete belief in what people have discovered before you. Then how are discoveries made? Someone QUESTIONS something, and tests it. That is not faith; that is doubt.

 

[TENYEARS]

Uncertainty? At any point and time the relative nature of all creation is in a state of flux. This is an absolute I witnessed and understand. Even with macro objects which are part of this reality at any point and time even it if be three seconds ago what I perceived to be does not have to be. One there is my perception of what was, two there is the fact that is in a state of flux and three there is the fact that the macro representation itself may not be complete or it presently does not represent the end toward the object or process being observed. So it is faith toward the objective because at any point you are trusting something other than right now. For if you were it right now you could be a direct witness to reality or the relativity of relality itself. Since you are not in right now you fixate processes and objects which you percieve to be correct. That is still trust which is equal to faith. If you brought this before a court of law it would be classified as faith. Why so upset. LoL

 

[phoenixthoth]

(By Tom)

Henceforth, I am going to delete any of your posts that do not meet the level of quality specified in the Guidelines. Please see to it that your future posts meet them.

Quote from the PF guidelines:

All members have the right to their own ideas, beliefs and faiths . Members have the right to express these on physics forums with equal respect and consideration.

Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum.

Am I the only one who sees a blatant contradiction in the two rules?

I have a serious question from a seriously uneducated person. I freely admit that, btw.

Is it true that the laws of science (lets just take Physics to start because of its foundational nature) are universal?

How and when was this proved and how can I independently verify this for myself because I do want to? (It was claimed that most scientific theories can be independently verified.)

Thank you.

With Respect,
PhoenixThoth

 

[Nereid]

I have a serious question from a seriously uneducated person. I freely admit that, btw.

Is it true that the laws of science (lets just take Physics to start because of its foundational nature) are universal?

Can we take this one step at a time please?

What is meant by the phrase 'laws of physics'? I'm personally more comfortable with theories ... which as you know come with 'domains of applicability'

How and when was this proved

I rather doubt that you'll find any serious scientist - or serious observer of science - who would claim that anything can be 'proved' in science. Indeed, outside of formal systems (such as math), does anyone claim that 'proof' is possible?

I must have written this a dozen times now, but the best that I think we can do in science is something like this: "within its stated domain of applicability, is consistent with all the good observational and experimental results; continue to be capable of making specific, concrete, testable (in principle) predictions; should those predictions include new phenomena, so much the better."

and how can I independently verify this for myself because I do want to? (It was claimed that most scientific theories can be independently verified.)

If we take GR as an example, you can (in principle) 'verify' its predictions by a) repeating the experiments that have previously been done, b) devising new experiments and observations to test its predictions, and c) examining the theory for yourself (to verify its internal consistency, for example).

 

[phoenixthoth]

Can we take this one step at a time please?

Yes.

What is meant by the phrase 'laws of physics'? I'm personally more comfortable with theories ... which as you know come with 'domains of applicability'I rather doubt that you'll find any serious scientist - or serious observer of science - who would claim that anything can be 'proved' in science. Indeed, outside of formal systems (such as math), does anyone claim that 'proof' is possible?

You interpreted my statement how I intended you to. I shall now call them the theories of thermodynamics and Newtons theories and the inverse square theory and the theory of gravity. I said I was uneducated!

Ok so nothing can be proved in science. Do you believe any theory? I know a scientist is supposed to doubt science; indeed, expect it to be wrong (which seems absurd to me but that's just my HO)... But is there any theory you do believe? GR, perhaps? Or Maxwell's equations? How about F=ma (which is not just a definition)? Do you believe that?

And, if you do, withstanding the fact that nothing in science can be proved, what do you call it when you believe something you cannot prove?

If you don't believe anything in science (which I doubt), then why study it? It works! Oh, of course, that tired old cop out answer. Well that's just not rigourous enough for my taste. I am like Berkeley attacking Newton. Calculus works, so why the need for limits? To be more rigorous. By the way, of course Berkeley was only half right because Abraham Robinson, and others, proved that infinitesimals can exist as Newton used them. So Newton was right, in a sense. And I bet science is indeed universal, that it is 'right' like Newton, but it is like Calculus was in the 1600's: not rigorous. Maybe in 400 years it will be, especially if we, as Hilbert suggested 100 years ago, axiomatize physics (see! maybe you folks already have and I'm unaware?).

I must have written this a dozen times now, but the best that I think we can do in science is something like this: "within its stated domain of applicability, is consistent with all the good observational and experimental results; continue to be capable of making specific, concrete, testable (in principle) predictions; should those predictions include new phenomena, so much the better."

What does this have to do with my questions in the last post?

If we take GR as an example, you can (in principle) 'verify' its predictions by a) repeating the experiments that have previously been done, b) devising new experiments and observations to test its predictions, and c) examining the theory for yourself (to verify its internal consistency, for example).

Let's boil this down further; I'll make an analogy between GR and the statement 1+1=2. 1+1=2 is a universal statement. It states that *any* time you add one object to one object you *always* get 2 objects. What I mean by "universal" is implied by what's in the asterisks. In math, this is proved not by observation (for it cannot, which is my point), but by logic.

So let's take Einstein's field equations from GR. Better, E=mc^2. This is an example of what I called (erroneously) a law. Is this equation universal? If so, how is that known?

By universal, I mean that for *any* mass *anywhere* *anytime*, m.

And therefore, I think that even though you avoided answering my question with a yes or no, you'd have to say that science has not been proven to be universal. Domains of applicability, etc.

Ok.

Now that we've established that science is not universal, go back to an earlier paragraph:
If science is not universal, then why study it? It works! Oh, of course, that tired old cop out answer. Well that's just not rigourous enough for my taste. I am like Berkeley attacking Newton. Calculus works, so why the need for limits? To be more rigorous. By the way, of course Berkeley was only half right because Abraham Robinson, and others, proved that infinitesimals can exist as Newton used them. So Newton was right, in a sense. And I bet science is indeed universal, that it is 'right' like Newton, but it is like Calculus was in the 1600's: not rigorous. Maybe in 400 years it will be, especially if we, as Hilbert suggested 100 years ago, axiomatize physics.

 

[quantumdude]

Am I the only one who sees a blatant contradiction in the two rules?

Quite possibly.

Think of the 'quality' guidelines as amendments to the 'freedom of speech' guidelines. This being a discussion forum, it only stands to reason that the manner in which one expresses one's thoughts should be constrained to that which leads to (you guessed it) discussion.

 

[PFanalog57]

A "physical" scientific theory, can never be proved true, it can only be proved false when it does not correspond to real world observations.

As far as faith goes, I have faith in certain regularities of nature. I have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I cannot be absolutely sure of that

Of course, Newton's laws do not correspond "exactly" with reality but they still have an acceptable range of validity.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Quite possibly.

Think of the 'quality' guidelines as amendments to the 'freedom of speech' guidelines. This being a discussion forum, it only stands to reason that the manner in which one expresses one's thoughts should be constrained to that which leads to (you guessed it) discussion.

I agree (although I don't know how many people view the two above quotations in contradiction--one of biblical proportions, at that ).

 

[PFanalog57]

By universal, I mean that for *any* mass *anywhere* *anytime*, m.

It seems to me that the laws of physics SHOULD be universal. If there were different laws for different regions, or if there were regions of the universe where the laws did not hold then there would be different regions with incompatible laws, or regions where space-time breaks down - one example a "singularity". Of course, thankfully, the singularity is most likely hidden behind an event horizon, and thus the laws are still there for universal democracy

 

[phoenixthoth]

It seems to me that the laws of physics SHOULD be universal. If there were different laws for different regions, or if there were regions of the universe where the laws did not hold then there would be different regions with incompatible laws, or regions where space-time breaks down - one example a "singularity". Of course, thankfully, the singularity is most likely hidden behind an event horizon, and thus the laws are still there for universal democracy

I also think, from an aesthetic point of view, that they should be. But they haven't been proven to be it seems.

 

[PFanalog57]

I also think, from an aesthetic point of view, that they should be. But they haven't been proven to be it seems.

You are a mathematician to the bitter end, eh phoenix?

String theory looks very promising and it is very elegant, mathematically. It is still not accepted as a true theory of science due to the fact that it is extremely difficult to verify experimentally - from what I have read about it, of course

According to Max Tegmark's level 4 multiverse, mathematical existence equals physical existence, where mathematical existence is defined such, that a proposition and its negation cannot both be proved true.

 

[Nereid]

You interpreted my statement how I intended you to. I shall now call them the theories of thermodynamics and Newtons theories and the inverse square theory and the theory of gravity. I said I was uneducated!

Glad I could be of assistance.

Ok so nothing can be proved in science. Do you believe any theory? I know a scientist is supposed to doubt science; indeed, expect it to be wrong (which seems absurd to me but that's just my HO)... But is there any theory you do believe? GR, perhaps? Or Maxwell's equations? How about F=ma (which is not just a definition)? Do you believe that?

OK, I've thought about this for a day or so ... and I have no idea how to answer!

At one level, I could say that I'm not aware of 'believing' (or 'not believing') anything ... that goes to my 'thinking'

At another level, I could say that my behaviour (which is all anyone can tell about me ... or do you have a contrary view?) is consistent with certain 'beliefs' (such as that my PC will likely work tomorrow, that I will be able to log into PF and post replies to phoenixthoth, etc).

At a third level, I could observe that other people make statements (such as 'I believe in the one true god' or 'I believe in the ONE TRUE GOD' or 'I do believe I have the 'flu') which contain the word 'believe', and from these try to infer what they mean (in the first two cases, I have no idea whatsoever - it's been a puzzle for me for the longest time).

So I'm going to have to say I'm stumped, and can you please tell me more about what this 'belief' thing is? Let's start with how you intend it to mean, in the above statement of yours.

And, if you do, withstanding the fact that nothing in science can be proved, what do you call it when you believe something you cannot prove?

What do you call it when you lkihsfa something you cannot prove? You see my problem? I have no good idea what lkihsfa means!

If you don't believe anything in science (which I doubt), then why study it? It works! Oh, of course, that tired old cop out answer. Well that's just not rigourous enough for my taste. I am like Berkeley attacking Newton. Calculus works, so why the need for limits? To be more rigorous. By the way, of course Berkeley was only half right because Abraham Robinson, and others, proved that infinitesimals can exist as Newton used them. So Newton was right, in a sense. And I bet science is indeed universal, that it is 'right' like Newton, but it is like Calculus was in the 1600's: not rigorous. Maybe in 400 years it will be, especially if we, as Hilbert suggested 100 years ago, axiomatize physics (see! maybe you folks already have and I'm unaware?).

Let's keep this on hold until we bottom out 'belief', OK?

I must have written this a dozen times now, but the best that I think we can do in science is something like this: "within its stated domain of applicability, is consistent with all the good observational and experimental results; continue to be capable of making specific, concrete, testable (in principle) predictions; should those predictions include new phenomena, so much the better."

What does this have to do with my questions in the last post?

It may very well be a nascent statement of what I believe? Perhaps from this we can work our way towards a common understanding of what seems to be the key to your ideas?

Let's boil this down further; I'll make an analogy between GR and the statement 1+1=2. 1+1=2 is a universal statement. It states that *any* time you add one object to one object you *always* get 2 objects. What I mean by "universal" is implied by what's in the asterisks. In math, this is proved not by observation (for it cannot, which is my point), but by logic.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! It seems to me that this boils down to 'what is the nature of mathematics?' or 'does any formal system of logic have a 'real' existence?' or 'in what way is math different from an engrossing novel about fairies, dragons, unicorns, angels, and Luke Skywalker?'

So let's take Einstein's field equations from GR. Better, E=mc^2. This is an example of what I called (erroneously) a law. Is this equation universal? If so, how is that known?

At one level, it cannot be 'universal', for GR comes with a 'domain of applicability', and that is considerably less than 'universal'! At another, it's only an equation, so it's just as 'universal' as '1+1=2' At a third level, GR is a pretty good theory (see above), so the field equations are darn useful (however, if Andrew M or phy_pmb tomorrow comes up with a different way of expressing the core ideas in GR, using a much more usable approach than tensors etc, phoenixthoth may well ask which set of math descriptions of GR is universal).

By universal, I mean that for *any* mass *anywhere* *anytime*, m.

In one sense the answer clearly must be 'no, it can't possibly be universal', because the terms 'any-where-time' and 'mass' are just as much theoretical constructs as the field equations of GR, so either you have to be sure that those terms are being used in a manner consistent with GR, or the statement is meaningless (to see this, compare it with "by universal, I mean that for *any* purple *any-why* *any-anger*").

And therefore, I think that even though you avoided answering my question with a yes or no, you'd have to say that science has not been proven to be universal. Domains of applicability, etc.

Worse (or better, depends on your POV), science CAN NOT be 'proven to be universal'

Indeed, I could argue that 'universal' is just as much a hypothetical construct as 'dragon'; further, that any even vaguely useful explication of what 'universal' means will ooze (scientific) theories from all its pores ... for a flavour of this, compare what I think you intend by 'universal' with what anthropologists recorded regarding cognates of this term when they detailed the belief systems of various cultures.

Ok.

Now that we've established that science is not universal, go back to an earlier paragraph:
If science is not universal, then why study it? It works! Oh, of course, that tired old cop out answer. Well that's just not rigourous enough for my taste. I am like Berkeley attacking Newton. Calculus works, so why the need for limits? To be more rigorous. By the way, of course Berkeley was only half right because Abraham Robinson, and others, proved that infinitesimals can exist as Newton used them. So Newton was right, in a sense. And I bet science is indeed universal, that it is 'right' like Newton, but it is like Calculus was in the 1600's: not rigorous. Maybe in 400 years it will be, especially if we, as Hilbert suggested 100 years ago, axiomatize physics.

Well, I think we'll have to leave discussion on this until later ...

 

[Microburst]

You are a mathematician to the bitter end, eh phoenix?

String theory looks very promising and it is very elegant, mathematically. It is still not accepted as a true theory of science due to the fact that it is extremely difficult to verify experimentally - from what I have read about it, of course

According to Max Tegmark's level 4 multiverse, mathematical existence equals physical existence, where mathematical existence is defined such, that a proposition and its negation cannot both be proved true.

This reminds of a quote it goes something like this…

"Philosophy is a game with objectives and no rules.
Mathematics is a game with rules and no objectives."

 

[phoenixthoth]

At one level, I could say that I'm not aware of 'believing' (or 'not believing') anything ... that goes to my 'thinking'

At another level, I could say that my behaviour (which is all anyone can tell about me ... or do you have a contrary view?) is consistent with certain 'beliefs' (such as that my PC will likely work tomorrow, that I will be able to log into PF and post replies to phoenixthoth, etc).

At a third level, I could observe that other people make statements (such as 'I believe in the one true god' or 'I believe in the ONE TRUE GOD' or 'I do believe I have the 'flu') which contain the word 'believe', and from these try to infer what they mean (in the first two cases, I have no idea whatsoever - it's been a puzzle for me for the longest time).

So I'm going to have to say I'm stumped, and can you please tell me more about what this 'belief' thing is? Let's start with how you intend it to mean, in the above statement of yours.

It seems to me that you already have a grasp on what 'belief' is; you used it 'correctly' in several instances.

We might as well also ask what 'faith' is. Perhaps 'faith' has been defined elsewhere? Do we have a working definiton of 'faith' going? And if not, why wasn't this question raised before with the word 'faith'? Well, now I'm raising it. What is faith?

A dictionary probably won't help, but let me see what it comes up with...

faith http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
belief http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief

The question I ask you is this: do you want to use any of the above definitions and, if not, why not?

edit: Now while it may be wrong, or not, to say science is based on faith, could we argue with the above definitions, that faith is involved in science?

And note that this isn't meant, by myself and perhaps TENYEARS, to be a profound observation. However, it always seems to generate a lot of discussion when it is proposed...

 

[russ_watters]

If I may jump in for a sec:

What is meant by the phrase 'laws of physics'? I'm personally more comfortable with theories ... which as you know come with 'domains of applicability'

Though I don't know if it is typical usage (it appears some people are using it in this thread), I tend to consider "The Laws of Physics" to be the actual, absolute, True laws that govern the way our universe works. Our scientific theories are our attempt to figure out these laws, and the usual scientific caveat applies: even if we find The Laws of Physics, we can never really be sure we have them - unless, of course, we find them on sandstone tablets near a burning bush!

This, of course, leads to confusion and discomfort when talking about Newton's Laws, for example - which are not part of that set of "The Laws of Physics."

 

[phoenixthoth]

If I may jump in for a sec: Though I don't know if it is typical usage (it appears some people are using it in this thread), I tend to consider "The Laws of Physics" to be the actual, absolute, True laws that govern the way our universe works. Our scientific theories are our attempt to figure out these laws, and the usual scientific caveat applies: even if we find The Laws of Physics, we can never really be sure we have them - unless, of course, we find them on sandstone tablets near a burning bush!

This, of course, leads to confusion and discomfort when talking about Newton's Laws, for example - which are not part of that set of "The Laws of Physics."

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.

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?

The main question that this thread is dedicated on is whether science involves, or is based on, faith. The question is does a scientist believe any of science?

Nerid stated that nothing in science can be proved. (Absolute?) Proof is possible in mathematics but not science. (The way I define proof makes the word "absolute" redundant there.)

Case 1. There is a scientist who believes at least one iota of science, one theory/law. (Perhaps an example is Einstein and the theory that E=mc^2.) Now, since that theory cannot be proved and since the scientist believes it, that scientist believes something he cannot prove. By believe, I probably mean one of the definitions above. And by faith, I probably mean one of the definitions above. So I say that such a scientist has faith in the theory he believes in.

In this case, the thought that science is based on faith is yet to be seen. I don't know if I believe that myself; I do believe that science involves faith. Just my HO based on the suspicion that case 2 is not the case.

Case 2. No scientist believes in any of science.

If this is the case, then faith is not involved in science whatsoever. However, it would seem to me that this would be highly absurd. It would seem to me like a group of priests none of whom believe in God.

Now I know that a randomly choosen scientist is not going to believe a young theory or, indeed, many theories (even old ones). However, I would assert that there is a scientist who believes in at least one iota of science. Again (and I don't mean to give you an ad nauseum arg. with the intention of being more logical), this scientist has faith in what he believes for it cannot be proven.

I'm curious to know (maybe I should start a thread in the Philosophy of Science) how many scientists think the "laws"/Laws of Physics are indeed universal and how many of those have a justification for this, if not a proof, and how many have faith in it.

From what I've read, no one is suggesting that the faith that is involved in science is blind faith. I, for one, view the faith involved in science to be quite reasonable (if there is such a thing as reasonable faith) and certainly not blind faith. (Or perhaps TENYEARS did call it blind faith; I don't know.)

 

[honestrosewater]

If I may jump in for a sec also...
Are "The Laws of Physics" abstract or concrete objects?
Intuitively, a law is not a concrete object; A law is an abstract object. There are plenty of problems in defining abstract and concrete objects, but I would suggest the following, for starters: Concrete objects are spatiotemporal and causally efficacious. Abstract object are not concrete objects, i.e., they are nonspatiotemporal or causally inefficacious or both.
If you class laws as abstract objects and accept the above definition, "The Laws of Physics" are either nonspatiotemporal or causally inefficacious or both, thus they either cannot be studied by physical science (being nonspatiotemporal) or cannot "govern the way our universe works" (assuming "govern" is a causal relation) or both.
If it isn't already obvious, I'm quite confused about the abstract/concrete dichotomy myself. I can't offer a clarification, but I think one is needed, and I didn't see anyone else mentioning it explicitly.

It boils down to my wondering how you expect to escape the abstraction involved in thinking about laws or rules. Universals, definitions, verifications, axioms, theorems, proofs, formal systems, interpretations, theories, spacetime, mass... are any of these concrete objects?

As for belief, why can't physical scientists do what mathematicians do: assume?

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm curious to know (maybe I should start a thread in the Philosophy of Science) how many scientists think the "laws"/Laws of Physics are indeed universal and how many of those have a justification for this, if not a proof, and how many have faith in it.

Have you seen the Faith in Religion vs. Faith in Science thread?

From what I've read, no one is suggesting that the faith that is involved in science is blind faith. I, for one, view the faith involved in science to be quite reasonable (if there is such a thing as reasonable faith) and certainly not blind faith.

I think it would be best to define "faith" as "belief without justification" and then admit various types or levels of justification (to go along with the definition of knowledge as true, justified belief). This would also fit with the deduction v. induction distinction and allow you to deal with justification in terms of probability. That is, it would introduce the already developed knowledge and power of math and logic into the discussion.
I have to say again that I think assumption (and possibly other states like undecided or undecidable) must be included in the nonbelief category in order to avoid a false dilemma.
Edit: The false dilemma arises when you ask someone, "Do you believe statement S is true or false?" Of course, they can answer, "Neither" without contradiction.

 

[phoenixthoth]

You're right of course. The claim that science is unviersal is not a scientific claim but, rather, an abstract philosophical claim. Therefore, one ought not expect it to be independently verifiable though one would hope the logic of the proof can be followed at most in finite time.

In other words, the universality of science, eg that experiments performed on Earth will precisely mimic experiments performed a trillion light years away if the conditions are all equal besides location, is a non-falsifiable claim. We can't go a trillion light years away to drop an apple.

Back to the main point of the thread which is science being based on faith...

I'm waiting for someone to point out that in the very definitions I offered, belief in a science theory is not faith. If you find the right combinations of definitions of belief and faith.

I however, define faith as belief in something that cannot or has not been proved. I define belief as mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

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.

Sorry that I'm repeating myself. Feel free do clean up this post if you wish.

Do you believe in the big bang theory? Or do you believe it is incorrect?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58028

 

[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?