Why Is Science Based On So Much Faith?

[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.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

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. :tongue:

 

[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 :yuck: ).

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

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.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

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."
:rofl:

 

[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

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

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.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

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.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

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

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

There is no experiment to detect God

 

[honestrosewater]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[phoenixthoth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is a wonderful observation.

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

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

 

[honestrosewater]

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

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

 

[honestrosewater]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, I'll look into that.

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

 

[Nereid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what about Imre?

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

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

 

[honestrosewater]

poor ol' Nereid is still stuck pondering 'belief'

Belief is whatever you believe it to be. :tongue2:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nereid]

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

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

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

:!)

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[phoenixthoth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TENYEARS]

Ok phoenixthoth:

Faith = Belief = Trust In

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

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

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

 

[loseyourname]

Science and the Chruch are one and the same.

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

 

[Nereid]

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

Ehh, should have answered this before:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Philocrat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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