Why Is Science Based On So Much Faith?

[TENYEARS]

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...

 

[HallsofIvy]

I'm wondering how in the world you got this on the internet if you refuse to use anything built by other people!

"There is one way to understanding and one way alone..."

Would you be so good as to tell us what it is.

Oh, wait, then we would have to have "faith" that you were correct wouldn't we.

I guess I'll just have to work it out myself.

Oh, golly gee, then I would have to have "faith" that I was correct!

Dang, I'd better do like you and just sit in a corner doing nothing!

 

[Locrian]

Lol lol lol lol lol lol

Apparently he's joking?

 

[Kerrie]

sorry to spoil your foolish fun TENYEARS, but i had to edit your garbage verbage out, but i do believe there is a valid point you are making here that i am keeping open with my changes

yes, we do rely on our science to be accurate and ETHICAL. those who are pioneering science must prove themselves to be honest, ethical and as objective as possible. and if they choose to be educators, they must also practice these qualities as well, probably even more so.

it is actually a good example for many (especially us americans) to follow in many choices we need to make in our lives; everything from choosing a mate to choosing political parties. science, however, is the base of establishing our "reality" from, whereas politics and relationships are stemmed from morals and opinions. we have no choice but to have faith in those setting the stage of our understanding of the universe, thus we hope they are the honest and ethical people we expect them to be.

as individuals, we should question everything that we read, hear, and see. if we accept everything for what is fed to us, it would be easier to be led from the truths. question your news source, your favorite radio shows, authors of books/articles you read up on, etc. chances are their opinions are interlaced with the facts, and you have the responsibility of filtering out those opinions and absorbing the material for the facts.

 

[arildno]

Note that a precondition of PROGRESS is to BUILD UPON the work of others.
If we, as individuals, were to question EVERYTHING, and only accept as valid that which we personally have verified to be true, we would never, CONSIDERED AS A COMMUNITY, raise above the level an individual may come to from first principles.

 

[Locrian]

Hmm. Before the modedit, the OP was absurd and probably a joke. Now its just absurd. At least the uncertainty has been removed.

It's still hard to take seriuosly. Take this quote:

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.

Who calibrates by an equation? That's rediculous. If calibration by someone else is such an issue, do it yourself. Then it's only one person, and you know how they did it. I calibrate some of my own instruments; why can't you?

An answer you can't see? What could that mean? I can see the readout on any instrument I have. Is Braile being read by a blind person an answer you can't see? I guess the poster is making a sad attempt to wax philosophical over the existence of things you don't observe visually. That argument never lasts long anyhow.

It's nice to have some flamebait, but it would be nicer if the poster knew anything about the subject... and could form a coherent paragraph without supervision.

 

[Locrian]

Note that a precondition of PROGRESS is to BUILD UPON the work of others.
If we, as individuals, were to question EVERYTHING, and only accept as valid that which we personally have verified to be true, we would never, CONSIDERED AS A COMMUNITY, raise above the level an individual may come to from first principles.

This is untrue. Reverifying hypothesis that have already been tested requires very little time - certainly much less than required to form the initial idea and come up with an experiment to test it. In getting my physics degree, I questioned and reverified many, many experiments in very little time.

I rose far above first principles and (though it didn't seem it when I was there!) spent rather little time in the lab class doing it.

 

[Kerrie]

Note that a precondition of PROGRESS is to BUILD UPON the work of others.
If we, as individuals, were to question EVERYTHING, and only accept as valid that which we personally have verified to be true, we would never, CONSIDERED AS A COMMUNITY, raise above the level an individual may come to from first principles.

you omitted any kind of reference to my closing point:

chances are their opinions are interlaced with the facts, and you have the responsibility of filtering out those opinions and absorbing the material for the facts

this is in reference to news sources (more applicable to american sources) such as newspapers, television and radio, not for educational sources necessarily.

 

[arildno]

This is untrue. Reverifying hypothesis that have already been tested requires very little time - certainly much less than required to form the initial idea and come up with an experiment to test it. In getting my physics degree, I questioned and reverified many, many experiments in very little time.

I rose far above first principles and (though it didn't seem it when I was there!) spent rather little time in the lab class doing it.

And you questioned EVERYTHING pertinent to physics?
I don't think so..

 

[Locrian]

And you questioned EVERYTHING pertinent to physics?
I don't think so..

No, you don't, but that isn't what is important. In this post you imply that there are too many pertinent things for me to have reverified, rather than the idea that there are only a few. I see no reason to accept this. In this way you hope to move the debate away from the phrase "first principles" (your words) and to something much more broad without anyone noticing. I suspect you also hope to bury the word "never," as it is a dangerous word that in this context is almost certainly indefinsible.

This is not an effective argument. I still see no evidence that the first principles of physics cannot be questioned and verified in time to go on to new discoveries. In fact, with good education, I can see them verified quickly and efficiently, leaving plenty of room for newer material to be questioned and reverified.

Maybe some examples would provide a stronger case for your argument than this maneuvering?

 

[arildno]

Sure enough, although I want first to state what I mean a bit more clearly:
1) I do NOT want to imply that we can never reach an adequate proficiency for the practice as a scientist. That is just silly.
If I implied this, that's my fault.
2) However, look at the following:
When modelling some phenomenon by the use of differential equations, we are not primarily interested in the "strictly mathematical" aspects of the equation; i.e, questions of existence of solutions, uniqueness, the convergence rate of a particular approximation scheme, or even whether the chosen approximation scheme actually would lead to a convergent series solution, or yields, in fact, an asymptotic approximation representable as a wholly divergent series.

That is why such concerns are termed "strictly mathematical" in the first place; although they are relevant (IMO), the detailed study of these issues is not strictly necessary in every single case you're working with.

It is a more pressing concern to develop modelling skills, and develop an understanding of why a given approximation method (for example, WKB) is, for the most part, a mathematically justifiable technique than to get bogged down at every turn by some tricky and difficult convergence proof.


Hence, my position is:
Although, from a theoretical point of view, some difficult, "strictly mathematical" issues are, indeed, necessary to clear up in order to get a rock-solid foundation, the study of these issues is not necessarily (and, IMO, should not be) the province of the physicist.

EDIT:
When you are to, for example, devise a NEW method of approximations, such considerations certainly becomes directly relevant to a practicing physicist; i.e, you have to VALIDATE your method.
However, when applying tried-and-true techniques to a new problem, which has been verified to obey some rough, necessary criteria for the applicability of the old method, you may go ahead, even if you haven't strictly proven that the problem falls under SUFFICIENT criteria for the validity of the method
(such issues can be tough, but I maintain that they remain relevant in an abstract sense).

 

[honestrosewater]

I just have two quick questions for some scientists out there:
1) Given two explanations explaining the same event, would you choose the one containing the fewest or the most unnecessary assumptions?
2) Do you ever perform tests in an attempt to prove an assumption is false or evaluate its correspondence with reality?

 

[gerben]

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...

It is not based on faith. It is based on trust. We trust the things they teach us because we can use them to get answers that "work". If the methods that were taught were not working, we would loose the trust in those teachings. This is why we do not trust the religious teachers anymore.

 

[arildno]

It is not based on faith. It is based on trust.

Thank you, gerben for that distinction.
A rational division of labour, in which we leave some of the work-load to others, is based on a trust that they are competent in doing their part, leaving us free to do ours.
It has nothing to do with blind faith, after all..

 

[selfAdjoint]

However I think you will find that scientists don't just accept ther equipment as it comes to them, but do experiments to validate that it does what it says and to calibrate it. My memory of my undergraduate physics labs seems to recall an awful lot of time spent calibrating.

 

[Kerrie]

However I think you will find that scientists don't just accept ther equipment as it comes to them, but do experiments to validate that it does what it says and to calibrate it. My memory of my undergraduate physics labs seems to recall an awful lot of time spent calibrating.

what makes a true scientist i suppose

 

[TENYEARS]

So I have touched a nerve with some. That is good it means you are not completely asleep. Any device used any word spoken which is not a direct experience to yourself is faith. In a court of law you would lose and lose badly. Faith - reliance or trust in. The whole system is built upon levels of trust/faith. It is a scary prospect is it not? You claim relgion is not based upon levels of understanding? This is the same with relgion for the non direct experiencers. You are many of them. You see what you fail to comprehned is that some aspects of religion actually is an expression of physics which is not yet understood. The true who are those who have experienced this are like those who you trust in science. It is one and the same. This is the truth if your understand it or not it does not matter. We attempt to understand what we are interested in and yet so many times we stop short of the goal. Why? The question is do you know that in your own field you have stopped short? The key to the path of knowledge is knowing that you do not know. Belief falls away like a husk and there before you lies the truth. Every path is different but the important thing is that we live in a vacuum of the unknown when we do not understand. Only then will the truth be able to implode upon you. If any of you are honest you will understand this. Good night faithful. LoL

 

[honestrosewater]

It is a scary prospect is it not?

No, because, in science, everything can be independently verified. This is not the case in, say, revealed religion.

 

[TENYEARS]

Bull, you kid yourself. Who verifies the verifier? The one who is verifiing they to must use what the others use to correct? LoL To see it you only need to be honest with yourself. I imagine such a premise would scare the living daylights out of you if you truly took it to what it is. So what do you really know? Careful there is a large fish lurking. If you think these thoughts you will be it's meal in an instant and who knows how long it will be before you are spit out.

 

[gerben]

So I have touched a nerve with some. That is good it means you are not completely asleep. Any device used any word spoken which is not a direct experience to yourself is faith. In a court of law you would lose and lose badly. Faith - reliance or trust in. The whole system is built upon levels of trust/faith. It is a scary prospect is it not?

No it is not scary. It is an adventure. We only experience what we experience. Such a thing as "truth" is not needed for our descriptions of the empirical world. The great thing is that we can predict and control aspects of the empirical world using logical models. It does not matter whether these models are said to have this quality you call "truth". There is nothing to be gained by doing that.

You claim relgion is not based upon levels of understanding? This is the same with relgion for the non direct experiencers. You are many of them. You see what you fail to comprehned is that some aspects of religion actually is an expression of physics which is not yet understood. The true who are those who have experienced this are like those who you trust in science. It is one and the same. This is the truth if your understand it or not it does not matter.

Whether theories are felt to be "true" or not does not matter. The only thing that matters is that they work. I bet Newton did not feel that his theories were "true" he just guessed, and tried whether they worked. He probably did not know where his guess came from. There is no reason for something like "gravity", it is just a concept, defined to help us predict and control things in the empirical world we life in.

We attempt to understand what we are interested in and yet so many times we stop short of the goal. Why? The question is do you know that in your own field you have stopped short? The key to the path of knowledge is knowing that you do not know. Belief falls away like a husk and there before you lies the truth. Every path is different but the important thing is that we live in a vacuum of the unknown when we do not understand. Only then will the truth be able to implode upon you. If any of you are honest you will understand this. Good night faithful. LoL

There is no fun in: accepting that you know nothing and believing that that is the truth. It is just playing around with concepts in a useless way. It is more interesting to play around with concepts in order to try to get conceptual models that give you some control over the empirical world. You can do that only if you accept that your concepts may need to be replaced by once that give more control, and therefore they should never be given this nasty quality called "truth".

So, faith?
Well, for a while… until we tried, and only until we see it fail.



"There are no facts, only interpretations."
F.W. Nietzsche

 

[honestrosewater]

Who verifies the verifier?

?? You are the verifier. That's why I said and italicized independently. You were pointing out scientists' dependence on each other. I was pointing out that scientists don't have to depend on each other; They can depend on themselves.

So what do you really know?

I wasn't responding to that question because you hadn't asked it. Anyway, what do you really know about what? Verification implies a system, but that system needn't be "reality". It can be a formal axiomatic system, for instance, about which the verifier can have perfect knowledge.

If you are trying to devalue scientific knowledge by arguing that all knowledge is based on assumptions, your argument is self-defeating.

 

[TENYEARS]

No, science is based on faith. You are just not honest with yourself and do not quite understand yet. Non belief does not denote the truth but it does allow for one to become a witness to what is. There is no time frame for this but in this state it is an eventuallity and that is physics. LoL the very facet of enlightenment is physics itself. The very process itself. Get out of the box. We all like to believe we understand so many things in life. Sometimes this belief becomes so important when we witness life around us because we need to immerse ourselves in something of value in the midst of the madness. Aspects of science like religion are like that. Science can give you nothing just like relgion or if you will not believe if you question with all that you are chuck the formulas the words the images take from the most base part of what you are and apply it forward. There and only there is there true discovery true knowlege. There you become the truest pioneer. Nothing will shake your knowledge it will stand like a monolith unchangable industructable before any and all. For what is is and what is not decays into the mist. On a Sunday morning in 1991 I figured out what gravity was and that is reality. It will stand into infinity for I figured it out and nothing will change that or it's reality. All other things are imaterial. Sometimes that is why learning is a bad thing. Many aspects of what we learn are true but some are not and are actually illogical but accepted. When you combine the picture it does not completely fit and yet it is propagated as so. This is where the great value of non belief comes in. A cooworker came in the other day and told me of something she spoke to her daughter that I let them practice. Treat all that you look upon as wrong and you will keep it honest. She found something which was an accepted part of a process for 10 yeears which was looked by many people that was wrong. It does not matter where you are or what you do this is the way to truth. It is a simple method I have discovered within myself that works and it may also work for you. To change the world, to live in harmony with it you must understand it honestly.

 

[russ_watters]

Bull, you kid yourself. Who verifies the verifier? The one who is verifiing they to must use what the others use to correct?

Go buy a GPS reciever and get back to us. Go buy a telescope and get back to us. Look at your monitor and get back to us. Use a cd player and get back to us. Drive a car and get back to us...

The fact is, that anyone can verify virtually any part of science if they choose to. The verification is as simple as accepting the fact that the technology we use today would not be possible if our science was wrong. Period. So every time you switch on a GPS reciever you are verifying, for yourself, Relativity. Every time you turn on a CD player, you are verifying, for yourself, QM. Every time you drive your car you are verifying, for yourself, thermodynamics.

 

[arildno]

TENYEARS:
" On a Sunday morning in 1991 I figured out what gravity was and that is reality. It will stand into infinity for I figured it out and nothing will change that or it's reality. All other things are imaterial."

This shows your true colors, doesn't it?
An arrogant, ignorant crank.
(Besides, learn proper grammar; your education level is obviously abysmal)

 

[quantumdude]

No, science is based on faith.

*yawn*

The rest of the class has moved beyond this, but TENYEARS is still struggling to keep up.

Again, for the hard of caring: There is a difference between trusting the work of other people and simple "faith". Of course I do not verify all the results that I use in my work, but I know that I could if I wanted to. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. It's not possible to verify each and every detail of scientific knowledge that I need to use to get my work done. Such reliance on the work of others is necessary for progress. Without it, you would not have a computer or an internet to bother the rest of us with.

If you want to know where is the evidence that our trust is not misplaced, then I refer you to the last sentence of my previous paragraph. In addition to being a funny joke, it also enunciates a principle: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is, I know that the picture of the physical universe is not far off from the science that I have learned, because the physical universe behaves nearly exactly as I would expect it to, according to that knowledge. I believe what I have learned because what I have learned works.

You are just not honest with yourself and do not quite understand yet.

TENYEARS, this is a Philosophy Forum, not your personal mental toilet. We are all being honest here, both with ourselves and others. Keep this up, and you won't be welcome here for much longer.

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.

 

[Nereid]

TENYEARS, just in case you foolishly assume that Tom is alone in his characterisation of your inputs, let me make it clear to you that I am in accord with what he wrote. If for any reason Tom is not around to delete 'any of your posts that do not meet the level of quality specified in the Guidelines', and I am, I will delete them.

In passing, I note that you have not answered the key question addressed to you by several posters, in different forms: what gives you the confidence to make posts on PF? Have you, by direct experience, personally verified all key elements of the hardware and software you use? of the internet? I'm actually quite curious to know.

 

[TENYEARS]

Nereid, you just gave me a grinch smile pal. So my words have affect you. Good. I do not denouce science for I am in awe of the universe it's flow and how it changes. How could anyone not be. My words posted in this way were to bring you back a step and make you question the very foundation of your thoughts. To wake you up and polarize you into a reality that is yet unseen. You see there are many theories on reality at this moment on gravity on many things. What I laugh about is that the implications of those realities which are not understood and yet in the midst of my words I just found myself a fault. Lol. Functional fixedness is part of everyones life even mine. Maybe they do understand some of it, but I can see aspects which they do not and because of this I am alone in what I understand. I want the world to understand but it is not my place or anyones. We are guided by a world of money and power but I have hope for more for free minds are the greatest asset to our world for only that can create the action we need for our true responsbility which is the realization of the living science itself. Who of you is brave to face that it is faith. When you let go to that only then will you find science in a light you could never have dreamed. Good night.

 

[chroot]

Can someone hand me an airsickness bag, please?

- Warren

 

[BoulderHead]

One vomit bag as requested;

http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/vomit_bag.wav

 

[TENYEARS]

In passing, I note that you have not answered the key question addressed to you by several posters, in different forms: what gives you the confidence to make posts on PF? Have you, by direct experience, personally verified all key elements of the hardware and software you use? of the internet? I'm actually quite curious to know.

Neried, I or should I address you as such. I don't really know there is one do I. For all I know this is a program written by a talaneted individual with an incredible language/personality simulator. LoL More realistically maybe the whole site is composed of 5 people or 10 all who answer with different ID's from the same computer. Maybe there is a hack who is intercepting every packet on the wire and altering it to his needs just for fun. And maybe I am just talking to myself here. That seems to be the case either way. lol. Yes I have faith right now that like you that what I percieve to be part of is what I am part of. I do not kid myself. It is indeed faith. Did you ever see the movie "Brazil"? The reason why I say what I do is that very few individuals understand the implications of what they learn. All it does for them is define the paramters of the box. When I took my present job after a period of time I spoke with one which I would consider the most intelligent individual there. I was relaying my idea of gravity and matter to him. He spoke four words and in an instant he understood the implications of my realization. Not out of a book. The same individual then tried to catch me one day some years later in the parking lot one day joking around about time and relativity. I figured out what I care to and at that moment I took the challenge and right there in the dam parking lot I rolled out in conjuction with what I realized from matter and gravity the reality of how time slowed as one approaches the speed of light! One would have to have faith in my words but I would not because they are ineed just words. Treat all that you have learned as wrong and you will understand what is.

You may kick me off the forum at any time if I offend your illusion too greatly. It matters not to me, but will it matter to you. LoL

 

[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