How much of science is faith based?

[russ_watters]

But don't I accept on faith that I am writing words in English whose meaning I know? For I don't know what proposition I am more sure of then that one, that I may take as evidence for it.

I can't imagine why you would think such a thing. If you have any doubts that you are speaking English, check your dictionary.

Another example is my faith in the proposition 'I have 5 fingers on my right hand'. You might think I have evidence for this claim, such as my past memories or the ability to look at my hand with my vision and count the fingers. But couldn't I just as well use the fingers on my hand to check my vision? And suppose my memory disagreed and suggested 4 fingers only on that right hand, or my vision suggested 8 fingers, then I would declare these faculties to be in error! Evidence which contradicts our faith is automatically suspect.

None of that is correct. I think your problem here is that you quite simply don't know what it means to not have faith! To you, everything is faith. I don't need faith to know how many fingers I have. I can count.

 

[Hurkyl]

I can't imagine why you would think such a thing. If you have any doubts that you are speaking English, check your dictionary.

That's not a method. That's an object.

 

[russ_watters]

The reason and the purpose for using any criterion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the criterion itself is objective.

I disagree. The religious criterion is choosen because it is biased. It is self-reinforcing, which is what enables it to persist despite its flaws.

And I choose the scientific criteria because it works, but it works largely because it is unbiased. Inherrent contradictions, such as the examples in my previous post, cause error in the religious model.

You have no problem with the claims of science changing over time as scientific evidence becomes better understood. Why do you have a problem with the claims of Catholocism changing over time as scriptural evidence becomes better understood?

It's pretty simple: science accepts new evidence and Catholicism doesn't. So Catholicism should already have all the answers. And, in fact, they do claim to have all the answers, despite changing them every now and then (which is obviously contradictory).

Isn't a belief in empiricism a prerequisite for that argument?

Only if it also make people who follow the religious view hypocrites for claiming their view is correct.

Nor does any other religion I'm familiar with.

Most of them most certainly do. It is a common thread among religions that religious people must ignore evidence when it contradicts with the teachings of the religion, even if that contradicts reality. That's kinda the whole problem being discussed here. And I've given plenty of examples of this.

While Buddhism doesn't require one to drop empiricism, surely one can adopt the position of accepting only Buddhist evidence and nothing else?

People can choose to adopt any position they want. But choosing strict adherence to many religions requires dropping it.

Yay, referring to dictionaries is fun!

Ignoring a definition by citing another one doesn't make it go away any more than ignoring a piece of evidence makes it go away. I mean seriously - are you claiming that most religious people consider themselves and their beliefs to be illogical?

Unless the only "concept" or "principle" is 'none of my concepts and principles mean anything, just organizing them into coherent thoughts makes them logical. It's a catch-22 perhaps, but that's tough: that's the way our brains work and how thought itself works.

 

[Hurkyl]

I disagree. The religious criterion is choosen because it is biased. It is self-reinforcing, which is what enables it to persist despite its flaws.

Wait, you were talking about objectivity before, and now you're talking about bias? Either way, your argument has the same flaw -- you're confusing the criterion with the reason one adopts the criterion for some purpose.

I've repeatedly pressed you on the topic -- and every time you have argued that the reason for adopting the criterion was not objective, and you have not once attempted to argue that the criterion itself is not objective.

Either stop asserting the criterion is subjective/biased/whatever, or start arguing for that assertion. Or, you can continue playing the broken record, I suppose; but I have no interest in listening yet again to this red herring.

It's pretty simple: science accepts new evidence and Catholicism doesn't. So Catholicism should already have all the answers.

Two flaws:

(1) Even in science, the interpretation of old data gets revised as things are better understood.

(2) Catholocism doesn't reject logical and empirical evidence. While it considers the scriptures to be absolute, other forms of evidence are still useful in situations where the scriptures have nothing to say, or for deciding between different ways to interpret them.

Only if it also make people who follow the religious view hypocrites for claiming their view is correct.

Huh? My point is that your argument form is an invalid one; once upon a time, you accused the belief in scripture to be an arbitrary one, with the clear implication that that was supposed to somehow invalidate it.

But you cannot justify an a priori belief in empiricism either; if your argument form was a valid one, you should also be rejecting the scientific method.

Of course, I expected you to respond with "I accept science it works" -- an empirical argument justifying the acceptance of empiricism. How is that different than a scriptural argument justifying the acceptance of scripture?

It is a common thread among religions that religious people must ignore evidence when it contradicts with the teachings of the religion, even if that contradicts reality.

Evidence on its own has little to no power to contradict anything. It's the conclusion you draw from the evidence that has that power. If a person who holds certain religious scriptures to be incontravertible faces data whose naive interpretation suggests the scriptures are wrong, he simply has to seek an alternative way to interpret the data.

If you go to a magic show and see a magician pull a rabbit out of his hat, you now have a piece of empirical evidence. Does that evidence contradict science?

Ignoring a definition by citing another one doesn't make it go away any more than ignoring a piece of evidence makes it go away. I mean seriously - are you claiming that most religious people consider themselves and their beliefs to be illogical?

They should. And so should the scientist. Only a strict rationalist has any chance of his beliefs being completely logical.

 

[Moridin]

To be honest, I do not think that the reason that the religion mentioned above accepts evolution or a heliocentric solar system is because the scripture says so, but because of the scientific evidence. In fact, certain parts of religious scripture emphasize the immutability of species and a geocentric / anthropocentric view of the Universe.

(1) Even in science, the interpretation of old data gets revised as things are better understood.

Indeed, but in modern times, valid explanatory principles do not get discarded as newer models must make the same prediction in areas where they both apply (provided I makes valid predictions). We still use Newtonian Mechanics and Darwinian evolution to explain easy principles, even though mechanics are much more than Newton knew and evolution is much more than Darwin ever imagined.

Of course, I expected you to respond with "I accept science it works" -- an empirical argument justifying the acceptance of empiricism. How is that different than a scriptural argument justifying the acceptance of scripture?

I would say that it is an empirical argument justifying the theoretical models of science. Moreover, science need not be based on strict realism; instrumentalism works just as well - where the validity of a scientific theory is judged on how much it can explain and the success of its predictions, rather than some obscure reference to 'truth'.

 

[fleem]

All science is based on completely unproven assumptions (postulates, axioms). So yes, science is a matter of complete faith in those axioms. However, most will agree that the scientific method includes the requirement to find axioms that create the simplest science (Occam's razor). In fact, that is the greatest goal of science (here's to hoping E8 is it!). For this reason we can defend, to some extent, the best axioms we currently have. But we can't defend them completely. For example, Newtonian mechanics worked very well for quite some time and we had lots of faith in it, yet it was proven wrong and we were forced to change some postulates, which resulted in QM and GR--better but not perfect.

Concerning this thread's side discussion over the existence of God, I say:

Occam's razor obliges the atheist to defend his claim that reality has some extra mechanism that precludes the existence of infinite order. (I think we can agree that "infinite order" is one fair definition of "God").

Consider that we cannot claim any currently perceived finite attribute of the universe as a factor that limits order, for all attributes we see must be only facets of order (the universe) rather than bounds within which order exists. This is why every age has seen its perceived limits of the universe expanded.

 

[Moridin]

Science is neither based on unproven assumptions or axioms, because we can verify our assumptions. That is what makes science superior.

Occam's razor obliges the atheist to defend his claim that reality has some extra mechanism that precludes the existence of infinite order. (I think we can agree that "infinite order" is one fair definition of "God").

An atheist makes no claims. Some versions of deities can be disproven scientifically.

 

[Hurkyl]

All science is based on completely unproven assumptions (postulates, axioms).

I don't think you have the right idea.

First off, I would like to point out that postulates are a 'computational' device -- they provide a convenient way to describe and work with a theory. (much like coordinates are a convenient way to work with spatial positions)


Anyways, through the use of deductive logic, the postulates of a theory are used to make predictions. Experiments are performed to test those predictions. If successful, we increase our confidence in the postulates in an amount that varies directly with the specificity of the prediction, our confidence in the experiment, and the solidity of our logic. If the test fails, our confidence decreases in a similar manner.

Then, we can use logic to study the implications of the postulates; our confidence the postulates and the solidity of our logic translates into confidence in the implications.



The part that's 'missing' is why someone decides to use this framework for acquiring knowledge.

 

[Crosson]

This is a meaningless equivocation. Scientific evidence is based on observations in reality. Religious evidence is based on imaginary beliefs. Scientific evidence is ACTUAL evidence.

In the context of the religious discussion it is not meaningless, even an irreligious man can see that. I agree there are different criteria for what counts as evidence in a logical discussion as apposed to a religious one, but the correctness is judged within the discussion itself --- there is no super-discussion from which to judge them against each other. Instead all we have is persuasion, appeal to emotion, claims like "my belief has the best pragmatic/aesthetic value". Calling one belief "imaginary" and another "actual" is an appeal to emotion, these terms lose their meaning when carried outside of their ordinary use.

You do realize there are mental/physical deficiencies diagnosed. Even people who are diagnosed as colorblind REALLY ARE colorblind. We know the exact wavelengths that each color gives off so we can verify this.

"REALLY ARE" etc is just more appeal to emotion, besides pragmatic and aesthetic value another point of persuasion is to argue social value, as in "these doctors agree with me, you REALLY ARE colorblind".

People also have hallucinations that distort reality for them. Does a distortion of reality necessarily make that reality a reality?

Is an X necessarily an X? That is one of the most necessary statements that I know. And if you think I am just picking on your wording, I suggest the problem is deeper then that.

 

[fleem]

Science is neither based on unproven assumptions or axioms, because we can verify our assumptions. That is what makes science superior.

For one example, all science is based on the presumption that the rules of the universe are consistent. For another example, Euclidean geometry is based on the presumption that there are things called "point, line, and plane" that have certain presumed attributes. These things cannot be proven. Wikipedia has some good articles on the role of "axiom" and "postulate" in science. You might also take a look at Goedel's incompleteness theorems--roughly, he said you can't use a given set of rules to prove those rules are consistent. Ironically, Goedel used the rules of the universe to make his proof! So of course, even Goedel's incompleteness theorems really aren't "proven". Likewise nothing is really provable.

An atheist makes no claims.

You might be confusing "atheist" with "agnostic". The root words of "atheist" are "no-God-ist"--a person claiming there is no God. An agnostic means "not knowing" (in the context of the existence of God). So an agnostic is a person that makes no claims about whether there is a God or not. FYI, a "theist" is a "God-ist"--a person claiming there is a God. Of course, the definition of "God" can certainly vary!

Some versions of deities can be disproven scientifically.

Not sure what your point is, here.

 

[Sorry!]

how about we all just agree to disagree. Arguments like this usually end up with no greater understanding of both sides and no ground gained or ANYTHING of the sort lol... Religious people believe in crazy stuff sometimes people of the scientific method don't like these illogical conclusions but HEY live with it.

 

[Crosson]

If you have any doubts that you are speaking English, check your dictionary.

What kind of proof would that be?

Any proposition can be logically derived from any other, its just that the additional premises may be weaker then the conclusion:

1. It's the year 2007.
2. The USA has a federal election in December of every year with the digit 7.

Conclusion: The USA will have a federal election this December.

The argument is valid, but it didn't convince you (I suspect) because you don't believe in premise 2. I even suspect that it would be more difficult to convince you of premise 2 then it would be to convince you of the conclusion outright (especially if you were alive in the 1970s).

So it is said that all proofs should proceed a fortiori, literally from the strong to the weak, from the certain to the unexpected. The premise must be at least as certain as the conclusion.

Now think about what premises are involved in reaching for the dictionary, taken together with the conclusion we intend to show. It should be apparent that we do not have a proof, but rather are begging the question.

I think your problem here is that you quite simply don't know what it means to not have faith!

I don't need to have faith in a proposition I can produce grounds for, but for a proposition such as "I am typing English words" I cannot produce grounds (because as I said above, the grounds must be somehow more certain then the conclusion), therefore it is by definition accepted on faith (without evidence).

[/QUOTE]
To you, everything is faith. I don't need faith to know how many fingers I have. I can count.[/QUOTE]

Your ability to count may be the cause of you knowledge of your 5 fingers, but it is not grounds, or evidence for it. You can't give a proof of it, because any premise you used would be no more certain then "I have 5 fingers".

Do I think that "everything is faith"? Let's instead ask, what's my intention: to answer the question posed by the op humbly but carefully in the affirmative, as I quoted Quine in my first post of the thread saying "beliefs about numbers and beliefs about the gods differ in degree, but not in kind".

how about we all just agree to disagree. Arguments like this usually end up with no greater understanding of both sides and no ground gained or ANYTHING of the sort lol... Religious people believe in crazy stuff sometimes people of the scientific method don't like these illogical conclusions but HEY live with it.

In contrast I would like to suggest that arguments like this are very philosophically important for scientists, and it is only the person who quits or never began who fails to gain anything.

 

[LightbulbSun]

In the context of the religious discussion it is not meaningless, even an irreligious man can see that.

Is religious discussion really meaningful?

I agree there are different criteria for what counts as evidence in a logical discussion as apposed to a religious one, but the correctness is judged within the discussion itself --- there is no super-discussion from which to judge them against each other. Instead all we have is persuasion, appeal to emotion, claims like "my belief has the best pragmatic/aesthetic value". Calling one belief "imaginary" and another "actual" is an appeal to emotion, these terms lose their meaning when carried outside of their ordinary use.

Do you even know what an appeal to emotion is?

Appeal to Emotion: X makes me feel good. Therefore X is true.

I don't accept the scientific method based on it feeling good. It's simply currently the best way to accrue accurate knowledge about our universe.

"REALLY ARE" etc is just more appeal to emotion, besides pragmatic and aesthetic value another point of persuasion is to argue social value, as in "these doctors agree with me, you REALLY ARE colorblind".

Again, you cherrypick my quotes and narrow it down to two words and then give it a false label. I was arguing that people who are delusional really can be determined to be delusional, and that colorblind people can be verified as actually colorblind because we know the specific measurements of wavelengths that each color gives off. This does not follow the appeal to emotion fallacy.

Is an X necessarily an X? That is one of the most necessary statements that I know. And if you think I am just picking on your wording, I suggest the problem is deeper then that.

Reality is reality, and you can talk all you want, but that doesn't make your claims true. Facts are what make something true.

 

[Moridin]

For one example, all science is based on the presumption that the rules of the universe are consistent.

No, they are not blind assumptions, since we can demonstrate that the Universe is somewhat consistent and science is tentative. DaveC426913 posted this in another thread:

No. The difference is that science as a principle welcomes the opportunity to be wrong.

We assume the universe is the same every where merely because it is the best road to more knowledge. The moment some aspect of that assumption turns out to be false, science as a principle is modify its outdated models.

For another example, Euclidean geometry is based on the presumption that there are things called "point, line, and plane" that have certain presumed attributes. These things cannot be proven.

They are not assumptions; they are definitions.

Wikipedia has some good articles on the role of "axiom" and "postulate" in science.

Wikipedia is an invalid source.

You might also take a look at Goedel's incompleteness theorems--roughly, he said you can't use a given set of rules to prove those rules are consistent. Ironically, Goedel used the rules of the universe to make his proof! So of course, even Goedel's incompleteness theorems really aren't "proven".

No, Gödel's incompleteness theorem has been proven and it says that statements exists that are neither 'provable' or 'disprovable'. There are no such things as the rules of the Universe. Laws in science and mathematics are not legislative laws, but generalized descriptions. Furthermore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem only applies within the realms of mathematics and logic and need not apply to the actual world.

Likewise nothing is really provable.

Before trying to make an argument, you need to understand what the term 'proof' and 'provable' is.

 

[Lord Ping]

There are no such things as the rules of the Universe. Laws in science and mathematics are not legislative laws, but generalized descriptions.

Interesting. Can you defend that view? Many philosophers over the years have tried to, assuming that view to be in some sense intuitively favourable, but I'm not at all convinced.

I think that there really is necessity in the universe, laws really do make things happen, and that this intuition permeates real science.

Take this example:
"All gold spheres have a diameter of less than a hundred miles."
It's a universal generalisation, that is, as far as we know, true. Yet somehow we just know that it's not a law. We just know that if we made a gold sphere 99 miles across and added a bit, it wouldn't explode.

But take:
"All plutonium spheres have a diameter of less than a hundred miles."
This time, this is a law, since we know that the instability of plutonium would necessitate its truth in all cases. We just know that if we tried to cram that much plutonium together, it would go wrong.

I'd be interested to know your view - perhaps you think that the gold spheres claim really is a law. It's a murky area.

 

[Moridin]

A law is nothing that forced the Universe to act in a certain way - it is our generalized descriptions. This is the very definition. Take Newton's Laws for instance. We know they are approximations, but they work, because they are generalized descriptions.

All of them are laws - that is, generalized descriptions. None of them are legislative laws. As time goes by, our laws (generalized descriptions) getter better and better.

Investigation at quantum level has shown that even the concept of laws in the macro-world as legislative law is completely nonsense.

 

[Sorry!]

In contrast I would like to suggest that arguments like this are very philosophically important for scientists, and it is only the person who quits or never began who fails to gain anything.

Yes well I'm not saying arguments like this AREN'T very philosophical. All that i am saying is that arguments over religion lead to no gained knowledge. Unless you classify learning that people are ignorant as knowledge?

 

[Hurkyl]

Ugh, would you guys please refrain from talking about Gödel's theorems? You both misunderstand, and I think trying to explain it here would just make this thread even more convoluted.

 

[Moridin]

Ugh, would you guys please refrain from talking about Gödel's theorems? You both misunderstand, and I think trying to explain it here would just make this thread even more convoluted.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

I was attempting to convey the informal explanation.

 

[Crosson]

If the thread is convoluted, it is directly related to the variety of possible interpretations of the original post.

"How much of our science is faith based?"

Theoretical science is based on mathematics, and experimental science is based on observations of the external world. So the theoretical branch of the question is equivalent to:

"How much is mathematics based on faith?"

Mathematics is based on first order logic, and ZF set theory (which is a choice of faith according to incompleteness).

"How much is first order of logic based on faith?"

Logic is based on the principle of non-contradiction, that a quality cannot be both present and absent at the same time in the same sense, i.e. ~(p.~p).

"How much is the principle of non-contradiction based on faith?"

All of it! It forces itself upon us by its extreme aesthetic appeal.

 

[Moridin]

Surely, attempts to claim that science is based on faith is pointless circle-jerk? If everything is based on faith, the then claim that everything is based on faith is itself based on faith ad infinitum, thereby undermining the entire project to begin with.

Nothing in mathematics is based on faith, since it works by definitions and if-conditionals. Theoretical physics doesn't really mean that much without experimental evidence. The reason we adopt the principle of non-contradiction is because it works. In science, those would be tentative, becoming better and better approximations as time goes by.

 

[JoeDawg]

One of the big questions in philosophy is 'what can we know'. Science doesn't answer this question. We value scientific method because in our world we have observed a certain consistency to things and scientific method is a useful way to measure a world that is consistent.

When we come across an apparent inconsistency in our observations, scientists use scientific method to try and figure out what is happening. They try and find a way that in fits into the world so it is consistent.

Could it be that paradoxes exist? We can't rule this out.
However that doesn't mean we need faith (belief without evidence or in spite of evidence) in consistency, or in science.

We simply need to take things as they come and continue to look for evidence for things we don't understand. Even if we recognize that we may never find it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Surely, attempts to claim that science is based on faith is pointless circle-jerk? If everything is based on faith, the then claim that everything is based on faith is itself based on faith ad infinitum, thereby undermining the entire project to begin with.

And therefore, we conclude the claim "your belief is based on faith!" is an essentially contentless proposition.

Nothing in mathematics is based on faith, since it works by definitions and if-conditionals.

Mathematics is, IMHO, quite beyond the rest of the intellectual pursuits in this respect, since it has actually formalized many of the issues that arise in these types of discussions. There is no essential difference between studying the consequences of axioms and the consequences of articles of faith -- IMO the sooner non-mathematicians realize this, the better. Words like "truth" and "faith" are usually used in a fallacy of loaded terms -- the usage is denotatively correct, but the intent is the connotation, which arguers rarely justify.

 

[JoeDawg]

Mathematics is...

Logic and critical thinking doesn't require equations.

 

[baywax]

There was great faith in the idea that ulcers were caused by too much work, stress, bad habits and generally bad lifestyle. This went on for as long as ulceration was taking place in the bowels of humans... until, in Australia, a doctor found that a common anti-bacterial agent stopped the ulcer long enough for healing to take place.

How many surgeons, MDs, nurses, the general public and research scientists believed ulcers were caused by stress? All of them. All based on what they were told and how their observations matched their beliefs. They didn't see a bacteria at work, causing an ulcer. They saw everything they were told to look for and neglected to look for other clues. Today ulcers are treated with anti-biotics... end of story.

There is a similar story emerging today. For, I don't know how many years, MS (multiple sclerosis) has been a big bad voodoo disease that can only be addressed with steroids and (yes, bee stings) and not much else. People are left to deal with the symptoms on their own until death comes as a relief to them. Today a common pharmaeceutical that was used to stop acne in teenagers, minocycline, is showing promise in elieviating, if not irradicating the onset of MS.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/6/1297

We will always be in the dark about certain conditions unless we look outside of the given norm and what we're told about the condition. There is always another way to approach a challenge in life and it is not always the way it has been approached in the past. Solutions are found where no one else has looked or, as an old saying goes..."you always find what you're looking for in the last place you look".

 

[fleem]

There was great faith in the idea that ulcers were caused by too much work, stress, bad habits and generally bad lifestyle. This went on for as long as ulceration was taking place in the bowels of humans... until, in Australia, a doctor found that a common anti-bacterial agent stopped the ulcer long enough for healing to take place.

How many surgeons, MDs, nurses, the general public and research scientists believed ulcers were caused by stress? All of them. All based on what they were told and how their observations matched their beliefs. They didn't see a bacteria at work, causing an ulcer. They saw everything they were told to look for and neglected to look for other clues. Today ulcers are treated with anti-biotics... end of story.

There is a similar story emerging today. For, I don't know how many years, MS (multiple sclerosis) has been a big bad voodoo disease that can only be addressed with steroids and (yes, bee stings) and not much else. People are left to deal with the symptoms on their own until death comes as a relief to them. Today a common pharmaeceutical that was used to stop acne in teenagers, minocycline, is showing promise in elieviating, if not irradicating the onset of MS.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/6/1297

We will always be in the dark about certain conditions unless we look outside of the given norm and what we're told about the condition. There is always another way to approach a challenge in life and it is not always the way it has been approached in the past. Solutions are found where no one else has looked or, as an old saying goes..."you always find what you're looking for in the last place you look".

I'm not familiar enough with the history of these particular things (for example, what known facts might have been ignored and for how long) to know the degree of guilt in the medical community, but I'm sure there is some guilt. I can think of worse crimes though, and your point is taken. But we should remember, of course, that the word "science" has two popular definitions. One is "how people with science degrees often behave" and the other is "using logic to obtain the truth". These are certainly different things and we should not mix those definitions in our dialog without specifying which definition we mean. (I'm not suggestion you were trying to mix them--I just wanted to make the point). So the title of this thread can be interpreted using either or both definitions. If the first definition, obviously people with science degrees often have faith in some assumption that contradicts presently known fact. If the second definition, we're still talking about faith in the axioms.

 

[Hurkyl]

But we should remember, of course, that the word "science" has two popular definitions. One is "how people with science degrees often behave" and the other is "using logic to obtain the truth". These are certainly different things and we should not mix those definitions in our dialog without specifying which definition we mean.

We should use neither -- we should be using an accurate definition of science.

 

[Rade]

We should use neither -- we should be using an accurate definition of science.

Science = uncertain knowledge. There is no faith in science.

 

[baywax]

I'm not familiar enough with the history of these particular things (for example, what known facts might have been ignored and for how long) to know the degree of guilt in the medical community, but I'm sure there is some guilt. I can think of worse crimes though, and your point is taken. But we should remember, of course, that the word "science" has two popular definitions. One is "how people with science degrees often behave" and the other is "using logic to obtain the truth". These are certainly different things and we should not mix those definitions in our dialog without specifying which definition we mean. (I'm not suggestion you were trying to mix them--I just wanted to make the point). So the title of this thread can be interpreted using either or both definitions. If the first definition, obviously people with science degrees often have faith in some assumption that contradicts presently known fact. If the second definition, we're still talking about faith in the axioms.

Yes, I'm simply pointing out that people have faith... science only has (known) facts. The unknown simply can't be banked on until it is brought to light.

Generally the word and definition of "faith" (to borrow from Hurkyl's concern) is an unquestioning confidence in what one has been told even though there is no proof that what's been said is true. It also applys to having "faith" in the unknown... which is a bit of a crap shoot.

In light of this I'd suggest that the idea of faith in science be only applicable to a scientist's faith in self-determination, faith in the equipment they use because they know the manufacturing origin and faith that there will be a grant in the near future to maintain their research. And even in these minor situations faith can fail miserably.

 

[fleem]

We should use neither -- we should be using an accurate definition of science.

Correct. And I wish we would! Its just that I often meet people (more IRL than in these forums) that mix the two definitions as if they are one, and it is frustrating. Its the "Since scientists often ignore the facts, science is bad" sort of attitude. Of course, they aren't scientists when they ignore facts.

 

[fleem]

On a side point I also wish more people (present company excluded) realized that the scientific process always involves working with probability distributions. Everything we know and everything we surmise we learned from the universe. For example, most maths are based on certain conservation laws like "conservation of number" and so on, which we most certainly learned from the universe. So since everything is empirical, nothing is certain. There is a certain probability distribution for 2+2=4 (which is quite tight) and another for a given value for the cosmological constant (which is quite loose).

 

[ZapperZ]

Generally the word and definition of "faith" (to borrow from Hurkyl's concern) is an unquestioning confidence in what one has been told even though there is no proof that what's been said is true. It also applys to having "faith" in the unknown... which is a bit of a crap shoot.

In light of this I'd suggest that the idea of faith in science be only applicable to a scientist's faith in self-determination, faith in the equipment they use because they know the manufacturing origin and faith that there will be a grant in the near future to maintain their research. And even in these minor situations faith can fail miserably.

This is blatantly false and contradictory.

I would never put "faith" in an equipment blindly. We spend a lot of effort making sure that what we get works. People seem to be forgetting that before we adapt something, there must be a TRACK RECORD of that thing. At the very least, there has to be an indication that it has a pattern of working in a PREDICTABLE pattern!

The word "faith" has been tossed around without regard to how it is defined. Because of that, somehow the assumptions and postulates of science are now being equate to the faith in religion. This is utterly absurd. How many times do you see beliefs in religion being tested EMPIRICALLY with the same frequency as the postulates and consequences of Special Relativity? There is also a total blindness to how science accepts something to be valid. Did anyone look at how difficult of a path it was for Relativity and Quantum Physics to be accepted by the physics community as a whole? Did someone think that they were accepted simply based on blind faith with zero empirical support? Now compare that to someone who accepts a particular religion!

I've resisted jumping into this thread, because there have been so many mis-categorization and outright false impression not only what science is, but HOW science is practiced. How many of you who have been so free with your opinions actually have direct, first-hand knowledge of the daily workings of science? How many?

Maybe you should consider on how much "blind faith" you put in your "data" (or in some cases, the LACK of data) to be able to arrive at such conclusions that you have come to.

Zz.

 

[fleem]

This is blatantly false and contradictory.

I would never put "faith" in an equipment blindly. We spend a lot of effort making sure that what we get works. People seem to be forgetting that before we adapt something, there must be a TRACK RECORD of that thing. At the very least, there has to be an indication that it has a pattern of working in a PREDICTABLE pattern!

The word "faith" has been tossed around without regard to how it is defined. Because of that, somehow the assumptions and postulates of science are now being equate to the faith in religion. This is utterly absurd. How many times do you see beliefs in religion being tested EMPIRICALLY with the same frequency as the postulates and consequences of Special Relativity? There is also a total blindness to how science accepts something to be valid. Did anyone look at how difficult of a path it was for Relativity and Quantum Physics to be accepted by the physics community as a whole? Did someone think that they were accepted simply based on blind faith with zero empirical support? Now compare that to someone who accepts a particular religion!

I've resisted jumping into this thread, because there have been so many mis-categorization and outright false impression not only what science is, but HOW science is practiced. How many of you who have been so free with your opinions actually have direct, first-hand knowledge of the daily workings of science? How many?

Maybe you should consider on how much "blind faith" you put in your "data" (or in some cases, the LACK of data) to be able to arrive at such conclusions that you have come to.

Zz.

ZapperZ your arguments would probably be taken a little more seriously if you:

1. Didn't reveal so much anger when you state (in so many words) that scientists control their emotions well.

2. Didn't vehemently accuse people of using a word without good definition and then proceed to use that word throughout your post without offering even a vague definition for it.

 

[baywax]

This is blatantly false and contradictory.

I would never put "faith" in an equipment blindly. We spend a lot of effort making sure that what we get works. People seem to be forgetting that before we adapt something, there must be a TRACK RECORD of that thing. At the very least, there has to be an indication that it has a pattern of working in a PREDICTABLE pattern!

The word "faith" has been tossed around without regard to how it is defined. Because of that, somehow the assumptions and postulates of science are now being equate to the faith in religion. This is utterly absurd. How many times do you see beliefs in religion being tested EMPIRICALLY with the same frequency as the postulates and consequences of Special Relativity? There is also a total blindness to how science accepts something to be valid. Did anyone look at how difficult of a path it was for Relativity and Quantum Physics to be accepted by the physics community as a whole? Did someone think that they were accepted simply based on blind faith with zero empirical support? Now compare that to someone who accepts a particular religion!

I've resisted jumping into this thread, because there have been so many mis-categorization and outright false impression not only what science is, but HOW science is practiced. How many of you who have been so free with your opinions actually have direct, first-hand knowledge of the daily workings of science? How many?

Maybe you should consider on how much "blind faith" you put in your "data" (or in some cases, the LACK of data) to be able to arrive at such conclusions that you have come to.

Zz.

I suppose I should have mentioned "track record" of use and manufacturing. But in the long run I agree with ZZ that the word faith and the definition of that word has been lost by the millions of people who use the term. Today the word has as many meanings to as many people as there are people.

Defining the term "science" shouldn't be as difficult and I believe that task might be left to the person initiating this thread. When a definition of "faith" and the definition of "science" are established the answer to the question "How much of science is faith based?" should not be far behind.

If you want a real contradictory experience, try defining "Christian Scientist"!

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ your arguments would probably be taken a little more seriously if you:

1. Didn't reveal so much anger when you state (in so many words) that scientists control their emotions well.

2. Didn't vehemently accuse people of using a word without good definition and then proceed to use that word throughout your post without offering even a vague definition for it.

Your faith in your ability to analyze someone's state of mind is faulty.

1. I'm not even close to being angry. Annoyed, yes, but whoa nellie, you don't want to be around when I'm angry.

2. Actually, I did implicitly attempt to define how *I* view what faith is via EXAMPLES and comparision between how SR was accepted, and how someone accept his/her religious belief. For some odd reason, that difference is being trivialized.

I also notice that my direct question on the validity of the "data" people are using to arrive at their conclusion is again being dismissed. I'm not surprise at all by this.

Zz.