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).